Open main menu

Kelebek.gif

FA Contributor Ribbon.png
Fly.gif
OTRS Wikimedia.svgThis user is a member of the OTRS response team and has a page on Wikimedia OTRS-wiki.





A drunken young man raises a glass in one hand and spills wi Wellcome V0019549.jpg

DS NOTICE

If you came here to alert me to DS for post-1932 American Politics (AP2), please be aware that I AM AWARE [1] as of 04/30/2019, and there is no need for you to post another DS alert template. Notice of specific DS restrictions should already be included in edit view and in TP headers of applicable articles.

Point to this notice to confirm my awareness.

CHEERS!



Contents


Archives for It Will Soon Pass



Do not disturb. I'm in the middle of important research.



Autocorrect has become my worst enema.


On a sign at a restaurant in Texas:
Treat your Mom to a Margarita! You're probably the reason she drinks.


Research reveals that people who drink heavily are much more likely to experience retrospective memory loss.
Isn't that why we drink?


RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 13:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online









Check the Label
Make sure your Viagra prescription says Made In the USA
You don't want Russia meddling in your erections.
The Wisest Man Who Ever Lived
Dr. Rick Rigsby’s commencement address. I hope you will listen to it before you comment here.
When you're dead, you don't know you're dead.

All the pain is felt by others.

Same thing happens when you're stupid.
People who confuse the words "burro" and "burrow" don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
How do I know?
I don’t know how much I don’t know because there’s no way to gage how much I don’t know when I don’t know what it is I don’t know, so stop telling me I should've known.

There has to be some merit to “ignorance is bliss" Atsme✍🏻📧

And there comes a time when you finally realize that you don't know shit. yes 11:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Snake in the bullpen
"I come from an environment where, if you see a snake, you kill it. At GM, if you see a snake, the first thing you do is go hire a consultant on snakes. Then you get a committee on snakes, and then you discuss it for a couple of years. The most likely course of action is -- nothing. You figure, the snake hasn't bitten anybody yet, so you just let him crawl around on the factory floor. We need to build an environment where the first guy who sees the snake kills it." ~Ross Perot
You look like rookies
"I'm sorry, but you two appear to be:

treating each other civilly accepting the possibility that your own actions might not have been correct trying to work out the best thing to do for the project without concern for you[r] own egos. I don't know where you people think you are, but you definitely don't understand how WP:AN is supposed to work. Where's the disrespect? The attacking of each other's characters and motives? The entertaining temper tantrums? Please immediately review other threads on this noticeboard, so you can better participate in WP:AN. Right now you look like rookies.

I don't do AFD, so I have no opinion on whether to relist or not (couldn't hurt, tho, right?), but that's a good example of what should be going on here; useless babble without any helpful outcome. --barneca (talk) 9:57 pm, 16 September 2008, Tuesday (10 years, 8 months, 12 days ago) (UTC−5)[2]



Carrots may be good for your eyes, but booze will double your vision.




To say it in WikiVoice, or not??
While this list of sources is really good and does establish "commonly used by reliable sources" I think we should additionally ask ourselves - what added benefit is there to Wikipedia saying it "in our own voice" as against simply reporting in a neutral manner that it is common for his comments to be described as racist.

As of this moment, we are engaging in what I think is admirable short-term restraint. We say in the lede "He has a history of making controversial [weasel words] comments." That's fine as far as it goes, because 'controversial comments' is true, and is neither positive nor negative as an evaluation. Sometimes controversial comments are good, sometimes they are bad. Fine. But we are at the same time here being too cautious, I think, in that we fail to inform the reader as to why the comments are controversial. Is he saying things that might be controversial in Iowa like "Gay marriage should be legal" or "Marijuana prohibition has done more harm than good"? No, actually. So I think we should cautiously say something like "He has a history of making comments that have commonly been referred to as racist.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]" Well, maybe 9 footnotes is excessive, but you see my point. We have more than enough to make the point that the reader needs to know, and I think the point is stronger than if we simply say, in our own voice, that he has a history of making racist comments. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 9:57 am, 19 June 2018, Tuesday (19 days ago) (UTC−5)


To include it in a BLP, or not??

BLPs wherein a subject's work, beliefs or ideologies are perhaps more controversial than the actual subject, should not become focused on bolstering and subsequently refuting the subject's views or theories rather than actually defining the subject. In many cases this may in fact be due to the subject trying to push their own ideas, while others work diligently to refute them, but many such cases involve editors who have no affiliation with the subject other than a personal belief/disbelief in their work. A person's biography is not a good place to debate scientific theory or ideological beliefs; such debates belong in the articles that focus on those topics. For BLPs, it is enough to simply state what their views are and link to the articles which expand on those views.
(quote by Zaereth edited for brevity; Jimbo Wales agreed with Zaereth’s explanation.)


Politics, presidents and NPOV
I'd like to add that I don't mind a little bit of personal chit-chat here about politics, I'd like to always seek to tie it back to Wikipedia. We have chosen a very tough job: NPOV. Dislike for the President, fear about things that are happening in the world, may make it emotionally harder to remain neutral, but remain neutral we must. I happen to personally think that given the decline in quality of the media across the board (there are still fantastic journalists out there, but overall the landscape isn't great) the best way for us to help the world heal is neutrality.--[3] Jimbo Wales (talk)] 3:12 pm, 8 January 2019, Tuesday (UTC−6)


What Am I Doing Here...


Did you ever stop to consider that being equal may hold you back?

Do you want to make money from Wikipedia? It's easy! Log out and go to work!

For a lesson in the proper English application of the F-word see: this video

Is "group think" the academic version of "mob mentality"? Conformity!

Wikipedia: where anyone can edit and enjoy the benefits of income equality.

Pile-ons can be painful and unattractive, especially at noticeboards.

At the end of every rainbow is a capitalist with a pot of gold.

Back in my day, when athletes took a knee, they took a knee.

RfA archives


Sharing health tips with a friend:

  • For better digestion, I drink beer.
  • For appetite loss, I drink white wine.
  • If my blood pressure is too low, I drink red wine.
  • For high blood pressure, I drink scotch.
  • When I have a cold, I drink schnapps.”
My friend asked, “When do you drink water?”
I replied, “I’ve never been that sick.”
My medical entrance exam:

When I was young, I decided to enroll in medical school.
On the entrance exam, we were asked to unscramble the letters...

PNEIS

...to form the name of an important human body part that is most useful when erect.

The students who answered SPINE are doctors today, and the rest of us are editing Wikipedia.
Four Worms

Four worms were placed in 4 separate test tubes:

  • 1st in beer
  • 2nd in wine
  • 3rd in whiskey
  • 4th in mineral water

The next day, the teacher shows the results:

  • The 1st worm in beer - dead.
  • The 2nd in wine - dead.
  • The 3rd in whiskey - dead.
  • The 4th in mineral water - alive and in good health.

The teacher asks the class:

  • What did you learn from this experience?

A student responds:

  • Whoever drinks beer, wine and whiskey does not have worms.



If only...

  • ...sarcasm burned calories.
  • ...you knew, you would know.
  • ...closed minds came with closed mouths.
  • ...mosquitos sucked fat instead of blood.
  • ...the good died young, we'd be here forever.
  • ...my teeth were as white as my legs.
  • ...more people were fluent in silence.


When A Grizzly Attacks
Hiker to park ranger, "Ranger, how does one survive a bear attack?"

Ranger replies, Easy...remove the "f" from the word "way".

Wild grizzly bear in Alaska.png

Hiker responds, "There's no "f" in "way".

Ranger replies, "Exactly."


Thought Grenades...

  • It is much easier to ride a horse in the direction it is going. ~Abraham Lincoln
  • It gets late early out there. ~Yogi Bera
  • There comes a time on Wikipedia when it's important to know when to stop arguing with editors, and simply let them be wrong. Atsme📞📧
  • Nodding the head does not row the boat. — Irish Proverb
  • Make haste slowly. —Kikkoman
  • Be who you are, say what you mean, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind. — Bernard Baruch
  • Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want." —Randy Pausch
  • I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short. ~ Blaise Pascal
  • Knowledge should be fun so don't take the fun out of fundamental.
  • Patience is a virtue. Give karma a chance.
  • I may not be young enough to know everything, but I'm old enough to not believe everything.
  • What border? Oh, that one. Nah...not a problem - open borders.
  • A tip for longevity: Never believe the impossible can't happen to you.
  • “It is well known that human choices are affected by the way in which a question is phrased.” ~ Benedetto de Martino


Dear Karma,
I have a list of people you missed.

Don't sweat it!
Karma's only a bitch if you're one first.


Who punched the spike?Edit

PicturesEdit

 
Butterfly on a purple musk thistle, North Texas (Carduus nutans)

Editor of the WeekEdit

  Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Adityavagarwal submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

It is my immense pleasure to nominate Atsme, a highly prolific veteran editor and one of the best contributors to Wikipedia. She is an editor who totally deserves this award and, in fact, it was very astounding that she has not received it yet. She has created 43 articles and provided 84 Images to enhance WikiPedia. She is a proud member of the WP Response Team, the Guild of Copy Editors and Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing. There are countless reasons to nominate her, but the best reason would be: "Writing or significantly expanding articles on a regular basis". A visit to her talk page is filled with humor and enjoyably fun. She has immensely contributed to a wide array of animal species in addition to other articles on monuments (American paddlefish, Faisalabad, bowfin, loham, and the Taj Mahal as well as several others). I would therefore strongly advocate that she be adorned with this award!

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
 
 
 
Good Karma
Atsme
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning February 17, 2019
One of the best contributors to Wikipedia, she has created 43 articles and provided 84 Images. A member of WP Response Team, the Guild of Copy Editors and Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing. A talk page filled with humor and enjoyably fun.
Recognized for
writing or significantly expanding articles on a regular basis
Notable work(s)
American paddlefish, Faisalabad, Taj Mahal
Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7  15:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  ... this is such an honor ... I am humbled over the recognition, and feel blessed with the good fortune of having collaborated with some extraordinary past recipients of this memorable award. Such recognition is very much appreciated - thank you Adityavagarwal, Buster7 and Emir of Wikipedia - but I must admit that I feel a bit guilty over being rewarded for something I truly love doing...uhm, but not guilty enough to not display it on my user page.   Atsme 📣 📧 16:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Well done, Atsme. It's not just your Talk page that's "filled with humor and enjoyably fun". You have a great sense of humor and that's really appreciated. Great article work too, of course! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Congrats from me too! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Martin and Tryp...without your comedic minds and contributing wit, I would have no humor. Quite frankly, I was taken aback when I first saw the award - I had recently read this Op-ed by Kudz - but then I recognized the names involved here and with a big sigh of relief, I started running a marathon. It was a great way to start the day! In fact, Happy Hour came much earlier than usual as a result, and it's showing promise as an all-nighter. 🥂 🍾 😜 Atsme 📣 📧 22:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I somehow missed the entire mess described in that op-ed, but now that I've seen it, I could use a drink myself. Not good. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Tryp - exactly, and the reason for the link I added to "marathon". 😊 Atsme 📣 📧 14:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I am of the crowd that says I would have thought you had received this honor already. Well then, justice is now served as I can think of no one who deserves it more at this time. Congratulations! It is from a handful of editors that include you from which I have improved my editing skills since I got here a bit over two years ago. Very well deserved indeed. dawnleelynn(talk) 00:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
dawnleelynn ❤️ Atsme 📣 📧 00:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Very well deserved! A little late, but congrats!! Horsegeek(talk) 02:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Horsegeek
Thank you, Horsegeek - ❤️ Atsme 📣 📧 02:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Every week for fuck knows how long you have been a colleague, you have been editor of the week, with your wit, gentle toughness (don't fuck with Atsme) and enormous body of contributions. Lurve your style, lurve you for being you. Honest and gutsy, with your own compass. Oh and being a confident and strong woman, without needing any 'ism' or 'ist' label. You are you. Respect Simon Adler (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Wow, Simon! My TP edit banner must be doing its job. I was awestruck reading your words..admittedly with a momentary pause at "enormous body" thinking maybe a punchline was forthcoming. (sidenote: the words on the back of my t-shirt when touring astride the Suzi: "Does this bike make my ass look fast?") Anyway, humor aside, the real me was blushing. I'm delighted that our interactions have always been with mutual respect and admiration. ❤️ Atsme 📣 📧 14:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SturgeonEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sturgeon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 Y - thank you, Chiswick Chap. Atsme Talk 📧 19:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
In a spare moment I've blitzed the article to implement a good portion of my comments. Brilliant user/talk pages, btw. It's Easter shortly (happy bunnies, etc) - what is your timetable for this GAN? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, CC - wow! That's one blitz that really helped. Now that I've finished Cherry juice, I'll get on top of the GA. Should have it finished by today. Atsme Talk 📧 13:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SturgeonEdit

The article Sturgeon you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Sturgeon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the wonderful job you did, CC. As always, it was a pleasure working with you. It is now a DYK nom. Atsme Talk 📧 18:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Likewise. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Congrats! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
(Any caviar on the menu? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC))
Ahhh...caviar!! Back when I did the field production for "The Paddlefish: An American Treasure" (FF to about 5:04), I worked closely with Missouri Dept. of Conservation biologists, a few game wardens, and 2 USF&WS special agents who had worked undercover in a sting operation to bust a ring of poachers who were illegally using gill nets to catch paddlefish in the Missouri River (they received prison sentences). Paddlefish roe closely resembles the roe of sevruga sturgeon, 2nd only to beluga which sells for about $129/oz. They helped me reenact the bust, and also helped setup the scene to demonstrate how poachers made caviar in a garage or wherever, and then sold the tins fraudulently labeled "Sevruga caviar" into the black market. For the sake of brevity, I'll summarize by saying that after what I witnessed firsthand while shooting the caviar segment, I will never eat caviar again. On a slightly different topic, Virginia Tech contacted me to co-produce an educational outreach program with them about crayfish, "America's Crayfish: Crawling In Troubled Waters". During field production, I survived the smell of the raw sorting/processing segment without issue, but I will never, never eat crayfish tails, sliced, diced or in-tact. The tails do not taste like lobster tails - but that isn't the worst part - whenever I see boiled crawfish, I get flashbacks - not of the vividly colored, beautifully arranged dishes steaming with the savory smells of sweet corn and spicey Cajun food - no, all I can remember is my New Orleans born production assistant sucking the juice out of the heads of boiled crawfish. 🤢🤮 Bon appétit!!! Atsme Talk 📧 23:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
"a ring of poachers": I didn't know that poaching eggs was, uh, like an actual occupation. North America1000 23:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and they have a Lord of the Rings. 😊 Atsme Talk 📧 23:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, if you caint eat caviar or crawfish, there's always frog's legs.. tastes just like chicken! North America1000 00:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes indeed!! I've spent many a night spearing bullfrogs for dinner but I will not clean them - someone else has to do that part. It's also a bit unnerving when the legs jump out of the frying pan. Atsme Talk 📧 00:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like a hoppin' good time. Better hop to it! North America1000 01:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm a little slow tonight NA1K - good thing poaching eggs only takes 3 minutes - maybe by Sunday I'll be hoppin'. I hear that's a good day for it. Atsme Talk 📧 01:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
What's hoppenin? You know those legs are fresh when they're still hoppin' at you in the pan. North America1000 02:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Nice work on the Sturgeon article.--MONGO (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, MONGO - it's a mere pebble of sand on the vast beach of your FAs and GAs which are an inspiration. My next project is to create a map showing the global distribution for all 27 species per CC's suggestion. That will keep me busy for a while. Atsme Talk 📧 00:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Update: I haven't done chit as far as creating a global distribution map. I appeal to my diligent TP watchers to HELP. Complexities abound. Are you up to the task? Atsme Talk 📧 00:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

HumorEdit

I did eventually figure out your other comment was also humor. (: Maybe there is hope after all, that someday I'll no longer be humor-impaired. Iamnotabunny (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

  - it will make your time here far more pleasant. As editors, we sometimes find ourselves in precarious situations. Some have taken the route of WP:IDGAF, others take WikiBreaks when feeling overwhelmed, some choose semi-retirement, some leave never to return. I prefer a bit of levity from time to time. It makes the insanity seem normal. I have also resigned myself to inevitable outcomes; i.e., the debate struggle is real, and you won't always win...refer back to WP:IDGAF. Atsme Talk 📧 15:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you know what it is??Edit

 
Hint: This is what a live one looks like.

Can you identify the following sound?

See hint in image on the right.

Here's another hint.   Atsme Talk 📧 01:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's either a garbage disposal or me after eating too much spicy food. (But Fox News (in the video)? Really?) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  Atsme Talk 📧 20:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for SturgeonEdit

 On 18 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sturgeon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that sturgeons are ancient fishes, widely sought after for caviar and more critically endangered than any other group of animal species? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sturgeon. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sturgeon), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

New articleEdit

juice, created by Catfurball North America1000 22:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, combo of RL and WP preoccupation. Haven't forgotten this one.   Atsme Talk 📧 14:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Response to comment on DS notifications discussionEdit

Hello! Thanks for responding to my comment. I was aware that this proposal as written would be dependent on a talk page header, and have no issue with it. My comment was mostly intended as something for future authors/implementers of alternate proposals to bear in mind, such as in the actioning of the suggestion to "open up a community call for ideas" (—Mkdw, WP:ARCA#DS_Awareness_and_alerts:_Arbitrator_views_and_discussion); as well as just to share my appreciation for the positive aspects of the current system, which didn't seem to have been voiced elsewhere. I wasn't trying to argue against what was being proposed. I guess I should have made that clearer in my comment; I'll post this there as well. Thanks, and sorry for the bother! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)|😹|✝️|John 15:12|☮️|🍂|T/C 00:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem - thank you for your thoughts, explanation and for contributing to the discussion. Happy editing! Atsme Talk 📧 02:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Showing you the evidenceEdit

You posted this at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections then struck it because it wasn't relevant. (1) show me the evidence in Mueller's report that are worthy of an indictment or impeachment and (2) explain why Mueller didn't point that out specifically to Congress? Well, that's why I'm here to show you.

Extended content by Starship.paint, 08:07, 2 June 2019

On issue (1), the source is 1000+ former federal prosecutors. Primary source. Secondary source.

The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:

The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;

The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and

The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.

On issue (1), here is the elaboration on each point from the primary source.

Attempts to fire Mueller and then create false evidence

Despite being advised by then-White House Counsel Don McGahn that he could face legal jeopardy for doing so, Trump directed McGahn on multiple occasions to fire Mueller or to gin up false conflicts of interest as a pretext for getting rid of the Special Counsel. When these acts began to come into public view, Trump made “repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story” — going so far as to tell McGahn to write a letter “for our files” falsely denying that Trump had directed Mueller’s termination.

Firing Mueller would have seriously impeded the investigation of the President and his associates — obstruction in its most literal sense. Directing the creation of false government records in order to prevent or discredit truthful testimony is similarly unlawful. The Special Counsel’s report states: “Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent scrutiny of the President’s conduct toward the investigation.”

Attempts to limit the Mueller investigation

The report describes multiple efforts by the president to curtail the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation.

First, the President repeatedly pressured then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his legally-mandated decision to recuse himself from the investigation. The President’s stated reason was that he wanted an attorney general who would “protect” him, including from the Special Counsel investigation. He also directed then-White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to fire Sessions and Priebus refused.

Second, after McGahn told the President that he could not contact Sessions himself to discuss the investigation, Trump went outside the White House, instructing his former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, to carry a demand to Sessions to direct Mueller to confine his investigation to future elections. Lewandowski tried and failed to contact Sessions in private. After a second meeting with Trump, Lewandowski passed Trump’s message to senior White House official Rick Dearborn, who Lewandowski thought would be a better messenger because of his prior relationship with Sessions. Dearborn did not pass along Trump’s message.

As the report explains, “[s]ubstantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct” — in other words, the President employed a private citizen to try to get the Attorney General to limit the scope of an ongoing investigation into the President and his associates.

All of this conduct — trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others — is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions.

Witness tampering and intimidation

The Special Counsel’s report establishes that the President tried to influence the decisions of both Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort with regard to cooperating with investigators. Some of this tampering and intimidation, including the dangling of pardons, was done in plain sight via tweets and public statements; other such behavior was done via private messages through private attorneys, such as Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani’s message to Cohen’s lawyer that Cohen should “[s]leep well tonight[], you have friends in high places.”

Of course, these aren’t the only acts of potential obstruction detailed by the Special Counsel. It would be well within the purview of normal prosecutorial judgment also to charge other acts detailed in the report.

We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment. Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.

As former federal prosecutors, we recognize that prosecuting obstruction of justice cases is critical because unchecked obstruction — which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished — puts our whole system of justice at risk. We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report.

On issue (2), Mueller would not accuse Trump of a crime, because given that Mueller would not indict Trump per OLC opinion, he felt it would be unfair since Trump cannot clear his name in a court. Source - the Mueller Report itself, Volume II, Page 2. [4].

On issue (2), here is the long version in the Mueller Report

The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220(2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.

- The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President’s term, OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment’s] secrecy,” and if an indictment became public, “[t]he stigma and opprobrium” could imperil the President’s ability to govern.” Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.” Justice Manual § 9-27.220.

Here is the short version in Mueller's statement: [5]

And second the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.

-

And beyond department policy we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

So, I've shown it to you as you requested. Remember, you said Show me the evidence that supports the claim of obstruction and I will more than likely change my position. It's that simple. Cheers. starship.paint (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's an add-on to point (1), if a video of more former federal prosecutors [6] would be effective. starship.paint (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You apparently believe your diligence in posting the above on my TP, despite my strike-thru at the article TP, is somehow a helpful and productive way to serve the project. It was not. I found it to be highly disruptive, especially in light of this information, which indicates a different POV and possible motivation for much of what followed and why I prefer to not engage per WP:RECENTISM. While the current president may be a highly controversial figure, POV pushing is not unique to articles about him. Articles about former presidents have undergone similar controversies, the latter of which is inherent in politics, be it in the US or elsewhere in the world. My goal is to walk as straight and as a neutral a line as humanly possible under the circumstances, and I ask that you please refrain from future attempts to engage me in discussions I have expressed a desire to avoid as evidenced by my strike at the article TP. You are welcome on my TP anytime per the conditions expressed in my edit page notice when in edit mode. Happy editing. Atsme Talk 📧 15:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I tried my best, Atsme. I laid it out on a plate for you, not at the article talk page, only for you to consider it extremely disruptive. You have ignored or dismissed the views of (a) Mueller himself in his report and statement (b) 1000+ former federal prosecutors and the secondary source repeating their claims and (c) 3 more Republican former federal prosecutors. I ask that you read at least the introductions and executive summaries of the report. [7] Please don’t take this as a further argument. I’m done with that.
 
If only we could see a year into the future. We'd have 2020 vision. Unfortunately, I went to a psychic the other day, and accidentally broke her crystal ball. It cost me a fortune. Atsme Talk 📧 21:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
You wrote Show me the evidence that supports the claim of obstruction and I will more than likely change my position. It's that simple. and then struck it. I originally took that statement to still be true despite your strike. Seems that I was wrong. I will take my leave then. starship.paint (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, I am sorry for engaging you in a discussion you wished to avoid. starship.paint (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Awww..thank you, SP. No foul - no harm. Happy editing!! Atsme Talk 📧 00:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it boils down to how an impeachment vote may play out in 2020 for the house, especially considering that unless the Senate will go along with it, its basically an exercise in futility and may backfire on them at the polls especially in battleground precincts.--MONGO (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

So generally horrible people totally aside,Edit

I've just begen working on the Lancelot-Grail for real, and there's this incomprehensible reference stating "Merlin Proper appearing in "Micha's 1980 edition",Pickens (1994), p. 108 Micha's edition being the Merlin part of Boron's trilogy.Pickens (1994), p. 100 and note 9" which I don't even understand how it's created, not to mention what does it supposed to mean. It's really perplexing me. And yes, it's (the actual subject) that complicated and confusing, but I'm slowly getting it overall. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess i solved the mystery, it's [8] [9] & apparently. I still don't understand how it was created but I care less after I replace it. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Perform your magic,Merlin...er, uh SNAAAAKE!!. I'll drop by after lunch (it's 12:30ish here). Atsme Talk 📧 17:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Coral questionEdit

The other day I noticed File:Pacific Feather Duster Sabellastarte sp.jpg when you had it near the top of your talkpage (and it's on your userpage). I'm curious about the bubbly-looking organisms in the background, which I assume are corals (or less likely anemones). Do you know, are they Physogyra sp, or perhaps Plerogyra sinuosa? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and while the image isn't as sharp as I would like it to be, you can just make out the texture if you zoom-in. Also see this image. I should probably include that bit of info in the Commons description. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Tryp. Atsme Talk 📧 23:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm wondering, though, whether it might be, instead, Physogyra lichtensteini: [10]. Plerogyra sinuosa: [11], has relatively larger polyps. I don't know the size of the worm, but I'm guessing that the bubbles are on the smaller side. Oh, and if you think the image isn't sharp enough, wow, I think it's really splendid (and I wouldn't want you judging any photos that I take!)   --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Awww, thank you, Tryp. That particular feather duster was larger than most I've seen. It was on the gunwale of a sunken Japanese war ship, depth about 90 ft, water temp 84°F. When I first saw the arrangement, I thought the feather duster was surrounded in fish eggs. That particular cluster was about 2 ft. across. Atsme Talk 📧 00:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't know any way to say this without it sounding like a double entendre, but that's a huge worm! That being the case, then I'm pretty certain that the coral must have been P. sinuosa. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
😂 I'm feeling a little better so I'll try to clarify what I described yesterday while under the influence of Nyquil 🤧🤒. The cluster of Plerogyra sinuosa was about 2 ft. across, and the worm stood up in the middle of it - I'd say it was 6" to 8" across, but then I was underwater where things appear to be 33% bigger. I had to be careful not to get too close with the camera as it would surely cause the worm to shrink back into its shell. The cluster just sat there doing nothing. Atsme Talk 📧 19:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you're not feeling well – get well soon! Yes, that's clearer about the dimensions, and that's still a remarkably large feather duster. That link to how to identify the species is a particularly good one, thanks for it. In looking at it, as well as at a book I own, I'm starting to think that the coral is more likely to be Physogyra lichtensteini and not Plerogyra sinuosa. I'm basing that on the more plate-like arrangement of the polyps, with the bubbles/vesicles not pressed right up against one another. Note in your photo how there is space between each of the bubbles and its neighbors. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Thx, Tryp - I'm getting better by the hour. Looking at the lateral view of Physogyra l. (and video) vs the a video of P. sinuosa, and (various other images), I'm leaning toward the latter. I'm going through my Micronesia photos now to see if I kept a wider shot. What I can say for sure is that it was low profile and hugged the top rail. Atsme Talk 📧 23:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually, looking at those links, I'm concerned that some of them are misidentified. In particular, the video that is supposedly of P. sinuosa is very unlikely to actually be that species. If you do have a wider shot, that would be very helpful. Also, if you can make an accurate estimate of the size of the individual "bubbles", that would also help. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Here's a pretty good article about identifying them: [12]. And here are some good comparative photos, where the comparison for us is between (i) and (k): [13]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Marine biologist, or ichthyologist would probably be able to confirm just looking at my photo. Do you know any? Atsme Talk 📧 01:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, no, only hobbyists. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Epipelagic: Do you know which species it is? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I've also asked on a few UTPs and searched my photo archives hoping I could find a wide shot, but nothing so far. Atsme Talk 📧 23:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The shapes look right in Plerogyra sinuosa, though in Atsme's photo the background is blurred so you can't see surface striations. – Epipelagic (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! And if Epipelagic says it, that's good enough for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Epi!! Atsme Talk 📧 00:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User concernsEdit

Sorry to keep pinging you about this, but I really would like you to try and reign in SNAAAAKE!!'s behavior if you can. He does good edits, but his behavior is very acerbic and it is not unusual for him to, implicitly or explicitly, make bad-faith claims against people. I know of at least two people who do not participate in discussions with him because it's just not worth the headache. Ultimately, his contributions don't have more weight to me than people's ability to participate in discussions without fear of interacting with a problematic user. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Abryn, are you referring to your recent discussion with him on his UTP? A few admins have already warned him, and I recently advised him about walking the straight and narrow on article TPs. Oh, and I just added some info at Quiet that might interest you. Atsme Talk 📧 02:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Do you mean this? Also yeah I'm referring to that, and I would have probably just left it alone but he also posted on Talk:Video game controversies in weirdly antagonistic and accusatory ways. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
And I understand entirely your reluctance to have him banned, considering the value of his Wikispace contributions. Ideally, him reforming himself would be the best-case scenario. I mean, I was given a chance to be a better editor by a number of people, so it's perhaps unfair to not afford him that same courtesy. At the same time, I wonder how many people were discouraged from participating in Wikipedia editing because of my presence. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
He has been advised. You did the right thing by not engaging him further on his UTP. Not all editors are gifted with conversational finesse and for Snaaaake, it can be a little difficult for him from time to time. He's learning to work through it with a little coaching and patience...and yes, his editing makes it worth the extra effort. We also have to keep in mind that we are collaborating with people from around the world - different customs, thoughts, and languages. I've been mentoring Snaaaake for the past year, and he has done quite well - actually learning that it's better to drop the stick and focus on something less stressful than risk a block or t-ban. I can relate in that regard. About the info I added, I gave you the wrong article, it was this edit but I see you've replied. I got hit with a stomach virus yesterday so I'll probably be out-of-pocket and out-of-sorts for a few more days.  Atsme Talk 📧 04:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh no! Please feel better soon. <3 I know how bad that gets. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 04:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

@Atsme: I agree with you the article Pineapple juice shouldn't be merged with the article Pineapple that's just stupid. I originally had a health benifits section for pineapple juice, but User:Doc James didn't like my work and removed it saying, you can only use medical textbooks and medical journals. To me that makes no sense since there are so many websites that talk about the health benefits of pineapple juice. Another good reason to keep the article pineapple juice is because it's connected to the userbox pineapple juice.Catfurball (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem was that the sources were overly poor for the health content. Poor source are also being used for other content such as [14] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Understood, Doc. The only edit I made to the article was to add an image. I'll recruit some good collaborators/copy editors and we'll get it all fixed. I've pinged alexbrn and hope he'll oversee the health portion. I've learned more about what is and isn't acceptable as it relates to health claims. I'm optimistic that one day in the near future, MEDRS will become 2nd nature for me. Thank you so much for your patience and understanding. Atsme Talk 📧 20:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Some notes on WMFEdit

Hey Atsme, I didn't want to crap up that already lengthy ArbCom case with stuff that would be largely off topic, but I did see your note regarding the role of the WMF. It's a common misconception, but a misconception. Admins and crats don't "outrank" anyone on the project, just have certain tools to handle certain tasks. Same for ArbCom—it is, for example, strictly prohibited from deciding on content decisions, only conduct. So far as WMF goes, it's actually the reverse of the usual "a charity founded a project". In this case, the project founded the charity. Wikimedia was formed in 2001, and the WMF was set up in 2003. At that point, it was essentially a shell organization and didn't, to my knowledge, employ anyone at all. It was basically just a convenient way to be able to allow users to make tax-deductible donations toward the project's expenses, have an "owner of record" for things like the Wikipedia trademarks, and so on. No one really expected it to actually do much of anything; at that time, volunteers ran the servers, fixed bugs in the software, etc., and of course in no one's wildest dreams would those donations one day be measured in the millions of dollars. So no, it was certainly not envisioned that the WMF would be the Wikipedia community's "superior" of any sort. Basically, the Wikipedia community was designed to have as little hierarchy as possible. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What a pleasant surprise, Seraphimblade - thank you for sharing your insight and for your consideration regarding length. Perhaps I would have presented my comment from a slightly different perspective had I known. What begs the question now is whether or not the WMF's governing documents, such as their Articles of Association, By-Laws, and perhaps policies & procedures (terms of use?) contain any of the language you mentioned above? Did they honor and preserve original intent when the WMF was first established? Can we refer to the latter with regards to the sovereignty of the individual WP projects? Atsme Talk 📧 00:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Yeah but what it should be and what it is are not the same. There is a hierarchy in practice if not in theory as well. Atsme is correct in the order. At the end of the day head office has more power and authority than the community here. As they should btw. Someone has to actually have responsibility for what happens on this site and it is ultimately not the users but the company. It has been that way since there has been a terms of service. It is not new and it is not unique to any online community. The only difference is them starting to use the authority that they always had more than before. Now if that is a good thing or not, meh I cannot say. PackMecEng (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
My apologies, PME - edit conflict. Atsme Talk 📧 00:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, that is an excellent question, and looking at it now, I am rather stunned that no one has thought to ask it. I believe I'm going to have to see if I can find the answer to that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  Atsme Talk 📧 00:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade - following is the information that explains the governance and general powers of the WMF beginning with Art IV, Section 1:

ARTICLE IV - THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Section 1. General Powers.
All corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the authority of, and the business and affairs of the Foundation shall be managed under, the direction of the Board of Trustees either directly or through a written delegation of authority.

The By-Laws are the primary governing document and confirm the structured hierarchy which, in our case, emphasizes the role of Jimmy Wales and the Trustees we, as the greater community, elect to represent us. Atsme Talk 📧 15:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I found those too, but the part that interested me more was a bit earlier:

ARTICLE II - STATEMENT OF PURPOSE<

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
In coordination with a network of individual volunteers and our independent movement organizations, including recognized Chapters, Thematic Organizations, User Groups, and Partners, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.

I'm trying to find more information on how binding a statement of purpose like that would be, but I think they're pretty clearly exceeding it. There's no mention there at all of governing the projects in day to day affairs (rather, they specifically say that their role is coordination with projects, not governance of them), and that they exist for the purpose of providing infrastructure and organizational support. I also noted that nowhere in those do they state that they're some kind of final authority over any project, and in fact in that purpose statement, note that "movement organizations" are "independent". Whether the entire community could be considered a "movement organization" would, I suppose, be debatable, but the ArbCom is most certainly a defined group, so that would seem to indicate that at least the ArbCom is considered independent in that sense. But it certainly seems that even by their own statement of their purpose for existing, what they've done here is not intended as part of that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
It's legalese, Seraphimblade. The part that really matters is the power that's delegated to The Board of Trustees as they have all the power. Think back to what happened to Doc - think about the position that was carved out specifically for Jimmy. I've served as VP and on the BOD of 2 different international merchandising corporations, was president of a HOA, and I've founded 2 different non-profit organizations, both of which utilized volunteers, but nothing anywhere close to what WP has evolved into. The one constant across the board is governance which includes how the power is delegated (the hierarchy), and who comprises the board. See Art IV Sect 3(B). The WMF has actually done a good job by allowing certain entities to operate independently, but the catch-phrases are all right there in the By-Laws (my bold underline): "Chapters", “Thematic Organizations”, “User Groups”, and “Partners”, as used in these Bylaws, shall be defined by the Board, consistent with the mission statement, and will function as independent groups or legal entities that operate in coordination with the Foundation to implement the mission statement. Chapters, Thematic Organizations, User Groups, and Partners must have a formal agreement with the Foundation. Atsme Talk 📧 18:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
You're far braver than I am! I wouldn't go near an HOA with a fifty-foot rod, after what I've seen out of them. And, granted, it was a small chance; I'm sure Legal looks at this stuff. But was worth a shot, so thanks for bringing it up in any case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  So, of all the positions, HOA was the one that raised the 🚩🚩🚩 for you...and you are sooo right!! It was the worst of the worst! Atsme Talk 📧 20:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Based on the wisdom of Tryptofish,[dubious ] I have some opinions about the degree to which the editing community is or is not obligated to take instruction from WMF without disobeying. I'll just link to some of the things I've already said at the Fram discussion. About WMF's legal rights about its projects: [15], [16]. And about whether anyone actually did undo an "office action": [17]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    • And seeing your latest comment at RfAR, I guess I didn't convince you!   --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
      • *lol* I'm just now reading your comment. I've been all over this project and Commons today!! Oh well, it's storming here and it's happy hour. What more can I say? Atsme Talk 📧 22:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, finished reading and your perspective certainly has merit - can't argue that point - but there is a flip side to that coin. I actually can relate to both sides as I've experienced both sides, and can say without reservation that fiduciary responsibility carries far more weight in the decision-making process than does the time one spends and enjoyment one derives from a chosen hobby or pasttime...although I absolutely do value my hobbies and pasttimes. I enjoy sailing but I'm not going to risk everything gambling on the direction the wind is going to blow on a certain day - I prefer twin Yamaha 250 HP 4 Stroke Engines on my boat, a heavy-duty trolling motor at the bow and a pair of oars port side.  - checks and balances backed by a vested interest and a heaping of accountability - that is what I see in the offerings of the WMF - and I hope to hell they don't prove me wrong. Atsme Talk 📧 22:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Atsme".