User talk:Atsme/Archive 21

Active discussions
ArchiveΒ 20 ArchiveΒ 21 ArchiveΒ 22

Don't template the regulars essay

I just found out about this essay, which has been around since 2007 with that title and want to rename it. I can see horrible issues with it and said so on the talk page in non-vague language. What about you? Edaham (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Edaham - You may well find your answer in the following discussion about the DTR topic. As you will see by the posts in that archive, I was under heavy fire. If you still wish to discuss the template with me after reading that discussion, please don't hesitate. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 13:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I had a glance. I had a suspicion that you may have chimed in on this subject before. The essay isn't balanced. It doesn't do a good enough job either way (whether or not you support the sending of templates warnings). It weakly states that the regulars shouldn't be fed these messages, doesn't give any reasonable info on how to use them correctly and shoots it's self in the foot from the start by giving its self an unbalanced and non neutral title. If it were an article we'd plaster it with citation needed stickers. The essay as it is worded, particularly with regard to the use of the word "regulars", has left its self blatantly open to misuse and therefore lowers its value in doing what it is supposed to do, which is caution against exactly what you were arguing in support of in the thread you directed me to above. You are right that templates are used for gaming and this is bad. The essay doesn't really make mention of this and probably should. Edaham (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

While essays are not WP:PAG and reflect the opinions of the author(s), there is nothing to prevent you from making improvements. You did the right thing by beginning a discussion on the TP, and I would suggest that you actually propose your desired changes on the TP one section at a time, perhaps using a side by side table showing the contrast between current vs proposed. I realize it sounds like extra work, but I'm of the mind you will face less resistance if editors can see the comparisons. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 14:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
agreed on the side by side comparison. It's too easy to affect a knee jerk revert, especially after the entrance I made. People might easily assume sweeping changes are being made. Edaham (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
((buttinski)) You could always just do what I do, and a lot of us do: ignore it. It's just an essay, although people point to it as if it was Policy. Personally I template the regulars all the time. I usually add a personal note, but the templates exist for a reason. --MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
This is definitely wise advice and I'd do well to learn from it, but I kind of like Wikipedia policy. It's part of what I find interesting about the project and if I don't like a policy, then I at least like the fact that I can try to rewrite it and it's not a closed book. In short, I support the facilities that have led to this project becoming what it is. That essay, which is apparently being commonly cited, contains text about the contradictory nature of policies and implies or at least gives reason to assume that these apparent contradictions are a reason to dismiss warnings. Because I feel that it isn't being supportive of the project I will propose one or two suggestions for changing it just like I'd do at any other page. They might not get accepted, but I'd like to try because the page in question could do a lot more to provide guidance on this subject - and not just to "regulars". Edaham (talk) 05:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

(Β  Buttinsky) Hey, MelanieN - look what I made for you at the start of this line. I liked your text version so much I made you a template with a graphic. Hope you have fun with it. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 03:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

That this template was produced as a result of the discussion at hand makes it worthwhile irrespective of the outcome. β™₯ Edaham (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Β  Agree! AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 04:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Ooh, an R-rated template! I like it! --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Your username

I came to your account to ask the meaning of your username, I have been curios since I saw it for the first time. When I came to your account, I also realised you are a lady. I dont know why, but I always thought you are a guy in mid 20s. Β  β€”usernamekiran(talk) 17:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I only wish mid-20s, Kiran. My user name is nothing to write home about - just a shortcut for "That's me!" (drop the "Th"). It was actually born of sacrasm in an effort to defuse name-calling criticism, so it should be pronounced with a sort of 🎢syllabic ring🎢...a mix between this and this. πŸ˜‚Β AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 20:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Β 
I have always loved Atsme's username - it caught my eye the first time I saw it some years ago. -Roxy the dog. bark 20:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Roxy, you must be running out of popcorn. Ok...I'm a soft touch...🍿 just for you! AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 20:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
hmm... So at the least, I wasnt wrong about this one lol. See you guys around. Β  β€”usernamekiran(talk) 22:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd always thought that the world wouldn't make the slightest bit of sense if Atsme didn't ride a motorcycle, so I just checked her user page. At least that's in order. Edaham (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
πŸ˜‚ Rug burns! I even have the T-shirt that says "This bitch rides her own"! AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 23:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
"Hairdo by helmet" is a funny one. πŸ˜‚Β Edaham (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You sent email

I just found out you sent email, I don't know what you said, the message did not get through (many user emails apparently do not, I think its GMail's fault). I just want you to know I didn't ignore you, I just never got it. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks and a question

I really appreciate your hard work in bringing my article β€³Ellen Susmanβ€³ to life! One question: All of the taped interviews from her television show are on a YouTube channel. I believe it would be helpful to cite the channel as an external link at the bottom of the article. Can you help? Here is the link: THANK YOU! Mlwmiller (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem - her BLP meets our notability guidelines. I don't see a problem adding the channel since we normally include a website for BLP's if they have one. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 14:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you please help me understand how to add it? I will work on verifying her date of birth. Thank you! Mlwmiller (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Certainly. I recommend that you start with Wikipedia:Tutorial and if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 15:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


Hi Atsme, I just saw the AfD you had posted. I wanted to take the copyvio question offline. I believe copyvio does not exist WITHIN wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources#How about copying from one Wikipedia article to another?. The fact that this is itnernally copied is atributed on the article's talk page. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 18:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I added that just now. Galobtter (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Wonderful. In case you hadn't noticed, I have also taken the liberty to post the deletion discussion on the talk page of the main article to invite a broad group of editors to add their voices.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 18:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I did notice Β . It'd be good to have enough people for a proper discussion. Galobtter (coptalk) 18:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Jake Brockman - thanks for the info. I just finished reading Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying within Wikipedia, so I'll strike the copyvio comment. What about the part in plagiarism that reads: ...copying content (including text, images, and citations) from one Wikipedia article to another or from one language Wikipedia to another is not plagiarism as long as attribution is provided via the edit summaries.?? Do the measures Galobtter took satisfy that as well? AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 18:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
It's not ideal, but the fact that talk page notices have been added remove the worst of it. Certainly changes it from "immediate delete" to "trout". Primefac (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
According to the policy - Attribution can be belatedly supplied by the methods above, using dummy edits to record new edit summaries and via talk page attribution using the {{copied}} template. Such belated attribution should make clear when the relevant text entered the page. I also have to add a dummy edit apparently. Galobtter (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC) Regarding the trout, I wasn't the one who copied the text Β . Just trying to fix the errors of others. Galobtter (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Never said you specifically should be troutedΒ ;) Primefac (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Further regarding the trout - I designed the following template if things escalate: Β Β Self-whale...for when a trout just isn't enough AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 19:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC) [FBDB]
Haha. I did leave a message to the user who did it user:Infamia. Galobtter (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Uncited trivia in lede

Β  Moved to Talk:Ellen Susman: Wrong venue.

WikiTiger Award

WikiTiger edits award

β™ Dinahβ™  🎀 16:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

HMS Coreopsis review

Hi, Atsme; I'm not sure I understand the note you left on my talk page. I created HMS Coreopsis but have done no curating or reviewing. Trust it's okay, should anything else need doing, please let me know. Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Maybe the message should be different if the person is autopatrolled (the page was marked patrolled as you have the autopatrolled flag). Galobtter (talkΓ³ tuΓ³ miΓ³) 16:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, that makes some sense. All this reviewing malarkey is a bit of an arcane science to me I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Apologies, Alansplodge. The curation tool automatically sends a post to the article creator, regardless of the intent of the reviewer (mistakes included). I think in your case, I was looking at the article as a possible dab and thought I checked it originally when it didn't need a 2nd check, so I unchecked it...or something along that line. Β  Lorty...these new fangled inventions. Anyway, I blanked the auto-message from your TP. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 17:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
No problem and thanks for doing the curation thingy, whatever it is... Alansplodge (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Well spoken

Just wanted to say that I found your words for Arbcom well chosen and fair. It's good to see someone able to maintain equanimity in he face of ... well, stuff. β˜† Bri (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Bri - it means a lot to me coming from you. πŸ€— AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 00:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Infamia, etc.

From a quick glance at that user's various socks, it looks like you have been a target of his wrath, so it occurs to me you might be in good position to recognize other socks if and when they turn up. If they do, and are identified, it will be a step toward a full ban of that user from Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrotsβ†’ 00:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Bugs. You might want to take a look at this AfD which he was involved in and expressed "violent oppose" in his edit summary. He started out trying to create the article going thru the AfC channels, I think, and it ended-up being a redirect to the main article, but he somehow managed to add more content, and delete the redirect which tells us he's an experienced editor. The editor who made the redirect has since changed his mind about it all at AfD after the sock was exposed so I don't know what's going on. I do know it was a copy/paste from the main article 96+% likelihood it was copied which caused a plagiarism issue that was fixed by this edit. My apologies, but I don't know enough about socks to be of much help. Skywarrior mentioned this editor. If I see anything suspicious, I'll ping loudly. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 00:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Love and flowers in place of weird IP rant. Check your history if you really want but I'd just stick with the β™₯s if i were you. Β  Edaham (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Edaham, it was such a delight to wake-up to your love and flowers; very much appreciated. β€οΈπŸ€—πŸ’πŸŒΌπŸŒ»πŸŒΉAtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 11:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. The troll has since dropped all pretense of being not-a-sock. I think he's best reverted and ignored from here on out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrotsβ†’ 15:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, sock master is back. I'm pretty sure it's him. First place he hit after he set up his account. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 07:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Your signature is also causing Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links.

You are encouraged to change

<sup><font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">[[User:Atsme|Atsme]]</font>[[User talk:Atsme |πŸ“ž]][[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|πŸ“§]]</sup> β†’ AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§


<sup>[[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme</span>]][[User talk:Atsme |πŸ“ž]][[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|πŸ“§]]</sup> β†’ AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh wow, Anomalocaris - I had no idea my sig had lint errors - I must be using the wrong dryer sheets. I switched to Bounce (and changed the sig per your recommendation) so at least it would smell better. Β  Hope it works. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 19:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! β€”Anomalocaris (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed on my watchlist that User:BD2412bot can go around and correct all your past signatures, if you want to do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely - how do I make that happen? I no longer wish to have "lint errors" clogging up my sig. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 23:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Have you tried synthetics? Oh wait, no. I assume you go to the bot talk page and request it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
On the other hand, I just looked there, and people seem to be yelling at the bot owner. I dunno. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Synthetics? No, Tryp - my lint is the real deal. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 00:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
How about your lints can actually run Linux Mint on your PC when it's dirty. *linux peguin comes in and says "Clean off your computer full of dust in it."* KGirl (Wanna chat?) 02:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, User:BD2412bot is a bot account used by User:BD2412 to de-lint BD2412's signature in Wikipedia. It needs to go through the WP:BRFA approval process before further use. I don't know if the bot can de-lint only BD2412's signature, or if it can de-lint other signatures also. β€”Anomalocaris (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
If the task is to change one string of text to another, a bot can do it. However, if this is going to be a mass-undertaking, something more sophisticated than mine (which just churns syntax through AWB) will probably be needed. bd2412 T 21:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, my - KGirlTrucker81, Anomalocaris and BD2412 - I'm a Mac user which means...well hell, I dunno what it means, if anything, because my code savvy is L-I-M-I-T-E-D. I have trouble remembering acronyms if that tells you anything. When something doesn't work, I complain to Apple and they fix it (most of the time - there actually have been times I've had to shine a light on the issue). If the issue rests with html or stylesheet or java, etc., I speak broken code. While I can work on some of the mechanical aspects of a Mac puter (change a track pad, memory, fans, some circuit boards, etc.) anything involving code becomes a tl;dr issue for me. I know what to do with lint in my navel, between my toes, or on my clothes (and I'm not above selling it to preppers) but I'll leave the code lint issues in your very capable hands. Just let me know if my sig is still causing problems after I "fixed" it...and if you can't explain in layperson terms, just say, Thanks Atsme, we're on it and you'll get a lovely personalized Wikilove message from me. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 21:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
You fixed your signature, so you aren't causing more lint with your signature. There are now 8,809,398 lint errors of type Obsolete HTML tags, most of those <font> tags. That is an undercount, because the counter stops at 20 in any one article. Obsolete HTML tags are currently about 70% of all lint errors. I'm providing these numbers to give you the idea that your signatures scattered about Wikipedia represent only a few "parts per million" of all of the Obsolete HTML tags. It would be great to delint them, but it's a tiny part of a much larger problem. BD2412's criterion is "to change one string of text to another", and I think that's exactly what's required here, so I think a bot can do this easily, but BD2412 has more experience with bots than I have, so maybe there's more to it than that. β€”Anomalocaris (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, I didn't fix all my lint errors. I grabbed a batch of 25,000 (which is AWB's limit), then removed User talk pages from that (so as not to cause people to receive a notice of a new message), and actually fixed about 4,000. I could have grabbed another batch after that, but at that point was cautioned to go through BRFA. Bear in mind that I am an anomoly, since most editors don't even have their signatures on more than 25,000 pages. Nevertheless, a more sophisticated approach would be needed to identify all the errors needing to be fixed, and probably to fix them in a way that did not disrupt watchlists. bd2412 T 22:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

8,809,398 lint errors are making the preppers salivate...[FBDB]. On a serious note: thank you bd2412 and Anomalocaris for your tireless dedication!! AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 16:30, November 24, 2017

New article

Dear Atsme, Indeed, Thank you so much for organizing my article, I find it easy for me work on it in a draft form. I have just begun the article and it is my second article. I hope you would keep an eye on my work, I request your directions for the article. I really enjoyed reading your user page. Perhaps, I didn't see which country you are from! Thank you Rane2030 Rane2030 (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm here if you have any questions, Rane2030. Happy editing! AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 20:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


I suppose there's probably a way for me to appeal, I haven't checked. The whole thing is such a time sink that I'd be reluctant, but any advice would be welcome. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I wish there was a speedier process, and while I'm not fully convinced it was the best decision, it was an honest one. Look at what just happened with this AfD which reeks of political undertow - I just haven't figured out which political party because the guy is disliked by both sides. Β  There's not a whole lot one can do when PAGs are trumped by IAR, if you know what I mean. Perhaps more good would result from focusing your energy on helping to clear-up the ambiguities in our BLP policy. I've started an essay in my sandbox if you're interested. The best release I've found for some of the frustrations we, as editors, are faced with is to see what's going on at the TP of EEng, Martinevans123 or Tryptofish - three of my favorite editors who are fair minded, highly intelligent, and encourage us to laugh. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 21:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Me? Highly intelligent? Ha! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe a legal high would work better for me. :-) Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
LOL...AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 22:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Little-known fact (mainly because I haven't previously told anyone): I grow my own, and it works for me! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Seriously, I tried some pot for insomnia and all it did was shrink my wallet. A friend told me recently that he smoked a lot one summer and lost a lot of brain power. I recently found a drink that is very relaxing and healthy, a powdered form of magnesium citrate. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The main effect of magnesium citrate is to make a person well-prepared for a colonoscopy. As for pot, I never smoke it, but take it orally shortly before bed. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I ride cutting horses - an extreme high - and when not in the US, I'm in the water scuba diving using a NITROX mix of 42% O2 which is sorta like an oxygen bar but a different kind of bar. Β  AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 00:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Cool, a cowboy. That explains the animated gif and your user page. Don’t combine those two activities! Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Mag citrate has many uses including that one. It’s a vital nutrient and most people don’t get the RDA. My Dad is taking it right now on doctor’s orders to relieve leg cramping. Does the pot before bed help you sleep? I tried it orally mixed with honey. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I just wouldn't want anyone to chug magnesium without knowing what they are getting in for if they ingest too much. Anyway, it certainly can make a person have a right to claim to not be full of you-know-what. No, not for sleeping per se, more for more complicated issues that I guess I'm going to leave as vague for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I drink tea & honey before bed...and the only chemical I've used comes in a box called Loreal Excellence, partly because 6 years of editing WP created a gray area. Over the years, I've used both Loreal and Rogaine as compliments to each other, the latter being the result of self-inflicted hair loss. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 01:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


Hi, Regarding the label of conspiracy theorist, Hannity said, β€œtypical left-wing attack. My whole career I’ve pursued the truth and have been proven right time after time while my colleagues are often dead wrong.”[1] You might consider adding the above quote to the article and also finding reliable sources that noted where he was right and add that to the article too. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Bob K31416 - there's an informal RfC on that TP now. You might want to see the proposal. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 01:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


Dear Asteme, I am contacting you regarding the article draft:Anula Karunathilaka which you have moved to draftspace. ( Your support helped me a lot to work on it a little bit faster. I have completed the article, and sent for the review. At this end, May I request you to review it. Meanwhile, I can keep it improving further. Thanks Rane2030 Rane2030 16:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC) β€”Β Preceding unsigned comment added by Rane2030 (talk β€’ contribs)

Your e-mail

Hi, I've read your e-mail concerning your disagreements with others, but I don't think that I can do anything for you outside the established dispute resolution procedures. The article you mention is within the scope of Wikipedia:NEWBLPBAN, so if you think that there is serious misconduct, you could ask for discretionary sanctions at WP:AE. For reasons of time, I haven't been able to look through the material you sent me. Sandstein 17:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Sandstein, thank you for the feedback. I was basically looking for validation of my interpretations, not action. The ambiguities and numerous interpretations in WP policy is hard on one's self-confidence. I think what I'll do is just take a short break from NPP (it can be stressful at times), and reduce my exposure. It's not that I'm reviewing a boat-load of articles, rather it's that I tend to get stuck on the controversial ones, and end-up reviewing like articles to find some form of consistency in style and content; that's when the stress grows.πŸ€ͺ I don't want to cause a stir or get anyone in trouble...and that includes me. I prefer productive collaboration so I'll focus a bit more at AfC where I can help new editors develop their articles. Writing for our readers while being totally dependent on sources we trust tends to make WP a continuum in evolutionary expression, often producing results that reflect an individual's or group's societal perspectives rather than the neutral, dispassionate tone and balance dictated by policy. Attempts to make the latter fit within BLP's requirement for strict adherence to WP's 3 core content policies can be quite the challenge. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 17:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I think that we are in a time in US current events where so much that might be written on WP is inevitably going to be a hornet's nest, and just taking a break from it for a while is what I would probably be doing myself. One thing I've observed over time is that, if I don't make sure others aren't getting away with policy violations, there will always be someone else who will. I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely! Β  AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 22:33, 11 December 2017

ANI Discussion...

You can't not have known this wasn't coming. There's an ANI discussion you may be interested in. --Jayron32 15:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Northamerica1000, they teamed-up in defiance of your MERGE consensus, refuse to let me call an AfC per procedures to get the wider community involved, and are now taking me to ANI. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 15:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


Please stop edit warring at Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations and stop displaying a flagrant battleground attitude at Talk:Matt Lauer. Starting a new RfC about merging Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations to Matt Lauer, pretty much immediately after the merge has just been extensively discussed in several venues, is pure filibustering AFAICS. Your comment at this new RfC, when people list other options than your own three, "I called this RfC and that is not one of the choices", and your repeated removal of these other options, shows a lack of awareness of how RfC's work, and a disinterest in collaboration. You recently got away with a trout and a reproach for battleground editing at AE.[2] I think the community, as well as many admins, are losing patience with the way you disrupt talkpages related to American politics, especially biographies. I'm very close to topic banning you from American biographies in order to improve the editing environment for other users. Bishonen | talk 16:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC).

Atsme: before you reply, please be aware that I think Bish is being very fair. This fight ain't worth it, and there will always be other editors paying attention to high-traffic topics. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Roy Moore

Hello, I did not make any reverts on the Roy Moore article. I simply edited it to match the article, because it inaccurately treated all of the stories under the label of sexual assault when only a few of them outright allege they were victims of sexual assault by Moore; this was clearly established. I checked at a few edits before as well as the talk page and I don't see anything that I reinstated or that wasn't the consensus. Happy Holidays. Sega31098 (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Aydin Aghdashloo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aydin Aghdashloo. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Maureen Wroblewitz

Help for improvement this article. Thank you!Ngochue456 (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Casliber and I and probably a few others got more or less the same message, but I have to admit this request is polite. John Carter (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I automatically started editing it. Reflex. Β  AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 02:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Help expand this article. Thank you! (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


Loving the picture with Steven Tyler, it just seems too surreal. Happy holidays! Alex Shih (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

More stuff about redirects

For unknown reasons, again using "bird watching" as the example.

The above link (which appears on top of the "what links here" page for the article, a tool found on the lefthand column menu which we hardly ever look at) is a code written by a user, which creates links to all the redirects to an article. Clicking on any of the links generated by this tool will take you to the editable redirect page, not the article.

Don't thank me. I consider the time saved by expediting your work here to be part of my contribution to the project. Β 

Edaham (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Eric R. Dursteler has been accepted

Eric R. Dursteler, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 21:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion about merges

I know you are probably over this, but I am interested in your last comment at Bishonens talk page about. I actually tried to change the wording at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 10#Merge closes after my experiences. It didn't go anywhere and looking back I was probably asking for too much. In the end I went with the essay option and a few personalised notes at selected talk pages in an attempt to change !voting habits. If you are interested in developing a better guideline or tweaking a policy to make it easier to close merges then I would be willing to help. AIRcornΒ (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Aircorn, I never tire of looking for ways to help reduce ambiguities and improve understanding of our policies. I would very much enjoy collaborating with you on such a project. You can count on me to ask the dumb questions, make suggestions regarding ways to avoid misinterpretations, and help with anything else you think would be a productive use of our time. Liken it to a toymaker (you) giving a toddler (me) a new toy for the purpose of testing its break-resistance & durability. Β  AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 19:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


I got your email. I don't know what to do beyond an RFC which seeks to investigate the sheer volume of appalling admin blocks through lack of communication. I'll be looking into that in due course. Thanks for your note, I hope you have a great 2018. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, TRM - Just wanted you to know that a few editors are trying to coordinate a proper proposal. It looks like maybe I'll be opening up discussions in a sandbox - but it will be after we bring in the New Year (and have at least a day to recover from it). I didn't want to upset the natives or have them jumping to erroneous conclusions which is why I emailed you privately. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 22:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)–
Hey, not a problem. I'm all over this, I have more evidence than you could shake a stick at, and I am 100% behind some action that could curtail the bullying and dismissive attitudes of some of the admins and Arbs we have to cope with. Ping me after the New Year and I'll be more than happy to provide as much as I can. My email is a little sketchy right now so please ping me online and I'll do what I'm able to do. Happy New Year to you, my very best wishes, The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
If you let me know when the sandbox drafting begins, I'll try to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Forgive me but I was already counting on you, Tryp. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 23:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, Tryptofish, Montanabw, Tony1 While the black-eyed peas were cooking, I created User:Atsme/Blocking policy proposal so feel free to comment (or tweak as needed). AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 18:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


Hello, Atsme. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
Message added 16:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any timeΒ by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ Winged BladesGodric 16:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


Β  Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 02:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


Hello Atsme,

You left a message on the talk page of a blocked sockpuppet, Quinton Feldberg. Your message stated that there was a current AfD debate about "Libtard". You linked to a deletion debate that took place 12 years ago. I see no current deletion debate about this slur. I find this somewhat mystifying, and hope that you can shed some light on the situation. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Cullen, it's one of the "hazhards" of the curation tool in NPP. See if the discussion following this diff might help explain. If you can help, please do. I just asked NeilN if I should tag with speedy delete, or if he can simply delete it. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 10:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


Hello Atsme. A reminder about Under-representation of science and women in Africa: Wikimania 2018 an opportunity to bridge the gap. Your contribution is appreciated. Ear-phone (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Ben Franklin quote

I'm sorry to be pedantic (OK, who am I kidding; I love to be pedantic), but I noticed that higher up on your userpage, you have a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." Now, for anyone familiar with Franklin's writing, that should immediately send up a red flag. It doesn't sound like something Ben Franklin would say. It sounds like something a modern-day "gun rights" enthusiast would say. And for good reason: the quote is not from Franklin. It most likely comes from a libertarian writing around 1990. Initially, the quote was "... voting on what's for lunch...", but astute readers pointed out that the word "lunch" didn't exist in Franklin's day, so the quote was modified to use the word "dinner", to preserve its fake authenticity. I'm assuming that the quote was (falsely) attributed to Franklin by someone seeking to bolster its credibility, and has circulated on the Internet ever since. There's more at Wikiquote, if you're interested. MastCellΒ Talk 01:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I love that you are pedantic. I will conduct further research and make the necessary corrections. Β  AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 02:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Opinions vs Facts

Fact - a thing that is indisputably the case. What you're calling "facts" are clearly disputed because they are:
Opinion - a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge
Repeating an opinion over and over again does not make it a fact. The fact is that it was repeated over and over again. "The media’s first answer is the most obvious: They say they must speak the truth. But calling Trump a racist isn’t fact-based reportage β€” it is, by its very nature, opinion."[1] There are many, many statements like it. I've already cited all the policies that support my position. Β  Just curious... as to how many Americans voters are participating at that AfD because I'm of the mind that people who live in certain countries (depending on the type of government) may have limited availability to the needed sources and may have more propaganda against capitalism and that favor their own respective governments. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 01:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to ping MjolnirPants AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§
Extended content


  1. ^ Shapiro, Ben (January 17, 2018). "What's the Point of Labeling Trump a Racist?". National Review.
What you're calling "facts" are clearly disputed That is categorically untrue. Find me a single reliable source that says that any one of these particular remarks had absolutely nothing to do with race, or even that the remark was unremarkable (pun intended, thank you) with respect to race. I'll wait, but not forever, which is how long it would take to actually locate such a source. Look for yourself: [3], [4], and of course, at the article in question. To say that these comments aren't "racist" is arguably an opinion (arguably; and I would argue against it, along with about half of all Americans). To say they aren't "racially charged" is simply out of touch with reality. If they were not racially charged, why are they such hot topics in discussions of race? Where did the popular awareness of Trump's racism stem from? Why is he being called racist for making these statement? Suggesting that it's all politics is beyond ridiculous; if it were true, why wasn't every white Republican charged with being racist by the vast majority of the reputable media, on a continuous basis?
Now, of course there's a political element to people calling Trump racist. Opponents of Trump are going to exaggerate the racial aspects of his comments. But supporters of Trump, as well as many Republicans who otherwise don't support Trump, and others who don't support Trump but agree with his comments about race are going to downplay the racial aspects of his comments. When the two groups are balanced out (as they are in current political climes, which is actually quite remarkable for a sitting president), the effect will be balanced out. And again; this is about people calling Trump racist. When it comes to saying his comments are "racially charged", there's virtually universal agreement, among all sides except for Trump's support base.
You seem to be failing to see a distinction between outright "racist" and "racially charged" which, while often used as a polite euphemism for "racist", nonetheless has a distinct meaning. Martin Luther King Jr. made many racially charged statements. As did Gandhi, Lincoln, and many others. "racially charged" is neither positive nor negative, simply a description. It conveys the idea that the statements in question inspired discussion about race, emotions about race and responses about race. Failing to understand that there is a distinct meaning to the term beyond it's euphemistic use can only be chalked up to preexisting ideas about Trump or racism, and the cognitive dissonance that would ensue from admitting it. I'm not trying to be condemnatory here, but the argument you've taken is really really bad. It's based on a premise that is as far from true as it gets. I still like ya, thoΒ ;). α›—α›α›Ÿα›šαšΎα›αš±Pants Tell me all about it. 02:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
You're fun to debate, Whistle Britches πŸ‘–.Β It reminds me of our Kirk vs Picard disCUSSions. I'll get right to the point using Moynihan's wise words, β€œYou are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”
The very first link you provided is...drum roll please... Opinion piece in the NYTimes. Would you trust a James Rosen op ed about President Obama in light of their relationship? You could pull up 10+ articles that claim Trump is a racist, but it's still based on the opinions of others and what they consider to be racism. The only factual statement in the whole equation is that people were interviewed and expressed their opinions. This article in the Chicago Tribune by CNN's senior economic analyst Stephen Moore tells a much different story, and there are lots more like it. The best explanation I can offer (and you'll probably ignore) is...well, just review WP:NEWSORG because that's pretty much what our political articles are based on these days, despite what some may believe is exempt from WP:NOTNEWS. The kind of journalism we see today is nothing like I experienced as a field producer for CNN. I knew changes were on the horizon, and got the hell outta Dodge. In fact, I had just started working on the paddlefish documentary when the Gulf War broke out. Instead of lugging a Betacam through mine fields in Iraq, I was on the Missouri River with state fisheries biologists and USFWS federal agents re-enacting an undercover sting operation that a few months earlier had led to the arrest of paddlefish poachers, some of whom ended-up in the federal pen. I also learned how to make $135/oz caviar from paddlefish roe using a window screen and wash tub. Sweet Salty memories! AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 06:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  1. You're still arguing against a straw man, even after I have explicitly corrected your inaccurate portrayal of my argument on numerous occasions.
  2. I provided a google search, not a direct link to a source, and it doesn't really matter to my point whether those results are opinion pieces or not, or even whether the vast majority of those results are even generally reliable. There mere existences evinces my point, but as you don't understand my point...
  3. Opinion pieces are not devoid of facts, and can be used to assert facts. They often are, especially in political articles.
  4. I'm not going to continue arguing in favor of what is objectively and inescapably true in the face of someone's cognitive dissonance, even if I like that person (it's a recipe for disaster, because I'll never stop believing what's true, and you'll never lose the dissonance, and one or both of us will end up getting mad). This is especially true when you demonstrably don't even understand what I'm saying. This means there's no possibility of finding a common ground. So with my bit already having been said multiple times, I'm going to bid this matter farewell. α›—α›α›Ÿα›šαšΎα›αš±Pants Tell me all about it. 15:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, alrighty then. We can agree to disagree. I realize that you believe what you believe and I actually did try to find factual evidence that supported your theory - basic debate prep 101. I couldn't find anything that wasn't based on anecdotal evidence and/or misinterpretations of double entrandes influenced by political biases. Fact-based evidence simply isn't there. I'm also not aware of the existence of medical experts who specialize in diagnosing racism, much less clinical trials or valid scientific research that tests for it. Perhaps group prayer and wishful thinking will produce the results you seek.Β  [FBDB] Just for fun watch this video - it's followed by another video about ways to improve reading comprehension. I also found a text explanation that's concise and easily comprehensible.
  • Opinion: MPants said Picard is a far better captain than Kirk.
  • Fact: MPants has argued with Atsme that Picard is better than Kirk.
  • Opinion: Atsme thinks MPants is biased toward Star Trek: The Next Generation because of the new effects that create the illusion that Picard is a better captain.
  • Fact: Captain James T. Kirk is the best of all the Star Trek captains. Β  Have fun - be safe! AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 17:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Moving along

Part II from the AfD

I am not sure what you ask on the AfD. There is not enough context. Of course it would be tempting to answer that calling to enforce the law is not racism. However, that would not be correct. It depends what law. Consider something like apartheid law. My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to respond here, MVBW, but the US has no such law as "apartheid law", and even if we did, it's application is irrelevant to my question. For example, the role America played in South Africa's apartheid was to stop an economically and politically charged takeover by the minority (whites) to dominate the majority (black society). According to The American Prospect, it's not as black & white in the US (no pun intended), which then begs the question, what exactly is racism? As you stated, context matters which is why WP has a policy against WP:SYNTH. Add all of it the various comments at the AfD...and tell me, based on what context and factual evidence are the allegations supported? In other words, ask yourself the same questions you asked me. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 21:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Are the allegations of racism/xenophobia supported? Yes, the allegations are directly supported by multiple RS, and I therefore do not see any problem with WP:SYNTH. Do I personally believe that the allegations are true? Yes, I certainly do. Worse, I even feel ashamed of having such people at the very top, especially because it tells a lot about voters in the country with free elections. There was a lot of information available, and it was obvious who is who during the election campaign. Of course none of the candidates was good (telling this politely), but this is over the top. I still believe in the US because things are significantly worse in Russia. Consider a country where the entire state was taken over by the Mafia. The entire police force is engaged in extortion, drug traffic or other crimes, and the courts are routinely used to convict many thousand of innocent businessmen because Mafia wants their property. It came to the point when thousands citizens in Moscow are evicted from their apartments because crooks want their property. In other cities the private houses are simply burned to the ground and not allowed to rebuild because someone needs the land. More than 85% of population supports the regime because of brainwashing, including distribution of falsehoods (some people believe that bad weather in Moscow was created by the USA), corruption of moral values (i.e. the stealing is generally believed to be OK), and very same incitement of hatred. My very best wishes (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
"Supported allegations", yes. Encyclopedic? Not in my view because the allegations are based on anecdotal evidence which has remained unsubstantiated from the beginning until January 20, 2018 and we're still counting. Unsubstantiated claims create a breeding ground for conspiracy theories and that's what is happening in this case. The hoopla surrounding the conspiracy theories may be notable, but I'm concerned that such garbage reduces the quality of our encyclopedia. The New Yorker published a quote (see link) from the actual testimony of Glenn Simpson before the Senate Judiciary Committee: β€œWhat people call the dossier is not really a dossier,” Simpson said. β€œIt’s a collection of field memoranda, of field interviews, a collection that accumulates over a period of months..." Of course it's not a dossier because it remains unsubstantiated, and contains heresay and anecdotal evidence. Let me be clear, the reason I opened this discussion was to discuss the difference between statements of fact VS statements of opinion. It appears to matter not if the information that goes into our articles is supported by hard evidence rather than anecdotal or circumstantial evidence combined with conspiracy theories and fallacious allegations that are being published by certain news organizations. Both sides of the political isle are contributing, each with their own version. I'll end by saying thanks for your input, but this discussion is going nowhere fast and I'm going to close it before it gets there. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 01:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Evidence of what and what "conspiracy theory"? Sorry, but I can not agree. We are doing reference work. This is not our business to prove or disprove anything or provide any evidence, anecdotal or "hard". My very best wishes (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
When the information is unsubstantiated, a RS will say so, and some may use the term conspiracy theory. See this source as an example. A RS will report both views in pretty much the same manner that WP:NPOV expects us to present our articles, some with few exceptions. Journalists have far more leeway in that they conduct OR, so we have to exercise caution when a news publication becomes a primary source as a result of their own investigative reporting. When journalists can't verify a statement as factual, they use weasel words, like "according to" or one of their favorites, "an undisclosed source". Our applicable guidelines are still WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEWSORG because it's highly unlikely that breaking news/recent political events will come to us in any other form. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 02:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, we are talking about this page. This is not a conspiracy theory and not a theory. It does not provide any evidence, but simply describe important views by an important person about something, as documented in published RS on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
It was an example - the actual discussion began as facts vs opinions. The RS guidelines apply to ALL articles on WP, political or otherwise. I was simply trying to explain to you the difference between facts vs opinions...ok, closing this section. Have a fun weekend. AtsmeπŸ“žπŸ“§ 02:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Atsme/Archive 21".