User talk:Atsme/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Canvassing

There is a policy against canvassing. You messaging those three editors about your IPT merger is canvassing. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah was at least a part of the previous discussion on IPT. Rainbowpeace's involvement was limited to an RFC discussion. Cyclopia wasn't involved at all as far as I'm aware. Your notifications to them were not neutral. You messaged only one editor that could be considered a concerned editor under WP:CANVASS. You violated Wikipedia:Vote_stacking#Campaigning as well.

This is among other actions you have taken is very disruptive. Your merge proposal is very disruptive. Please discontinue your disruptive efforts. As a preference I don't want to go to ANI. I shouldn't have to go to ANI.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.

There is another issue as well. On Investigative Project on Terrorism There was an RFC on the Islamophobia template that resulted in the decision that was not NPOV and that it should stay. Your removal of that template a few months after that RFC is Tendentious.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Your post in Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers is also canvassing. Your biased message constitutes campaigning. That message I will have to ask you to edit. Word it neutrally.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho Your accusations are groundless. Please read WP:Consensus for a better understanding of acceptable policy. Inviting other editors for input is not only acceptable, it is encouraged. I am following policy, you are not. I invited 3 editors via their Talk pages, 1 of whom is neutral on this subject, and who is an accomplished, neutral editor. If anyone is being disruptive, it is you. I did not have to start discussion on this merge, and could have simply merged the articles, but because it appears your only mission on Wiki is stalk the Talk pages, and edits of others, I chose to go with WP:MERGE as a courtesy, and invited input, but you are now trying to escalate this into making it appear as though I've created policy violations when you, in fact, are the one violating policy, to include a BLP violation. I will now procede to address the BLP violation which I should have done in the beginning. Atsme☯^Consult 14:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:consensus? Which part? Inviting other editors by means of an RFC it discusses. It actually speaks against what you did. Have read the policy? Your linking it but did you even bother to read it? It actually talks about your canvassing. Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building_pitfalls_and_errors Neutral? You? Lol. I'm not sure you understand the term. This is not neutral. That is Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning. The only way to present that neutrally is to mention that have proposed a merger and you like them to join. It's also questionable why you choose that user. As far as your BLP issue goes, you have had two users address your claim. Me and Sepsis II. We did not agree. I told to take it to some form of dispute resolution, including the BLP noticeboard. You decided to go with your cockamamie merger tactic based on original research. Please by all means address it. This all seems to go with your previously stated goal of removing Islamophobia from wikipedia.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You can't be serious. While it is fine – even encouraged – to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, it is not acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view, or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter. I did not invite only people favorable to a particular point of view. If anything, two of the editors I invited disagreed with me in several instances, and one doesn't even know anything about IPT. You are the one who needs to be concerned, not me. Please stop making such riduclous groundless accusations on my Talk page. I have articles to edit, and I don't appreciate your disruptions. Atsme☯^Consult 18:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Read it again. "to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter." But now that you put that emphasis on the first part I have to ask why you messaged Cyclopia. Wikipedia:Canvassing Says that you should only post On the user talk pages of concerned editors. I'm interested in knowing how Cyclopia was a concerned editor in this case. I'm absolutely serious. And if you feel that I have been disruptive editing take it to ANI. Here's a link: WP:AN/I.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, your argument is ridiculous. I simply provided the "merge rationale" per WP:Merge, and did nothing to prejudice the invitations. You are simply trying to win a losing argument by groundlessly shifting the focus to me. Perhaps if you would spend more time writing and editing articles instead of involving yourself unnecessarily in the Talk pages of others, such as you have been doing to me, Wikipedia would be enhanced as a resource. You are well-versed in how the system works, and I consult you to please apply it to good use instead of trying to justify blatant WP:BLP and WP:NOR violations. Atsme☯^Consult 17:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Your invitation is completely biased. There is a proposal for a merge of certain information in the article Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) to the Steven Emerson article, and then deletion of the IPT article because there is no such entity. The article was created and includes information based on the pretext that the Investigative Project on Terrorism actually existed as a non-profit entity. It did not, and still does not. What did exist is Steven Emerson's think-tank, The Investigative Project, and Steven Emerson as a CNN reporter and later as an independent terrorism expert. He founded the Investigative Project on Terrorism FOUNDATION years later - April 2006 - which is the only official non-profit foundation organized legally. Unfortunately, editors are trying to combine all of Emerson's past work as a CNN reporter, and individual terrorism expert (dating back to the Oklahoma City bombing and before) into one big hodge podge of inaccuracies in the current article, IPT. Please read the discussion at Talk:Steven_Emerson#Merge and delete the IPT article. Thank you in advance. You provide merge rationale on the talk page. You not provide merge rationale thru a canvassing effort. You don't under the No original research policy. If you did you wouldn't be using original research to justify a merger. I'd reply some of your other comments but honestly they are bunk.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

All you did was quote the merge rationale, and take up space on my Talk page. Everything in the rationale is pure fact - no bias - it is truthful and accurate, and again, it is the rationale for the merge proposal. For you to consider it anything else is bunk. Everything you have done has been in violation of policy, and it continues. Focus on the IPT Talk page, and at least try to understand the facts instead of trying to make it appear as though I've done something wrong. I hope the light finally clicks on in your head. You have violated WP:NOR, WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH, and Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources. The latter extensive list of violations are what you should be focusing on, and not my requests for input on the merge proposal. If you want to be productive, fix the inaccuracies, merge where it should be merged, and create the proper article. If you don't want to do it by yourself, then help me do it so that it's done right, and follows policy. Atsme☯^Consult 20:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No I posted A message that you used to canvass. Not a statement of pure fact but an effort to campaign for your merger. I can only consider that you do not understand policy or you are dishonest. To consider anything else would be bunk. I understand the facts. You are pushing original research to mke a merge. I'm unsure if this directly ties to your previous stated effort of whitewashing wikipedia of Islamophobia.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not good to make assumptions. You are totally incorrect as usual. Inviting one neutral editor for input re: a merge proposal is not Canvassing, and my rationale for the merge has nothing to do with WP:NOR. In fact, in the past, I have asked other more seasoned editors than either you or I about the canvassing policy because I thought another editor was violating it, but I learned differently. What you have done are policy violations, including WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources, and WP:BLP, the latter of which is up at the BLP noticeboard. Your attempts to shift attention to me over your ridiculous groundless claims is an exercise in futility. Please try to focus on being a productive editor instead of harassing others on Talk pages, and stop cluttering my Talk page with such nonsense. Atsme☯^Consult 13:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Atsme, Serialjoepsycho is absolutely right. I pointed you to the fact that your messages could be considered canvassing, and linked the policy. I am also worried that you regularly dodge the issue when someone criticizes your actions here, preferring instead to attack the editors who warn you. Please acknowledge you did a mistake, you'll look more adult than by screaming vague aspersions like you are doing now.--cyclopia^speak! 14:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Cyclopia I am not "screaming aversions", and I've made no mistake with regards to the three invitations I posted according to policy which is further evidenced in the above "warning" template. Perhaps I mistakenly reasoned that you were well versed in policy, and as an uninterested editor could provide neutral input, but that is the only mistake I've made in this situation. Read the canvassing notice Serialjoepsycho posted above which clearly states: While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. My notice to you certainly fits the requirement of being limited, nonpartisan, and NPOV. If you don't understand the policy, and feel it was wrong for me to invite you for input on a proposed merger, you should have recused yourself rather than wrongly assuming I violated policy. Your response to me on User talk:Cyclopia: "I don't think I can give a fruitful contrbution...I know little to nothing about such topics" further validates that I was indeed following policy by inviting an editor I thought would be nonpartisan and neutral. It isn't even required for a merge to be preceded by any discussion, but I was being courteous by opening a merge proposal before taking action. The 3 invitations I posted to 3 different editors, (limited distribution, two of whom were involved in the article), included the "merge rationale" (as recommended by WP:Merge). The merge rationale is neither biased, nor is it comprised of opinion - it is fact based per WP policy. Furthermore, I hardly consider any of the three editors I invited as partisan to my position. In fact, quite the opposite is true, but I believed WP policy would take precedence. Bottomline, the merger proposal should be the main focus here, not all these groundless allegations that accomplish nothing but divert attention away from the purpose of the merge proposal. I do not appreciate all the groundless allegations, and am hereby ending all discussion about it on my Talk page. Further posts here will be deleted. Atsme☯^Consult 16:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Your invitation was not neutral -you wrote stuff as Unfortunately, editors are trying to combine all of Emerson's past work as a CNN reporter, and individual terrorism expert (dating back to the Oklahoma City bombing and before) into one big hodge podge of inaccuracies in the current article, IPT. which is the exact opposite of neutral. You are free to delete my post, but refusal to discuss your mistakes makes you only more childish and more guilty -and refusal to discuss, in general, means that further canvassing actions could be sent directly to AN/I. Choose wisely.--cyclopia^speak! 16:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Cyclopia, I would never intentionally "canvass", but now that you have made it known that you are not and will not be involved in the merge discussion, I hope you will at least try to understand the process of including a merge rationale in an invitation for input, and why its inclusion in my message is not a violation of policy. The statement you quoted above is in fact part of the rationale for the merge proposal. I probably should not have started a sentence with "Unfortunately", even though the actions that prompted the merge/delete are unfortunate. I will try to exercise more care in my wording in the future. However, any claim that alleges a merge rationale may have violated neutrality implies the rationale itself cannot be neutral, and I consider such an assumption ludicrous, especially considering such an assumption is purely subjective. The merge rationale is not a "campaign" to sway opinion, rather it simply states the reasons for a proposed merge. The crux of my proposal to merge is based on a combination of ambiguities and misunderstandings with regards to what the actual article should include and accurately convey to readers. The BLP violation that occurred as a result of the ambiguities and misunderstandings was the catalyst. I deleted the BLP violation, but Serialjoepsycho and User_talk:Sepsis_II reverted my edits. FYI - a quick review of Sepsis II shows he was recently blocked, but it isn't the first time. I don't know what drew his attention to the IPT article considering he was already involved in a controversy that resulted in his being blocked the very next day. Anyway, see the following diffs which I included at the BLP noticeboard: [1] [2]

Serialjoepsycho appears to have successfully diverted attention away from his own edit violations at IPT by unjustly drawing attention to me in an attempt to diffuse the merge proposal. I expected him to create issues, and start calling me names considering it is an established pattern for him as evidenced by many of our past discussions. I once considered his behavior to be WP:Hounding, but have not acted on it because I prefer to believe editors are acting in good faith. However, after his recent comments and taunting with some limited support from Sepsis II, [3], I now have doubts, especially after he unjustly accused me of "gaming the system". I am a good faith editor, a mature adult, and would never even consider employing such childish behavior. He needs to be concerned over his own violations at IPT which include WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and WP:Synth. Atsme☯^Consult 19:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

What you fail to understand here is that you did Canvass. It matters little that it was in good faith. You continue to deflect the issue. In your response above you deflect it. You continue to deny it. People don't need your merge rationale on their talk page. It's already on the Steve Emerson page. WP:Canvassing Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion. Wikipedia:Canvass#Campaigning Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages. You may have done this in good faith but it still violated policy. Your failure to understand the policy is an issue. If you do not understand the policy and continue to justify your violation that makes the implication that you may do it again. As far as anything that you feel I have done improper, Here is the link to wp:ani.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Canvassing states: This page in a nutshell: When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions. Be open! It further states: In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. <--which is exactly what I did. I notified 3 editors, which is less than a small number, so canvassing does not even apply to me. If I was "preselecting recipients according to their established opinions", I certainly would not have invited Cyclopia, or the other two editors for input. Your canvassing allegation fails miserably, so please stop bringing it up. In the future, I will make a concerted effort to exercise a little more caution when wording merge rationales in invitations.
2. I read your post, responded to it, and explained why there were/are no violations on my part. End of story, yet you continue with your disruptive behavior. It needs to stop.
3. I did not Spam, Campaign, Vote-stack, or Stealth canvass. Read the above canvassing criteria.
4. What you also fail to understand is that Wiki guidelines state: The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices, possibly using {{subst:Uw-canvass}} on their talk page. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Again, I did not "canvass", I did not keep posting notices, and the 3 invitations I sent were far from being "clearly disruptive".
5. You keep bringing up this non-issue about canvassing in an attempt to disrupt editing, the merge proposal, and shift the focus away from your own WP:BLP, and WP:SYNTH violations. You have already provided your input on the merge, and anything further serves no purpose except to disrupt the project. Please stop.
6. A quick review of your User contributions show the number of edits you performed on my user talk page vs the number of edits you performed on your own talk page which in itself is enough to raise question about your intent and purpose where I'm concerned. Your contributions also show the IPT talk page as your most edited page, yet you have contributed little to nothing to the actual article, aside from causing me and other editors grief. Why don't you focus some of that energy on improving your own Roku article, and get it up to GA status? Your interference with the normal editing process at IPT has prevented editors from moving the article beyond stub class, and you certainly haven't attempted to do anything to improve it yourself. Your total number of user talk page edits to date VS the number of article edits you've made speaks volumes, and leaves me with the impression your only mission is to be disruptive.
7. I have no desire to take this issue to ANI. I just want you to please stop the disruptive behavior. Atsme☯^Consult 05:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

1)The neutrality portion of it counts as much as the size of the group. Pointed out above in quotes from the policy above that you choose to ignore. Here's a big glaring hint that was said before. You don't write the merge rationale in the invitation. It is by necessity posted on the talk page of the article you desire to merge, the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion.

2)There were violations on your part. 3)You campaigned 4)I was responding to your overall disruptive behavior in addition to the canvassing. 5)I wasn't the one who first mentioned your canvassing effort on the merge page. I gave additional information after someone else mentioned it. 6)Thank you for your irrelevant comments here. My intent and purpose for you? I have none other than to stop your POV pushing agenda to accomplish your previously stated goal of whitewashing wikipedia of all mention of Islamophobia. Quit POV Pushing and I don't see an issue. I'm unsure of my most edited page. I rather don't care. Grief? To whom? You? It's justifiable. Like the "grief" I give you for removing the Islamophobia template when there is a consensus to keep it. Why would I put more energy in Roku achieving GA status? It has the same completion date as any other article. Eventually. Of course it's telling to you. You literally have grasp at straws to have anything to say. You know little of Wikimedian philosophy. Metapedianism for instance. We've actually discussed that. 7)Well it would help if you actually had a case. While I'm not interested in in going to ANI if you expand your disruption any further that is my destination.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho - you just violated consensus policy, Wikipedia:Forum shopping, by opening Talk:Steven_Emerson#Merger_RFC before the merge proposal had run its 30 day course. Atsme☯^Consult 02:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The merge proposal is on the talk page. That doesn't fall under Forum shopping. The RFC specifically brings the attention of univolved editors to the merger discussion. However if you disagree then by all means take it to wp:ani.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alligator gar

The article Alligator gar you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Alligator gar for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Atsme. You have new messages at Matty.007's talk page.
Message added 06:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Matty.007 06:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:JSTOR access

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

Your GA nomination of American paddlefish

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article American paddlefish 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, User:FunkMonk. Atsme☯^Consult 03:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

ARBCOM

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#IPT and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bowfin

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bowfin 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) 09:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, Chiswick Chap. Thank you for the generous contribution of your time and expertise. I will be paying attention in the event additional editing is required of me. Atsme☯^Consult 14:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

GAN reviewing

At the moment I am out of action after a lightning surge killed my computer but I hope to be back soon. You will find plenty of help on reviewing GANs here and you will see on that page a link to mentors who are willing to help. I suggest you choose an article on a topic with which you are familiar, perhaps by an experienced contributor who knows what is required at GAN, and try applying the GA criteria to it. Your review does not need to follow any particular pattern as long as you consider how well the article meets the different criteria. I hope to be back properly in a couple of days and will be happy to help further if required. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A proposal

I see you have a nice image of the sand diver on your user page. I looked at the Wikipedia article on Synodus intermedius and see it is a stub, 519 B in length. I could expand the article myself into a 2500+ B article that would be long enough for DYK, but I wondered whether you would care to co-operate in its expansion, perhaps taking it on as far as GAR? Having said that, I must warn you that my knowledge of fishes is not great, and I only have access to web resources, full jstor articles and abstracts of other articles. (I had already written this before seeing your comment at the paddlefish FAC.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Cwmhiraeth. Sounds like a fun and interesting project. I do so appreciate the way you reach into an article, and come up with new areas of interest. Atsme☯^Consult 09:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. I have made a start with a description. For the time being I have left the bit in the middle about the collapsible dorsal fin and the knob on chin but they are not in either of the sources I have seen. Over to you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, this project is too kewl with all kinds of ways to expand. In 2005, they identified a new species, Synodus macrostigmus, apparently close enough to S. intermedius to do a comparison. I also ended up on Synodontidae, and started a taxonomy section. I don't see how you do what you do - it's amazing. You write new articles, expand articles, review GAs, FAs, DYKs - amazing, absolutely amazing. Atsme☯^Consult 22:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

What you have added is fine, but I think it is better to go about things in a slightly different way, writing the main text, with citations backing up the information, and then summarising the information in the lead afterwards. I have moved one of your paragraphs to start an Ecology section. With regard to the fish's distribution, FishBase gives the 37°N - 17°N range but also mentions Santa Catarina in Brazil which is at 27°S. WoRMS mentions southern and eastern Gulf of Mexico and FishBase, the northern Gulf of Mexico, so perhaps we should not specify in which parts of the Gulf it occurs. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need a detailed description. I'm working on a distribution map which will help. Also agree with your plan regarding the lede - reminiscent of my scriptwriting days when I shot footage from an outline, then wrote the script based on available footage. I appreciate your expertise and guidance. Atsme☯^Consult 11:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, FB also mentions S. intermedius as native to the Philippines, and a questionable occurrence near Sao Tomé-et-Principe off the east coast of Africa. [4] You make the call. Perhaps leave the lede as is, and include under the distribution section? Atsme☯^Consult 13:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I should think so. The Philippines seems unexpected but it may be more widespread than is realised. The range of many marine organisms is very poorly known. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten the article, Cwmhiraeth. Unfortunately, my focus has temporarily turned to a meritless claim so as soon as I'm finished with that distraction, I'll get back to work. Just wanted you to know I haven't abandoned the project. Atsme☯^Consult 17:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw you had a problem. If we are going for DYK we need to nominate The article by the 29th. We could nominate it now in fact, but it will need more citations before it gets approved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do...Atsme☯^Consult 18:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have now nominated the article at DYK. I found some extra sources which covered at least some of the information. The article has come along well since we started on it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That's because you are an incredible editor, Cwmhiraeth. You are a delight to collaborate with because you strive for perfection, and that's what an encyclopedia is all about. Atsme☯^Consult 05:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)