Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
| quote="What is the lure of extremist rhetoric in democratic controversy? After all, most citizens are not extremists. Part of the lure lies in the fact that it is easier to believe passionately in a value or cause without regard to subtlety, reasoned argument, probabilistic evidence, and vigorously tested scientific theory or fact. Expressions of single-minded visions for solving problems and changing society can make complexity and uncertainty, frustration and regret, all appear to evaporate. Another part of the lure is that having comrades-in-argument is comforting." <small>~Amy Gutman (excerpt from )</small>
|}}
<br />
{{Quote box
| align=center
| width=50%
| bgcolor=#eaf3ff
| title= {{Anchor|Stars}}<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#000080">'''''Reach for the stars, and become one!'''''</span> ]
| quote={{center|If you see your glass as half-empty, pour it into a smaller glass and stop bitching!}}
}}
<br />
{{Quote box
| align=center
| width=50%
| bgcolor=pink
| title= {{Anchor|Media}}'''Power of Media'''
| quote=“The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” <br /><br />
"ALGORITHM-RANKED search results and social media news feeds have contributed to the creation of ‘echo chambers’ and ‘filter bubbles’, where people reinforce their beliefs rather than dialogue across differences." ~ ''World trends in freedom of expression and media development'', global report 2017/2018
}}
<br />
{{Quote box
| align=center
| width=50%
| bgcolor=PeachPuff
| title={{Anchor|decency}}'''Have you no sense of decency?'''
| quote=We must wear our critical thinking caps, and try not to as a single incident may parallel various incidents throughout the wide spectrum of politics.
}}
<br />
{{Quote box
|align=center
|width=50%
|bgcolor=#FFFFE6
|title='''Getting an editor blocked or t-banned'''
|quote=If you get an editor blocked or t-banned for expressing their opinion, then you're not helping to build the encyclopedia. You're destroying it. ] ] ] 15:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)<br /><br />
From expressed opinions giant encyclopedias grow... (the link by {{noping|Softlavender}} shared by {{noping|EEng}} in 2019.) 11:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
}}
<br />
{{Quote box
| align=center
| width=50%
| bgcolor=GreenYellow
| title= {{Anchor|DGG}}'''When a few words speak volumes'''
| quote= ] As a separate issue, anything that relies on DS will fail. The only way forward is for arb com to directly regulate conduct by removing prejudiced editors and admins, either from an area or from WP, not trying to adopt rules about just how disruptive they can be. {{pb}}]: Our role is to accurately describe the real world, with the hoped-for result that those wishing to improve it will use the information wisely. Our job is not direct action, except in defense of our right to freely publish.
}}
}}
<br/>
{{Quote box
| align=center
| width=50%
| bgcolor=Yellow
| title = ''Mental Force and the Volitional Brain''
| quote = In fact, the belief that our thoughts can influence our actions is so basic to our entire idea of ourselves and our place in nature, and is so essential to our actual functioning in this world, that any suggestion that
this idea is false would become plausible only under extremely coercive conditions, such as its incompatibility with basic physics. But no such coercion exists. Contemporary physical theory does allow our experiences, per se, to be truly efficacious and non-reducible: our experiences are elements of the causal structure that do necessary things that nothing else in the theory can do. Thus science, if pursued with sufficient care, demands no cloistering of disciplines, or interpretation as user illusions of the apparent causal effects of our conscious thoughts upon our physical actions. ~ <small>Henry P. Stapp, (May 1999), Physics Division, Berkeley National Laboratory, title="Attention, Intention, and Will in Quantum Physics", published in the ''Journal of Consciousness Studies'', {{rp|35}}.</small>
{{center|1={{burma-shave|We are never sure| if a friend's heart is pure | because trust is earned | and I am concerned |that what we know| isn't always so.| layout=vertical}} <small><sup>~</sup> ]</small>}}<br />
"It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do."
– Steve Jobs <br/>{{center|1=}}
}}
{{clear}}
{{Quote box
|align=left
|width=45%
|bgcolor=#FFFFE6
|title=PD download links
|quote=
Following are a few links to freely download CC0 ] images:
*
*
*
}}
{{Quote box
|align=right
|width=45%
|bgcolor=lime
|title=Relaxation
|quote=
I'm leaving link for any editor who may be feeling a little stressed on the job. It has a very calming effect. Relax - enjoy - and once your blood pressure is back where it should be, resume editing.
}}
{{clear}}
<br />
{{center|1=
{{Font color | | pink | Making this page mobile friendly outweighs user friendly, or so I'm told.}}
<br /><br />
{{Anchor|Science}}{{Font color | | turquoise |“Scientific results are always provisional, susceptible to being overturned by some future experiment or observation. Scientists rarely proclaim an absolute truth or absolute certainty. Uncertainty is inevitable at the frontiers of knowledge.”}}
<br /><br />
{{Font color| | yellow |Atsme's contribution to science:<br />
''Life is all about having fun so if you're not living, you're not having any fun.''{{hsp}}] <sub>]</sub> ]}}
<br /><br />
{{Font color| | pink |<big>The most <s>useful</s> used skill I've discovered for ] - ''Alexa, call me.''</big><br /> <small>Now, if I can only get it to work with my keys.</small>}}
<br /><br />
{{Font color| | turquoise |<big>'''Autocorrect has become my worst enema.'''</big>}}
<br /><br />
{{Font color | | yellow |<small>''On a sign at a restaurant in Texas:''</small><br /><big>'''Treat your Mom to a Margarita! You're probably the reason she drinks.'''</big>}}
<br /><br />
{{Font color| | pink |''Research reveals that people who drink heavily are much more likely to experience retrospective memory loss.'' <br /><big>'''Isn't that why we drink?'''</big>}}
<br /><br />
{{Font color | | yellow |<big>'''I can fix stupid, but it's gonna hurt.'''</big>}}
<br /><br />
{{Font color| | turquoise |<big>'''I have never faked a sarcasm in my life!'''</big>}}
<br /><br />
{{Font color | | pink | <big>'''I'm not insulting you, I’m describing you.'''</big>}}
<br /><br />
{{Anchor|Schooling}}{{Font color | | yellow | <big>'''I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.'''</big>
<br />'''(attributed to Mark Twain, but could have been '''}}
<br /><br />
{{Font color| | turquoise |<big>''Atsme is not just a writer, she's award winning...she won a place in the psycho ward.''</big>}}
<br /><br />
{{Anchor|Affect}}{{Font color | | pink | <big>''Ah, the effect of being affected while being affected by the effectiveness of the effect of the affectation of the effector's effective affecting effect. Infective, no?''</big>}}
Make sure your Viagra prescription says ''Made In the USA''<br />
You don't want Russia meddling in your erections.
}}
{{Quote box
| align=right
| width=43%
| bgcolor=lime
| title=The Remodel
| quote=
Shortly after a complete remodel of the master bathroom, a sign hung on the door:<br />
{{center|<big>'''DO NOT DISTURB'''</big>}}
''I am busy masterbathing in my new tub.''
}}
{{Quote box
| align=left
| width=43%
| bgcolor=turquoise
| title=The Wisest Man Who Ever Lived
| quote=
{{Anchor|Wisest}}Dr. Rick Rigsby’s .
I hope you will listen to it.
}}
{{Quote box
| align=right
| width=43%
| bgcolor = pink
| title=When You're Dead
| quote=
When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. All the pain is felt by others.<br />
Same thing happens when you're stupid.
}}
}}
{{Quote box
<!-- ] 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC) -->
| align=right
]
| width=43%
{{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}
| bgcolor=yellow
| title=How Do I Know?
| quote=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.<br />
There has to be some merit to "ignorance is bliss" <sup>]]]</sup><br />
}}
{{Quote box
| align=left
| width=43%
| bgcolor = turquoise
| title=Words
| quote=
People who confuse the words "burro" and "burrow" don't know
their ass from a hole in the ground.
}}
{{Quote box
|align=left
|width=43%
|bgcolor=lime
|title=Racism
|quote= Vir Das on
}}
{{Quote box
| align=right
| width=43%
| bgcolor=pink
| title=Realization
| quote=
And then comes the time when you finally realize that you don't know . ]
}}
{{Quote box
|align=left
|width=43%
|bgcolor=#FFFFE6
|title = Snake in the Bullpen
|quote=
{{Anchor|Snake}}"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." ~]
}}
{{Quote box
| align=right
| width=43%
| bgcolor=lime
| title=Terms We Use
| quote=
We need to rethink some of the terms we use in the . ]
}}
{{Quote box
| align=right
| width=43%
| bgcolor=#FFFFE6
| title=JB's 5-Step Protocol
| quote=
{{Anchor|SJW}}Awaken with JB, episode #88, he is .
}}
{{clear}}
{{Anchor|Rookies}}
{{Quote box
|align=center
|width=85%
|bgcolor=turquoise
|title= You Look Like Rookies
|quote="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 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)
}}
</div>
{{clear}}
<br />
{{center|1={{Font color | | yellow |<big>Carrots may be good for your eyes, but booze will double your vision.</big>}}<p>
{{Font color | | pink |<big>To me, "drink responsibly" means don't spill it.</big>}}</p>}}
{{center|<big><big>'''''Useful quotes relative to WP:PAG'''''</big></big>}}
{{Anchor|Useful quotes}}
{{Quote box
| align=left
| width=45%
| bgcolor=#FFFFE6
| title=To say it in WikiVoice, or not?
| quote= {{Anchor|WikiVoice}}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 Misplaced Pages 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 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." 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. <br /><small>~Jimbo Wales (talk) 9:57 am, 19 June 2018, Tuesday (19 days ago) (UTC−5)</small>
}}
{{Quote box
| align=right
| width=45%
| bgcolor=turquoise
| title={{Anchor|BLP}}To include it in a BLP, or not?
| quote= 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. ~
<small>''(quote by {{noping|Zaereth}} for brevity; {{noping|Jimbo Wales}} with Zaereth’s explanation.)''</small>
}}
{{Quote box
| align=right
| width=45%
| bgcolor=#fee7e6
| title={{Anchor|Politics}}Politics, presidents and NPOV
| quote= 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.<br />--<small> Jimbo Wales (talk)] 3:12 pm, 8 January 2019, Tuesday (UTC−6)</small>
}}
{{Quote box
| align=left
| width=45%
| bgcolor=yellow
| title={{Anchor|IAR}}Deprecated sources & when to IAR
| quote= Jimbo's response to an editor's statement to not cite ] as a source in articles because it has been ].<br /> "No, that is not true. It is true that the Daily Mail is generally prohibited as a source, but in Misplaced Pages terminology that does not mean an absolute ban. Exceptions to the general rule can and do exist, per ] as well as general common sense in specific circumstances."<br /><small>--Jimbo Wales</small>
}}
{{Quote box
| align=right
| width=45%
| bgcolor=#d5fdf4
| title={{Anchor|NYT}}Free thought isn't free anymore
| quote=“I have no beef with my colleagues, many of whom I admire and are friends,” Sullivan tweeted. “The underlying reasons for the split are pretty self-evident.” But he expressed solidarity with Weiss: “The mob bullied and harassed a young woman for thoughtcrimes. And her editors stood by and watched.”
<small>''(Excerpt from )''</small>
}}
{{clear}}
{{Quote box
| align=center
| width=85%
| bgcolor=#eaf3ff
| title={{Anchor|Opponent}}Writing for the opponent
| quote= "Writing for the opponent is an important trait of good editors. They must be able to divorce themselves from their own POV so much that they can bend over backwards to aid in the writing of content which documents views they do not like. They must never block the inclusion of content which opposes their own POV or political positions. If they cannot do this, they should recuse themselves from the topic and edit in other areas. Editors who are unwilling or unable to write for the opponent are incapable of truly understanding or abiding by the NPOV policy. As such they will always cause problems."
<small>''(see ])''</small>
}}
{{clear}}
{{Quote box
| align=center
| width=85%
| bgcolor=#turquoise
| title={{Anchor|liability}}Volunteering
| quote= Please be aware that you are legally responsible for all of your contributions, edits, and re-use of Wikimedia content under the laws of the United States of America and other applicable laws (which may include the laws where you live or where you view or edit content). This means it is important that you use caution when posting content. In light of this responsibility, we have some rules about what you cannot post, most of which is either for your own protection or for the protection of other users like yourself. Please keep in mind that the content we host is for general informational purposes only, so if you need expert advice for a particular question (such as medical, legal, or financial issues), you should seek the help of a licensed or qualified professional. We also include other important notices and disclaimers, so please read these Terms of Use in their entirety. }}
{{Quote box
|align=center
|width=85%
|bgcolor=#FFFFE6
|title={{Anchor|desysop}}When to turn in the bit
|quote= on this are quite simple. An admin telling a user to "grow the fuck up" is absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances and is ground for immediate desysopping. If we care about having a serious, thoughtful, kind, adult and mature community (which I assume was the sentiment behind that unseemly outburst) then we have to model that behavior ourselves as admins. There's a bit of sad irony in behaving in a juvenile and bullying fashion in an attempt to get others to behave better. Bwilkins, I recommend that you turn in your bit and take a break from being an admin for 6 months and then return if you feel you can handle the job in a more responsible fashion.--] (]) 13:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | OK, I hope you're happy with your work, I think it's fabulous! And I'm also glad that we could (resolve? set aside? put on hiatus?) our differences elsewhere and that it led to this accomplishment of yours. Cheers! — ] (]) 19:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
|}
:Thank you, Alf. It means a great deal more to me coming from you. I don't even consider our differences as anything to set aside, much less consider. I learned a great deal from the experience, and thank you kindly. Now then, is the article still supposed to be in my sandbox, or did I screw-up yet again? <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 19:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
{{Quote box
::No, it's normal that it's still in your sandbox. When you move a page out of userspace into mainspace that just happens. You can blank the sandbox version and it won't affect the real version, and then use your sandbox for other stuff. Would you be interested in trying to write a DYK (]) from your new article? It'll get it on the main page for a few hours. That process can be a little overwhelming, I know, but if you'd like to try I can help you, or if you'd like it to happen but don't want to get involved, I can do it for you (which is normal, other people proposing DYKs for new articles).— ] (]) 19:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
|align=left
|width=40%
|title=Sharing health tips with a friend:
|quote=<br />
*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.”<br />
:My friend asked, “When do you drink water?”<br />
:I replied, “I’ve never been that sick.”
}}
{{Quote box
|align=right
|width=40%
|title=My medical entrance exam:
|quote=<br />
When I was young, I decided to enroll in medical school. <br />
On the entrance exam, we were asked to unscramble the letters...
{{center|'''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 Misplaced Pages.
:::I'd love to do something new. If you have the patience to work with me, I'm game. Also, I noticed in the "view history" of my new article, it shows all the edits. Uh oh? Or is that normal? You might want to take a peek at it. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 19:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
{{Quote box
|align=left
|width=40%
|title= {{Anchor|Worms}}Four Worms
|quote=
Four worms were placed in 4 separate test tubes:<br />
*1st in beer
::::It's supposed to show the history, don't worry about that. I'll think about what might be a good hook, and maybe you can read over the instructions at the DYK page. I believe you have 5 days or 10 days or something from when it's moved into mainspace, so it's not a super hurry.— ] (]) 19:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
*2nd in wine
*3rd in whiskey
*4th in mineral water <br />
The next day, the teacher shows the results:<br />
:::::You can take the lead, and just coach me along so I can see first hand how it's done. Is that ok? <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 19:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::OK, will do later today or tomorrow and let you know what's going on.— ] (]) 19:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
*The 1st worm in beer - dead.
I miss your insightfulness, your patience, and your genius, {{u|Alf.laylah.wa.laylah}}. I hope you are checking in from time to time, and will see my post. Please come back soon. <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 20:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
*The 2nd in wine - dead.
*The 3rd in whiskey - dead.
*The 4th in mineral water - alive and in good health. <br />
The teacher asks the class:
== Your ] nomination of ]==
<!-- ] 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC) -->
The article ] you nominated as a ] has passed ]; see ] 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 ] to appear in Did you know.<!-- Template:GANotice result=pass --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 18:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
:For your information, your chain moray eel image is now in . ] (]) 18:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
{{u|Cwmhiraeth}}, thank you for the update, and congratulations on your accomplishments!! <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 03:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
*What did you learn from this experience?<br />
== Gabor B. Racz ==
<!-- ] 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC) -->
Thought of complimenting you for this article. A good one mainly in terms of prose quality. Best --] (]) 19:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
*Whoever drinks beer, wine and whiskey does not have worms.
<!-- ] 15:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC) -->
}}
{{tmbox
|type = notice
|image = ]
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that ''']s''' ''(pictured)'' are "living fossils" that can breathe in both air and water?'' {{#if: |The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].|{{#ifexist:Template:Did you know nominations/Alligator gar|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].|{{#ifexist:Template talk:Did you know/Alligator gar|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].}} }} }} You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], , )</small>, and it may be added to ] 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 ].
}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYKNom --> ] (]) 05:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
{{Quote box
== A kitten for you! ==
|align=right
<!-- ] 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC) -->
|width=40%
]
|title= Wait! There’s more!
Great works!! You have improved a lot....Keep up....
|quote=<br />
<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0em 0em 0.8em,#FF4500 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#90EE90 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#696969"><span style="font-family:Old English Text MT;color:black"><big>]</big></span></font> 15:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
*I know a guy who's addicted to brake fluid. He says he can stop any time.
<br style="clear: both;"/>
{{u|The Herald}} - how sweet - thank you!! And thank you for being so patient and giving of your time. I'm pretty excited about a couple new projects I'm working on offline, and also trying to improve a very inaccurate "start" article that relies heavily on self-published sources, and original research. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 16:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
== Your ] nomination of ]==
<!-- ] 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC) -->
The article ] you nominated as a ] has passed ]; see ] 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 ] to appear in Did you know.<!-- Template:GANotice result=pass --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 00:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
*I stayed up all night to see where the sun went. Then it dawned on me.
== Your ] nomination of ]==
<!-- ] 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC) -->
The article ] you nominated as a ] has passed ]; see ] 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 ] to appear in Did you know.<!-- Template:GANotice result=pass --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 18:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
*This girl said she recognized me from the vegetarian club, but I'd never met herbivore.
{{Did you know nominations/American paddlefish}}
}}
{{Anchor|Education}}{{Quote box
{{Did you know nominations/Bowfin}}
|align=right
|width=40%
|title=Atsme's Education
|quote=
]
}}
</div>
<br />
==DYK for American paddlefish==
<br />
<!-- ] 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC) -->
{{Quote box
{{tmbox
|class = letterhead
|type = notice
|align=center
|image = ]
|width = 35%
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that the elongated rostrum of the planktivorous ''']''' ''(pictured)'' is used like an antenna to locate swarms of zooplankton?'' {{#if: |The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].|{{#ifexist:Template:Did you know nominations/American paddlefish|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].|{{#ifexist:Template talk:Did you know/American paddlefish|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].}} }} }} You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], , )</small>, and it may be added to ] 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 ].
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | To {{u|Atsme}}, an overdue barnstar for the impressive articles she has written on "primitive" fish. Well done! --] (]) 19:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
|}
Thank you kindly, ]. Your recognition is much appreciated. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 22:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
]
==DYK for Bowfin==
<!-- ] 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC) -->
{{tmbox
|type = notice
|image = ]
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that ''']s''' can survive up to five days' exposure to air because they can breathe both air and water?'' {{#if: |The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].|{{#ifexist:Template:Did you know nominations/Bowfin|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].|{{#ifexist:Template talk:Did you know/Bowfin|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].}} }} }} You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], , )</small>, and it may be added to ] 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 ].
}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYKNom --> — ] (]) 14:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hiker responds, "There's no "f" in "way".
==DYK for Synodus intermedius==
<!-- ] 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC) -->
{{tmbox
|type = notice
|image = ]
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that the eyes of the ''']''' ''(pictured)'' have an iridescent surface layer?'' {{#if: |The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].|{{#ifexist:Template:Did you know nominations/Synodus intermedius|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].|{{#ifexist:Template talk:Did you know/Synodus intermedius|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].}} }} }} You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], , )</small>, and it may be added to ] 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 ].
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article ] you nominated for ]-status according to the ]. ] This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. <!-- Template:GANotice --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 09:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
*It is much easier to ride a horse in the direction it is going. ~Abraham Lincoln
*It gets late early out there. ~Yogi Bera
== Your ] nomination of ]==
<!-- ] 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC) -->
The article ] you nominated as a ] has passed ]; see ] 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 ] to appear in Did you know.<!-- Template:GANotice result=pass --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 11:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:{{u|Cwmhiraeth}}, thank you for your tireless efforts. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 22:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
*There comes a time on Misplaced Pages when it's important to know when to stop arguing with editors, and simply let them be wrong. <sup>]]]</sup>
== FA congratulations ==
<!-- ] 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC) -->
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of ] to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon (either on a particular date or on any available date), please nominate it at ]. If you'd like to see an FA appear on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to ]. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with about 1,287 articles ], there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. ]] 10:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:Thank you, {{u|Bencherlite}}. I believe in the DYK/GA/FA process, admire the reviewers for their diligence, and generosity of their time, and hope I will be able to help bring more quality articles to Misplaced Pages. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 12:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
*Nodding the head does not row the boat. — Irish Proverb
==Today's Featured Article: Notification==
<!-- ] 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC) -->
This is to inform you that ], which you nominated at ], will appear on the as ] on 24 December 2014. The proposed main page blurb is ]; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. ] (]) 23:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
*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
Thank you, free at last, for quality articles such as ] and ], written with the background of experience and in the spirit that there's "something indescribable, yet intrinsically beautiful about sharing knowledge", - you are an ]!
*Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want." —Randy Pausch
--] (]) 08:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
</div></div>
One of the best Christmas gifts ever. Thank you {{u|Gerda Arendt}}. It is such an honor to receive this from you!! <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 13:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
*I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short. ~ Blaise Pascal
|<center>'''An image created by you has been promoted to ] status'''</center> Your image, ''']''', was nominated on ], gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at ]. Thank you for your contribution! ] <sup>]</sup> 03:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*A tip for longevity: Never believe the impossible can't happen to you.
==]==
Would please help us to copy edit this article, because we have nominated it for FA.--] (]) 07:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
:{{u|Salman mahdi}}, I would be delighted to help. <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 11:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
::With thanks fore your great helps, just a question, is it finished?--] (]) 06:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
:::{{yo|Salman mahdi}}, I copied the your table to my Sandbox, and will try to make it work per the suggestions of other editors on the TP. I have a little time to do it now. I am pretty sure it will not pass a FA review as it appears now, so I am going to try {{u|Technical 13}}'s approach, eliminate the numbers column and shrink the graphics to see how it all works out. No promises, but I am going to try. {{P|smile}} <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 14:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
*“It is well known that human choices are affected by the way in which a question is phrased.” ~
== Please comment on ] ==
<br />
]
}}
<br />
=={{Anchor|Woke}}How Woke Are We?==
The ] is asking for participation in ]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 23431 --> ] (]) 00:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
<!--] 16:00, 18 October 2030 (UTC) -->
{{talkquote|”The encyclopedia’s reliance on outside sources, primarily newspapers, means it will be only as diverse as the rest of the media—which is to say, not very.” <ref name="Bloomberg 2016">{{cite web | url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-12-22/how-woke-is-wikipedia-s-editorial-pool|title=Is Misplaced Pages Woke? | website=Bloomberg | date=2016-12-22 | access-date=2019-11-23}}</ref>}}
*Re: the above Bloomberg article, "not very" is quite accurate, but I remain cautiously optimistic that once RECENTISM dies down, things will greatly improve.<br />
{{talkquote|"Since decisions are by those who participate in a localized discussion, leaving cedes the decision-making power to those willing to engage in the least logical and sane response. This incentivizes not just obsessive but also belligerent behavior and even harassment, and empowers those privileged with the time and resources to engage in this behavior. Minor quibbles about grammar is one thing, but these techniques are frequently used by political ideologues, ethnic nationalists, and conspiracy theorists. Professor Bryce Peake called this the “hegemony of the asshole consensus.” {{anchor|hegemony}}<ref name="Fernandez 2019">{{cite journal | last=Fernandez | first=Robert | title=The Limits of Volunteerism and the Gatekeepers of Team Encarta · Misplaced Pages @ 20 | journal=Misplaced Pages @ 20 | date=2019-06-02 | url=https://wikipedia20.pubpub.org/pub/k3lmooje | access-date=2019-11-23 | page=}}</ref>}}
== new essay ==
*No need to elaborate further on that particular quote. Some will be able to relate, whereas others will find it insulting. For more info, see . You may decide to submit your own essay. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 14:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The ArbCom case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate ]. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, ] (]) 04:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
=== Putting things in perspective ===
==BLP==
<!--] 16:00, 18 October 2030 (UTC) -->
I'm not entirely clear on how you were connecting Kissinger and Clinton to the subject of the article, but it did appear that the connection to Clinton was OR and a potential BLP vio - you can't connect things like that. As far as Kissinger, I'm assuming the subject's book mentions Kissinger? Or are you saying that both the subject and Kissinger are talking about the same things? ] <small>]</small> 22:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I was reading ] in an attempt to improve my understanding of what happened. Lo and behold, nestled quietly in one of the comments was a wikilink to the essay, ]. The following paragraph drew my undivided attention:
:We'll discuss this here, not on the article talk page. I've asked you a question and I expect an answer if you want to continue discussing this issue. As of right now, I believe you've violated ] and ]; convince me otherwise. ] <small>]</small> 02:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
{{talkquote| Should it happen that a cabal of admins, operating on the talk page of an article or the lion's den of AN/I, manage to block you on an invented charge, the world will continue to turn. The grass will grow, the birds will lay eggs, the number of Pokémon-related articles will still double every 1.7 weeks, and articles on weathermen will be brought to AfD. Sure, it won't be done as smoothly and as elegantly as when you did it, but it will be done. This encyclopedic project will continue to turn. Sad, but true.}}
] <sub>]</sub> ] 05:47, November 30, 2019
:Darn it. Is ]?? ] (]) 12:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
:{{u|Dreadstar}}, I would not/have not ever used SYNTH to create a noncompliant POV passage in an article, and I don't intend to start now. My response addressed contentious statements that were made in this BLP, which actually are violations you may have overlooked. My post addressed the criticism of my proposed lead which was called, "substantially worse", . It is a far reach to think anyone could believe the Fed is "a perfectly normal central bank and no more embroiled in controversy than the Bundesbank or the Bank of England". The NWO allegation was as equally unsupported as was the Fed Reserve gaffe.
{{sources-talk}}
<br />
{{Gallery
:Every single edit I've attempted to make at Griffin has been reverted, and that is an issue that needs to be investigated because it is a behavioral issue, not a content issue. How could an admin not see the obvious concerted effort that has prevented me from improving/expanding this start-class BLP to GA? <s>I've included some diffs below to substantiate my position</s> in addition to the fact no progress has been made in the past 3 months to expand the article. Quite the reverse because it became the topic of an AfD. Connect the dots, and explain how such activity is helping the project? Coatracks and attack pages are supposed to receive immediate attention, which is what happened at Griffin, except it received immediate protection as a Coatrack. <s>I provided a few more diffs below to give you an idea of why</s> no progress has been/will be made at Griffin until certain behavioral issues are resolved. Will Griffin remain a Coatrack, or will it advance to GA review? {{u|Carrite}} who has created and/or collaborated on over 100 biographies and at least 50 BLPs pretty well summed it up well in his statement at the recent AfD request: .
|title=Atsme's Photo Gallery
|width=200
|height=220
|align=center
|File:ShadowFlowersText.jpg|alt1=shadowed vase of artificial flowers|Life's lessons supported by empirical evidence.
|File:Flamingo heart 12-2020.jpg|alt2=two flamingos head to head with necks heart-shaped |Spread the love.
|File:Moonlight between the towers.jpg|alt3=A full moon shining between the peaks of two sandstone towers in Arches National Park|Moonlit night at ], a labyrinth of sandstone towers. This picture ]
|File:Complaints take a number.jpg|alt4=ANI, AN complaints with an image of a hand grenade with a number 1 tag attached to the pull pin, words read "take a number".|All's fair in love and war.
}}
{{clear}}
== ] ==
:In response to your question, Griffin does mention Kissinger in his book, and also quoted him. Much of the information in Griffin's book cites substantial documentation and historical events, some of which originated with Kissinger. In ''Creature'', (which is available in an online archive), there is a chapter titled the New World Order which quotes Kissinger's article in the LA Times titled, "With NAFTA, U.S. Finally Creates a New World Order." Griffin didn't make this stuff up. His book hasn't been a business best seller all these years because it's filled with garbage conspiracy theories as what his critics and political opponents choose to believe, but it isn't our job to prove or debunk - only to write about it based on RS. David Barstow, Pulitzer winning editor for the NYTimes, said in an interview, "You need to know who Edward Griffin is, and how his book ''The Creature from Jekyll Island'' plays into this." The WSJ and Forbes has written about the book, and it is also on the list of recommended reading at various universities. If major players in the world of finance write about and recommend the book, it would be foolish of us to downplay it as something only aluminum hat wearers take seriously.
Hi Atsme, Hope you are doing OK.
: See BUILDING THE NEW WORLD ORDER (113):
I have recently created an article ], which I think may interest you, and you may wish to comment or edit it. Cheers, · · · ] ]: 04:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{talkquote|Applying this same perspective to the NAFTA treaty, former Secretary-of-State, Henry Kissinger (CFR), said it "is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system.... the vital first step for a new kind of community of nations." The newspaper article that contained this statement was appropriately entitled: "With NAFTA, U.S. Finally Creates a New World Order." David Rockefeller (CFR) was even more emphatic. He said that it would be "criminal" not to pass the treaty because: "Everything is in place — after 500 years — to build a true 'new world' in the Western Hemisphere." By early 1994, the drift toward the New World Order had become a rush. On April 15, the government of Morocco placed a full-page ad in the New York Times celebrating the creation of the World Trade Organization which was formed by the signing of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) which took place in the Moroccan city of Marrakech. While Americans were still being told that GATT was merely a "trade" agreement, the internationalists were celebrating a much larger concept. The ad spelled it out in unmistakable terms: <br> • Toyoo Gyohten and Charles E. Morrison, Regionalism in A Converging World LMw York: Trilateral Commission, 1992, pp. 4, 7-9,11.</br><br>r » w i t h n a f t a , U.S. Finally Creates a New World Order, " by Henry Kissinger, Los Angeles Times, July 18,1993, pp. M-2, 6. </br><br>• A Hemisphere in the Balance," by David Rockefeller, Wall Street Journal, October 1,1993, p. A-10.</br>}}
:Reviewed it, and making a few minor tweaks. I'm loving AI for that very purpose. ] ] ] 13:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
:<s>While you're investigating the false allegation of a potential BLP violation on my part, please take a moment to review a few diffs I provided below, and consider restoring my comments at the TP because I am at a loss to understand how a BLP violation actually occurred. The sentiment expressed in the following diffs is still very much alive, and I actually do have more recent diffs, but there's not need to provide them all. If your intention for taking over Callan's lead on Griffin is to create a productive working environment, then I hope you are successful in managing the behavior of the most aggressive opponents so proficient prose writers can get to work improving/expanding this BLP. Also, when/if you get a chance, take a quick look at the Griffin edit history, and see how many of my edits were reverted, and how many were actually allowed to remain. Also see who writes prose, and who simply hangs out to revert the work of others.</s>
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
:Thanks for all the work you do and the time you put into it. <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 03:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
*Thanks for your response re: Kissinger; but I don't see a comment about Clinton - please clarify the connection between the subject of the article and Clinton. As for the rest, I've already explained that we're moving forward and I'll address violations as they occur. And no, I'm not taking over Callan's lead, I'm providing assistance where I can. ] <small>]</small> 04:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
</div>
Excuse me, Dreadstar, but I'm pinging {{u|Callanecc}} to come review this conversation because I think it warrants his attention. You accused me of violating OR which is a pretty farfetched accusation considering OR does not apply to TP. ] {{xt|(This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)}} I'm a little concerned over your behavior right now, especially under the circumstances. You still haven't explained why you think a BLP violation occurred. I don't believe I violated BLP policy, but I'm not sure about the behavior of the other editors whose posts you erased from the record. If no violation occurred, don't you think you should restore them? I don't appreciate being wrongfully accused, it is very hurtful and was unwarranted - and it is the kind of behavior you are here to prevent, not commit. If you think I violated BLP, then you are obligated to explain why you think such a violation occurred. As far as I can tell, I'm the only one you've accused of violating policy, even though you deleted the comments made by Guy and SPECIFICO.
</div>
*(cur | prev) 17:16, March 23, 2015 Dreadstar (talk | contribs) . . (134,233 bytes) (-2,234) . . (→Proposal for lead: rem WP:OR and potential WP:BLP violation)
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1258243506 -->
*(cur | prev) 15:58, March 23, 2015 Atsme (talk | contribs) . . (135,696 bytes) (+1,463) . . (→Proposal for lead: read the following articles, one of which Griffin cites in his book Creature)
== November thanks ==
I am waiting for your explanation, please. <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 05:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
{{User QAIbox
:::Hello Atsme, I got curious about what thise whole Griffin thing is about and have been reading. Now I think some of my confusion came because something got deleted from the talk page before I saw it. For talk pages the policy is "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Pay particular attention to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons, which applies to talk pages as well as to articles: "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page."
| image = Apple tree in field, detail, Ehrenbach.jpg
| image_upright = 0.8
| bold = ] · ] · ]
}}
Thank you for improving articles in November! --] (]) 17:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I uploaded pics of a trip that was a 10-day celebration of a 16 November event, but the day was also when a dear friend died. We sang ] at his funeral yesterday, and it was good. --] (]) 20:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Was something said on the talk page which was an unsourced attack on a living person? I think a lot of people check talk pages to get the "real scoop" so that's why we have to be careful there as well as on the main article. I wish everyone involved with this would stop being so secretive and discuss the problems openly but I also see that the BLP rules might be the reason why this isn't/can't happen? Anyway this is me assuming good faith. ] (]) 17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
::::The deleted text made it seem as though Kissinger and Clinton were in agreement with the subject of the article. I'm very sensitive about potential BLP issues, so removed the text until it could be investigated. I'm concerned that posting comments ''about'' Kissinger from the subject's self-published books violates BLP. The other concern is that because Clinton commented on a book, and the subject commented on a book with no RS to make the connection between the two, it violated ] and therefor a ] violation. ] <small>]</small> 19:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::I think the bottom line here is atsme shouldn't mention kissinger, clinton (not sure which one) or any living person without also saying what source is being used to discuss. I got curious like a cat and wanted to know what the problem was so I can look for reliable sources that may solve the problem but things being deleted make it hard to tell. And I don't want to go around insulting living people, criticisms are valid if they have a reliable source but what is the source? I too am curious now, what does Clinton have to do with this, if anything, and are we talking Bill, Hillary etc? I know there's a connection where both G Edward and Bill learned from Carroll Quigley but that's not really a notable connection. ] (]) 19:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
*Youseemtobeavoidingmyrequestforhow you connectedClinton to thesubjectofthearticle. ] <small>]</small> 18:55, 24March2015 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your user on the FA Nominations article was hoping you would be able to copyedit an article I’m trying to promote to FA-Class. Thank you! ] (]) 16:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:Apologies, {{u|19Arham}}, but I am unavailable until January 6, 2025. ] ] ] 17:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Dread, first of all, I've been waiting for your explanation which I requested above. Secondly, I can't explain how I did something I didn't do. Third, it appears you are jumping to conclusions that cannot be substantiated by the posts you deleted. My suggestion would be for you to stop pursuing this line of questioning, especially considering you made a false allegation of policy violations against me based on (1) OR policy which does not apply to TP, and (2) a BLP violation that does not exist. Based on the aforementioned, it is beginning to look a bit like ], and I'm sure that wasn't your intent. Please show me what made you draw the conclusion that I may have committed a BLP violation. You also need to cite the portion of the policy you think supports your statements. <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>[[User talk:Atsme|<font
color="green"><sup>Consult</sup></font>]] 20:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
:To answer your question about why I deleted the comments of others, it was a necessary step in order to remove the BLP violating material from the talk page history, it had nothing to do with what the other editors posted. It may be that it's all fine and not a BLP vio, but I need to be sure. ] <small>]</small> 21:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
==Io Saturnalia!==
::I am still waiting for your explanation regarding why you accused me of an OR and BLP violation when you should have known that OR does not apply to TP. I realize we all make mistakes, so I'll excuse that one for now, but you still need to explain the BLP accusation, and further explain why you are carrying on the discussion at the TP after you told me to respond to you here. <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 23:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
:::Yes, OR doesn't apply to talk pages - I never said it did - but you used OR to craft your comments that Clinton and Kissinger agreed or had the same views as Griffin, this violates BLP. There was no mistake on my part. I continue to discuss it on the article talk page because other editors asked about it after my general warning and notification about the removal. In order to comment about Clinton/Kissinger as it may relate to Griffin, you'll need high quality third party sources, and I don't see those kinds of sources presented. ] <small>]</small> 00:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
::::You are absolutely incorrect, and apparently not interested in discussing your mistake in a rational way, much less admitting you made one. I will file the case at AN, and you can explain it there. <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 01:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::Unfortunate. I was attempting to help you. File away, but realize at AN you will definitely need to explain how you connected Clinton with Griffin; hope you have an answer that doesn't involve OR; and you will need show why a primary selfpub source should be used to make claims about what Kissinger (a BLP) thinks. I wish you the best of luck with this. ] <small>]</small> 01:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}Filing an AN is the last thing I want to do, but you kept pushing even after I explained. I've put up with 3 months of Guy's behavior, and the thought of having to deal with another admin who misinterprets my work took me back a step. You actually appear to be confused over the fact that OR and SYNTH do '''not apply''' to TP. Your argument is not substantive, and in fact irrelevant, which means there was no policy violation. You '''assumed''' I was making some kind of connection by mentioning Kissinger and Clinton. That can't be farther from the truth because that wasn't my intent at all. I was simply trying to make Guy understand that he has to stop calling Griffin names - it's defamatory, libelous, and I will eventually prove that what he is doing is a violation of policy. You cannot state in Wiki voice that Griffin is a conspiracy theorist without RS that support such a statement. Griffin wrote a single chapter about the new world order in his business best selling book that has remained a top seller for YEARS. Guy shot down my proposed lead because it didn't include the paragraph on the NWO, and he included some other comments that were hurtful to me. Look at his statement. It's the contentious labels that need your attention, not me pointing out that Griffin isn't the only one who has ever written about the new world order or a world order. There are other reputable authors like Kissinger, and even Clinton who wrote a review in Kissinger's book about a world order, and elaborated on it in the link I provided. It wasn't SYNTH, and it certainly wasn't a BLP violation. The fact that Griffin quoted Kissinger in his chapter has nothing to do with Clinton or what I attempted to show Guy, but the fact that you keep trying to connect the two is the SYNTH, and the fact that SPECIFICO falsely accused and caused you to do what you're doing is actionable. If you truly want to be helpful at Griffin, then investigate the real BLP violations in the lead, starting with the poorly sourced second sentence that is stated in Wiki voice. If you don't have a full understanding of RS and how they are used then I will be happy to help you. You actually owe me an apology for your accusations, and you should probably be a little upset if you've been prodded by the opposition. I have done my best to maintain a good record writing GAs and FAs - it gives me something to do with all the extra time semi-retirement has afforded me. I've been a successful publisher/writer/producer for over 30 years, and I have written enough bios on notable celebrities to know full well what I'm doing as a volunteer here on WP. I also have a very good understanding of ], and all that is associated with it, so please don't be concerned about me violating BLP policy. 02:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, it appears that reliable sources used in the article call Griffin the same names Guy does. Again, I have not said OR applies to talk pages. Anything in the article that mentions Clinton or Kissinger need to have high quality third party sources that talk about Clinton or Kissinger ''in direct relation'' to Griffin - and that ''does'' apply to talk pages; I'd recommend not using OR to post things on talk pages that lack reliable sources to back them up - even tho OR doesn't apply to talk pages, it can easily lead to BLP violations - sorry I've been unable explain how that works. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term OR, even to that's exactly what I'm referring to. And WP:LIBEL is a bit different than WP:BLP, there's more to BLP. Anyway, file what you will, propose what you will and good luck with it. And no need to post any "I've replied" on my talk page, I still have your talk page watchlisted. ] <small>]</small> 02:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}You said "it appears that reliable sources used in the article call Griffin the same names Guy does". With all due respect, Dreadstar, that is actually part of the problem. Are you of the mind that because a RS defames and/or discredits a living person that it's okay for WP to do the same? In an effort to help you acquire a little more in-depth understanding of why BLP policy requires strict adherence to "all applicable laws in the United States", you might want to read the following rather interesting articles, (and please don't try to make this falsely appear as a legal threat because it is not). I'm simply trying to help you understand why contentious statements like quack and quackery used in Wiki voice may be considered libelous. Example: "In the rare cases where courts have not protected terms like “quack,” they were used in a context specifically suggesting untrue facts. See, e.g., Nasr v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, 632 F.Supp.1024 (E.D. IL 1986) (though calling a doctor a “quack” has been found to be protected opinion, when used in manner suggesting false underlying facts, it was actionable)." . It is much better to use statements that are of a higher encyclopedic quality, such as "not scientifically supported", or "not approved by the FDA": ] , , .
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. ] (]) 14:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
|}
Awww,,,thank you {{noping|Ealdgyth!!}} - same to you and yours! ] ] ] 20:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Do you believe the second sentence in the lead is reliably sourced, and that it is justifiable to state in Wiki voice that his book "promotes conspiracy theories"?
Let's examine those two sources:
*Footnote 1 - ''Media Matters'' has proclaimed its partisanship as a "progressive research and information center" that is basically out to discredit their opposition, or what they consider to be correcting "conservative misinformation". Griffin is clearly of a political persuasion they are biased against. We identify the latter as a COI per ] which makes Media Matters a questionable source for making libelous, contentious statements in Misplaced Pages’s voice. See ] "It is important to note that a conflict of interest exists whether or not decisions are affected by a personal interest; a conflict of interest implies only the potential for bias, not a likelihood." A questionable source is '''not''' a RS. There is no ambiguity in this policy.
*] clearly states (my bold) {{xt|We must get the article right. Be very '''firm about the use of high-quality sources.''' All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a '''reliable''', published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.}} Again, questionable sources are not reliable sources.
*] clearly states (my bold) {{xt|Questionable sources - Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or '''have an apparent conflict of interest.''' Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. '''Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves''', especially in articles about themselves; see below. '''They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.'''}} I was actually pushing the envelope to include any contentious material in my proposal for the lead, but I did so in an effort to appease the opposition. I used an inline text attribution, but even then, Guy turned it down ] behavior, and that's sad because there was no basis for him to do so.
== New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive ==
*Footnote 2 - "Paul Out to Slay The Creature from Jekyll Island". USA Daily. August 22, 2007. Archived from the original on October 16, 2007. Retrieved 2008-03-02. Griffin, in ‘The Creature from Jekyll Island’ documents an organized and successful attempt to seize control over the U.S. monetary system by powerful American and European banking families. ... The second cited source '''does not support any of the contentious material in the article''', especially the one made in Wiki voice. The article makes no mention of a “ conspiracy theory”, and actually contradicts the claim that the book “promotes conspiracy theories”. Explain how it can be used to cite contentious material.
{{talkquote|A common misconception is that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on ''how it is used''. This board cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes. Some of the most important guidelines for evaluating the use of ''specific sources'' to support ''specific claims'' can be found in ]. (Of course, a source can be reliable for a particular claim and yet still be omitted from an article for reasons of (ir)relevance, undue weight, or to avoid ''implying'' conclusions not actually supported. The greater context of the article matters.)}}
| rowspan=3 | ]
|-
I look forward to seeing how you will handle the current BLP violations in the lead since you are "very sensitive about potential BLP issues". <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 05:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
|
* On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
:Hello {{ping|Atsme}}.23:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC) What is ''USA Daily'' and why do you feel it's RS here? You appear to be acting in good faith, but it looks to me as if you're being selective and biased in your appeals to policy. ]] 13:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
* Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
::Atsme, it would be super if you'd reply to my question about that ''USA Daily'' reference. Thanks. ]] 21:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
* Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
:::No problem, {{u|SPECIFICO}}. You asked, "What is ''USA Daily'' and why do you feel it's RS here?" First of all, I don't see how I could answer your question since it is based in an erroneous accusation, and does not relate to anything I stated. Read my comment above regarding Footnote 2. Perhaps you should ask the editor who cited that source for a passage in the lead it does not support. I'll ask you again to stop making spurious allegations against me like the one you just made about me being ''selective and biased'' in my appeals to policy, especially when such an allegation is based on your own misinterpretation of the information I've provided. <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 23:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
* ] will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive.
::::Atsme, I'll take your response as a concession that ''USA Daily'' is not RS to support any legitimacy for the ''Jekyll Island'' book. Please review this thread. I did not make any accusation, erroneous or otherwise. Just asked you a question. I also made a comment about how your behavior appears to me. That was just a statement about me, not a judgment of you, and while I wish you'd consider it, you are free to reject and ignore it. ]] 01:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
* Barnstars will also be granted for ] previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
:::::{{u|SPECIFICO}}, do not take my response as anything but what it actually is, which is nothing like what you stated. The passage sourced by ''USA Daily'' states: {{xt|He is the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which promotes conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve System. }} The context of conspiracy theories in that passage is a contentious statement in Wiki voice which incorrectly states as fact that the book "promotes conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve System". Show me where in ''USA Daily'' it states the book promotes conspiracy theories. <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 08:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
* Interested in taking part? ''']'''.
::::::Atsme, as I've already said, I believe you are trying in good faith to collaborate on this article. I don't have any concerns as to your sincerity. However you are failing, over and over, to stay on topic in straightforward discussion threads. You've spilled billions of electrons conflating the RfC concerning a single lede sentence with other, larger issues as to other article text or Mr. Griffin's notability. In the current instance, I asked you a single question, and you've deflected and equivocated without responding. You cite footnote 2 in this thread above. I don't believe that footnote 2 gives a ] source. It appears to link to a defunct internet site with a plausible sounding but irrelevant name, ''USA Daily''. Because you refer to this source in your discourse above, I asked you to provide information about this site and your reason for believing that it is qualified to support article content concerning ''Jekyll''. Did you uncritically accept that footnote as RS for the sentence it supports, or did you consider the source and the article text and conclude that it was good RS? If the latter, could you please explain your reasoning? If you're unable to engage in this kind of detailed discussion of the issues, you're not going to be successful in your efforts to recast the article to what you consider improvements. Thanks. ]] 13:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself ]
{{od}} {{u|SPECIFICO}}, based on my past experiences with you, your current line of incomprehensible, misdirected questioning and the manner in which you have chosen to denigrate me, your intentions here are dubious at best, and I question whether you are acting in good faith, so let me be clear - I do not appreciate being castigated, denigrated, or falsely accused of doing something I did not do, especially here on my own TP. The spurious allegations you made above are unwarranted, including: {{xt|"you are failing, over and over, to stay on topic in straightforward discussion threads", and "You've spilled billions of electrons conflating the RfC", and "I asked you a single question, and you've deflected and equivocated without responding"}}. I asked you once before to not bring article discussions to my TP, . In that same discussion, you attempted to denigrate me with unwarranted accusations of ] and ]. Perhaps you should examine your own behavior because your criticism of me is clearly the result of your own misconceptions, and in this particular case, of what I clearly explained above in my initial thread to Dreadstar. . I was the one who questioned the reliability of the sources that are currently being used to cite the 2nd sentence of the lead. I even went to the trouble of dissecting the '''unreliability of their intended use.''' With the latter in mind, why on earth are you asking me, {{xt|"Did you uncritically accept that footnote as RS for the sentence it supports, or did you consider the source and the article text and conclude that it was good RS? If the latter, could you please explain your reasoning?"}} The questions defy logic and so does the fact that I've spent as much time as I have responding to them. It helps explain why I am constantly having to repeat myself, so here it goes again, only this time in bold so you'll be sure to see it...'''I don't see how I could answer your question since it is based in an erroneous accusation, and does not relate to anything I stated. Read my comment above regarding Footnote 2.''' The wording of your questions may be polite, but that doesn't make them any less irrelevant or misdirected. I will also repeat what I said to you in an earlier conversation, and will add another qualifier, this time in bold so you'll be sure to see it: '''Do not respond to article questions on my TP, and do not ask article questions on my TP. Confine your responses and questions to the relevant article TP.''' The sun is shining, the ocean is blue, and I've got things to do. ] <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 19:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
|}
] (]) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:That's quite an interesting read! And thanks for the barnstar. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 12:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=1263150419 -->
== Infallible's table ==
I started a new table using all of the information you already had. I fixed a few of the problems you were having formatting the table. I removed from the captions and headings the CE and AH. I instead put this in the section below with wikilinks. It just makes the hearer look cleaner. I split off the date of death section and I combined the place of burial section. I moved cause and place of death to being a footnote before the source of the date of death. You can either finish my code if you like, change it as you wish, or adapt it into the table you already have. I posted my work in your sandbox.] (]) 22:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
:If you have any questions in regard to this code feel free to ping me.] (]) 22:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
::Thank you, {{u|Serialjoepsycho}}, wondering if you had a chance to look at the table Technical 13 proposed at the article's TP? Another editor also suggested that we eliminate the number column, and make the graphic 50px instead of 100px to accommodate cell phones and the like. They will be so happy to know the table issue may be resolved. More tomorrow. <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 03:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
:::I did and started making one based off Technical 13 that cleaned it up more. Then I saw SchroCat comments. Since Schrocat is a delegate for the featured list director, he offers a pretty reliable view. I've asked him a few questions in regards. But here's what I did with technical 13's example ]. ] (]) 03:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Sweet! Just one question, {{u|Serialjoepsycho}} - don't you think the caption ''Importance'' should be flush left like the way T13 had it? <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 05:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::It was flush on my end of the computer. I posted a stripped down table to your sandbox. You will be able to maintain the current level of information but now most of it has been shifted to prose. The depiction has a section, all of the biographical details have one section except for the titles, they maintain their own section. This should render a clean and with a uniform aesthetic across devices and if should be universally accessible to all readers. This allow you to maintain the images at current levels. ] (]) 17:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
== Arbitration Case Opened ==
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 20:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC) ] (]) 20:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
== ] opened ==
Pursuant to section 3a of ], you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, --''']''' (] / ] / ]) by ] (]) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:L235@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:L235/Sandbox2&oldid=653246175 -->
== quick note ==
i received a notification when you created ]. Just a quick note that per ] it is fine to build such a list, but you must use it timely. interesting reading, in any case. ] (]) 22:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
:for some reason i don't fathom, . i don't mind if Atsme deletes it, that is a sign that she read it. but this is not a personal attack and there is no justification for removing it. ] (]) 02:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
::{{tps}}What a horrible page. Why do I only get four mentions? After all, I gave you popcorn !! -] (]) 02:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:::Your popcorn was too salty for me. (imaginary smiley emoji) <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 07:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
== try to duplicate ==
]
Now is the time ]]]]
Yep - did it again - one rogue crying emoji (which sounds better than "crying smiley"). Sucker appeared out of nowhere under the section title. I never clicked on it. I only clicked on 4, but got 5. They appear to remain only within a section, so if it's a long section, the rogue emojis will move all the way up near the section title, and if it's a subsection title, it will actually push it out of the way. Cause: shrinking active window using a mouse grab to size it. Emojis bunched up like before. Interesting.
Remedy: don't use emojis when you shrink window size. Definitely don't use console emojis when they are piled on top of each other.
Glad I was able to duplicate it....I think. <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 07:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
== You are wrong ==
It's not that I have no intention of collaborating to make the Griffin article a GA, I just have no intention of helping you make it a "Nice Article", i.e. a whitewash. The material you keep asserting violates policy, does not seem to others to violate policy - you are pretty much the only one who thinks it does, and you consistently fail to persuade others. Griffin is notable only as a crank. Anything that obscures that fact, is a betrayal of Misplaced Pages's core goals. Remember, I wrote the standard advice to biography subjects, I am very very familiar with policy on this. I know you reject these facts, and I have no intention of having yet another sterile debate, but you really do need to stop stating your opinion as if it were immutable fact, because it isn't: you are demonstrating ill-faith while accusing others of failing to assume it. I am, by now, at a loss to understand why an otherwise decent editor would press so long and so hard against such robust opposition in pursuit of a goal which would serve only to buff up the reputation of someone who not only promotes the worst scam ever perpetrated on American cancer victims, but who also promotes chemtrails, AIDS denialism, 9/11 "Truth" and numerous other forms of craziness. I don't even think he's a notable crank, certainly mainstream sources all but ignore him, but if we are to document him, then it will be as what he is: a crank. {{redacted|One of a long and glorious tradition of .}} <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:What you consider to be a "Nice Article" is actually NPOV. Inclusion of the man's views with a brief explanation of where they originated is BALANCE. I believe in the sharing of information which cannot be achieved when there is censorship. I research and write about the information I find in RS, with the level of reliability dependent on the information I intend to include, all of which is based on the greater context of the article. Guy, I've enjoyed a long and successful career as writer for print and television. It's part of the reason I was able to take a very early retirement and enjoy a much slower paced existence on this beautiful planet. When I started editing WP, I did so with the intention of staying in practice, helping others, and filling a void between projects. Who knows what the future holds? All I know for sure is that I'm spending the bulk of my time enjoying the beautiful blue Caribbean on a small Dutch island. I'm not about to let our disagreements get in the way of what life is all about. I'm also not going to alter my core beliefs or who I am as a person. I recognize that I'm outnumbered, and that you're an admin with tenure, so you probably will get Griffin promoted to GA. Happy editing! Quite frankly, I've grown weary of all the spurious allegations and ill-conceived interpretations of my intent and what I've written. Our interpretations of policy are quite different. The passages I wrote in Griffin (all of which were deleted) demonstrate my intent, ability as a writer, willingness to collaborate, and the attempts I've made to compromise. I certainly don't have an agenda, or anything to prove.
:*
:*]
:Hey, the sun is shining and I'm headed out the door to catch some rays! ] <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 14:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
::You cannot deny that Guy and the rest of us have a different interpretation of policy in this regard than yourself. The only editors who might be said to support you regarding the way the Griffin BLP is written are newbies who, like yourself, do not understand that that we must do BLP's from a mainstream pov. Removing unpleasant facts central to the BLP because you don't think we should state them, justified by special pleading and strange interpretations of WP:PAG by you, will not be accepted. If making that article a GA (why did you choose this fellow anyway?) means a whitewash of the BLP, then Guy, myself and many many others will not allow that to happen. We will merely have a good article, instead of a "Good Article" I wish you would stop the IDHT behaviour, and Droppit. Please. -] (]) 15:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
<small> Hey, Atsme, there is an awful yellow zit at the bottom right of this page. -] (]) 15:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)</small>
{{od}}Roxy, the editors who supported my position in one way or another, mostly coincidentally, regarding the major NPOV issues at Griffin are editors with far more WP experience than I, including {{u|Nyttend}}, the administrator who closed the RfC, and is ranked #89 ]. There's also {{u|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )}}, a 10 year WP veteran who is ranked #96 ], and {{u|Carrite}} who has created or collaborated on over 100 biographies, and {{u|Srich32977}}, who has over 80,000 edits with some GAs under his belt, and {{u|Collect}} who is a prolific writer, fully understands NPOV, and earned the Quarter Million Award for an article he promoted to GA. For you to call them newbies is really reaching, don'cha think? I may be new to editing WP, but I am not new to writing biographies, and I can also proudly say that as a WP newbie, I am ], and it feels pretty darn good. I highly recommend the process. Therefore, your statement that ''The only editors who might be said to support you regarding the way the Griffin BLP is written are newbies'' is, well, read the section title because it actually applies to you far better than it does me.
You also alleged, ''Removing unpleasant facts central to the BLP because you don't think we should state them''. Well, my response is best demonstrated here: . I never suggested removing facts. I did rephrase the 30+ year old derogatory terminology and replaced it with 21st century language which I would think accomplished editors and prolific prose writers would be inclined to consider ''proper scientific and/or encyclopedic terminology.'' Believe it or not, but defamatory slurs that were popular 30+ years ago are rarely used today, except for the occasional roll off the lips of some comedians who push the envelope, and depending on the slur, are still popular with bigots, or biased pundits and the like. But while we are on the subject of ''facts'', not only did I include essential facts you claim I removed, I included additional facts from the other side of the isle as well because they related to views of the BLP. It's called BALANCE, and I didn't present the information with UNDUE, either. My presentation was '''fact-based''' and it was relevant, not a whitewash as you alleged. Whether you agree with its inclusion or not, such '''facts''' are relevant, including the '''fact''' that Richardson wrote a book, and he happened to be the physician who prompted Griffin to write his book, ''World Without Cancer'', whether we agree with its contents or not. WP doesn't censor information that belongs in the BLPs about pornographers, serial killers, controversial activists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, or any other notable person. The information I wanted to include is important information that has relevance to the views of the subject, and it belongs in this BLP. The fact it was deleted smells a lot like the result of, as you put it, ''strange interpretations of WP:PAG.'' Instead of posting your POV judgement on my TP with your finger pointed at me, I ''consult you'' to stand in front of a mirror. If you truly believe Griffin is a "good article" as written, I challenge you to get the FA review team over there, and see if they also support your belief. Surprise me. <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 22:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
:::<sup>I have the perfect home remedy for that zit.</sup> ]
::You keep saying that they supported your view, but actually they supported only the narrow and extremely specific issue of removing the words "conspiracy theorist" from the first sentence. This doesn't mean we can't call him a conspiracy theorist elsewhere in the article, or even mention that he promotes conspiracy theories in the first sentence. If you wanted to assess consensus for your view that virtually all mention of the refuted, nonsensical and crazy nature of his beliefs be excised, then you should have asked that question. You didn't. Instead you asked one question and assumed that the answer covers your entire crusade, when many others much more experienced than you, as you would put it, have told you in no uncertain terms that it does not. Griffin is a crank, we describe him as a crank, anything else would be an abject failure of NPOV. You insist that he is notable, and not as a crank. I don't even think he';s notable, not even as a crank. My view is that we should not write biographies of controversial people until they have been the primary focus of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Griffin has not been. Most of the sources only even mention his book in passing. This is notability by inheritance at second hand, from other well-known loons like Glenn Beck. Unfortunately when you were presented with the opportunity to remove the article, which is the ''only'' way we can deal with Griffin in line with NPOV without mentioning the fact that he is a crank who advocated one of the worst health frauds ever perpetrated, you chose to oppose it. I regret that you did this. You can request DRV and show that the strength of policy-based argument was in favour of deletion, noting the weakness of the sources proposed for inclusion, and that's about all you can do by this point. I'll help you do that and support the nomination if you like. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
:::<small> Its OK - I will send some reiki healing. You'll be right. -] (]) 00:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)</small>
:::::<sup>Uhm, reiki? I like roku healing better, and I can do it wearing sunglasses so that zit doesn't blind me. And I can have my popcorn and eat it, too. It's all good. <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 12:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)</sup>
Guy, if you're still not convinced of the NPOV and RS issues that actually have created UNDUE and noncompliance, just scroll through the edit histories of Griffin Talk, the RfC, the AfD, and the article.
*, (also see the diff I provided above) pay attention to why Nyttend made his edits.
*The RfC question was indeed designed to be limited to the first sentence, and it was done despite my objections and attempt to include a neutral alternate question per RfC guidelines.
*I was asked (and expected) to revert the alternate question and move it to its own subsection.
*I don't see how NPOV changes according to where it appears in an article. If contentious material stated in Wiki voice is determined to be noncompliant with NPOV in the first sentence, then it is also noncompliant in the second, third, fourth or whatever sentence in whatever paragraph. If you think not, then show me the policy that supports your position. My only concern is strict adherence to BLP policy.
*You are still trying to convince me and others that my interpretations of BLP and NPOV are wrong, even though they are very similar to the interpretations of the above named editors and others who attempted to clean-up the article. The evidence is in their edit summaries and comments on the TP (excluding the RfC), so your allegations that I had no support are unwarranted as demonstrated by these diffs: , ,
*I've actually lost count of the number of times you've accused me of being wrong and told me to stop editing Griffin, but I easily found three diffs: .
Jiminy Cricket, Guy, how is such behavior helpful to productive collaboration? Just look at what you're doing here now. I've asked you numerous times to show me the diffs, policy and RS that support your position. Where are they, Guy? Some of WP's most prolific BLP editors have abandoned editing this article, and I can only guess why, but based on my own experiences and how I've been treated, well, the answer is quite evident.
*Please stop misrepresenting my edits and intent. You are casting aspersions and getting away with it, and I am growing weary of this double standard. It is quite frustrating to try and improve/expand an article to GA when you're constantly making unwarranted allegations. ], Guy. It's time to straddle a live horse, .
* you focused on the few DELETEs at the AfD that supported your view and ignored the numerous '''substantive''' KEEPs.
*. You edited without consensus, and then falsely accused me of doing so despite the fact I was the only one submitting proposals at the time as evidenced in these diffs:
* Nice, nice when Richard first started editing Griffin which is as it should be, at least until his interpretation of RS and NPOV opposed your own.
You shot down some of the RS I cited, and based your reasons on unsupported arguments, including your POV rendition of Ralph Moss and his book Second Opinion. Even after I explained the actual RS I used, you ignored it.
If you want to delete BLPs that aren't notable, why aren't you focusing on the self-proclaimed conspiracy theorist, ]? Notice how his lead is far more subtle than Griffin's. Thomas' lack of notability has been challenged in the past, which only serves to validate my concern over why his relatively unknown work, ''Popular Paranoia'', is actually (and unbelievably) used as a RS to cite contentious material in Griffin's BLP.
* You criticized most of the RS I listed as not reliable, so please explain the double standard when you get a chance.
Regardless of what you think about Griffin, it doesn't give us a license to include contentious material citing anything but high quality RS per BLP, V, and NPOV. Sorry, but ''Popular Paranoia'' and ''Media Matters'' are not considered '''high quality reliable''' sources for citing contentious material per ], {{xt|Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, '''or have an apparent conflict of interest'''.}} There is a big difference between '''high quality reliable sources''', and '''questionable sources'''. Surely I don't have to explain Popular Paranoia. MM, it is a progressive non-profit research organization whose mission statement is to prove wrong their political opponents. That is clearly a COI, much less a perceived bias, both of which disqualifies it as a high quality RS in this instance. . There is no editorial overview on opinion blogger Sean Easter, yet MM is cited in the BLP to discredit Griffin in a defamatory manner. It appears to me the way Griffin is written, and the insistence on including contentious labels rather than encyclopedic terminology may be an indication that the issue really isn't about notability but something that smells a lot like an agenda, the latter of which may be at the root of our relentless debates, not to mention the constant misinterpretations of things I have written and the many false allegations. I can see that I'm outnumbered and out-tenured, but I will maintain faith that truth will prevail. <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 01:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
:Faith-based editing! Remember "verification not truth." ]] 14:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
::{{u|SPECIFICO}}, incorrect assumption - wrong essay. It is much better and far more important to remember ]. <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 13:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
: Atsme, I am indeed not convinced, and reiterating your claims yet again has not changed that. In particular, where you say I am "still trying to convince me and others that my interpretations of BLP and NPOV are wrong", it is notable that you are in a minority, usually of one, in virtually every active discussion re that article. You seem entirely unwilling to accept the possibility that you are anything other than 100% correct. I see no evidence of qualifying words or self-doubt in anything you say, and yet many of the claims you make are entirely unsupportable, not just advocacy of unreliable sources, but also your relentless attempts to assert that recent work entirely unrelated to the laetrile scam that Griffin pimps, does not change the fact that it was, and is, a scam. For me, that is a litmus test. When you drop that i will know we are making progress. That, and when you start doing as you repeatedly demand I do, and look at both sides of the argument. The policy-based Delete arguments were valid, accept it. Some of the keep arguments were also valid, others were not (e.g. those that referenced grossly unreliable sources as "proof" of notability, and those which asserted that simply having his books discussed in sources makes him notable, something rejected by every iteration of Misplaced Pages's inclusion guidelines I have seen: notability is not inherited. Here's a simple fact for you: Griffin is a crank. As long as your edits don't serve to undermine that, you may achieve consensus for them. That hasn't happened yet. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
::Guy that's unhelpful, I wish you'd be more specific about what your problem is so that a compromise can be found. I see in Atsme's recent draft proposal of a lede in a sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Atsme/sandbox2 it says "However, Sean Easter of Media Matters For America wrote a review that was critical of Beck's interview, stating "Griffin has an extensive history of promoting wild conspiracy theories."". So you think the laetrile thing is a scam and Griffin is a "crank". I think you may be getting confused like I was at first, that is just the lede not the entire article so it's not like Atsme was taking out things from the article that have reliable sources. ] (]) 13:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
:::Guy, is the main problem here the laetrile? I see you bring that up a lot. I looked it up and I wonder if it is related to Krebs wanting it labeled as a vitamin to have less federal regulation on it? ]. What more should be said if anything. Do you have ideas on how to make that reference wiki reliable? I do think you should stop saying the wiki article should be deleted, most said keep here ]. . . why do some want this article deleted? ] (]) 16:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Guy, I appreciate our ability to communicate with each other openly and with a moderate degree of unrestrained frankness, even if we never reach a compromise. What I see as the biggest obstacle is your unfaltering belief that "Griffin is a crank" which is based purely on opinion VS, for example, one's belief that "] is an American criminal" which is based on a statement of fact. There is a determinable difference between opinion and fact, and your refusal to accept that difference in Griffin perpetuates the ongoing content disputes. The actual passages demonstrate the direction this BLP has taken which is undeniably POV. The latter is further evidenced by the undue influence of quack skepticism from a 70s perspective per the 30+ year old sources that are cited. I'm not saying the information is wrong, rather the problem is how it is being disseminated.
Regardless, the article is poorly written, looks more like an internet blog than an encyclopedic biography which is what I want to change, and rightly so. Quite frankly, you are making much ado about nothing. Ditch the contentious labels and pejorative terminology, and let me collaborate with biography-minded editors to write the passages using '''encyclopedic terminology''' and proper structure. I also find it ironic that you consider sources such as MM with its contentious labels and biased opinions as being more reliable than some of the sources I cited that actually are RS, and far more reputable, encyclopedic and scientific in nature, such as the ], ], ], ], and even the keynote address of the Hon ], Attorney General of Australia, . I would also think the advice of 3x Pulitzer winning editor at the NYTimes, ] would get your attention when he said: "You need to know who Edward Griffin is, and how his book The Creature from Jekyll Island plays into this." . It may be passing mention, but it is substantive enough that we would be remiss as editors to not follow his advice, especially considering the encyclopedic premise WP is built on: {{xt|a type of reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.}} <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 16:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
== You are right ==
Your comments on Collect in the arbitration case are excellent, thank you for that. In particular, the assertion that his essays are in some way evidence of malfeasance is utterly preposterous, a point you make well. So thank you for that contribution. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
:Thank you, Guy. That was sweet of you to acknowledge, and it is much appreciated. I just stated what I believe to be true. Collect is such a prolific writer, losing him would be a substantial loss to the project. I actually feel the same about you regarding your areas of expertise and abilities as an admin. <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 20:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
== Please comment on ] ==
The ] is asking for participation in ]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 23968 --> ] (]) 00:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
==Today's articles for improvement==
]
* Hello Atsme:
:Please consider participating in ] for TAFI's upcoming Week 17 collaboration. Last week's voting did not receive many participants. Thanks for your consideration. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 16:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
== COIDuck/Grant ==
It looks like the easier solutions offered at {{U|SlimVirgin|Sarah's}} are off to a good start. I wanted to see what you thought of the more in-depth approach she suggested, which I'll copy here:
:I talked to someone recently who has experience of dealing with COI in publishing. Their advice was that the Foundation should be urged to set up a group of COI specialists who can topic-ban editors from articles where there ] control on behalf of financial interests.
:But they might give a grant to volunteers – a group who would gather the evidence and propose topic bans to the community. It would mean a lot of work; see ] and ]. You would have to find editors who understand why COI is damaging ... and (with the grant) pay for some specialist help and pay yourselves for the research.
I'm intrigued by this idea - it seems a grounded way forward. Do you happen to enjoy grant writing?
Also I wonder how to approach the damage that has been done by the widespread misuse of MEDRS, and if it could it be addressed by this same group? The scope of the damage is ''mind boggling''. I'm at a loss, frankly. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 19:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
::{{u|Petrarchan47}}, I actually have written grants (15+ years ago) but am willing to give it a try and see where it takes us. I do like the idea of a task force comprising editors who are in the trenches creating articles, reviewing and striving to get stubs and start-class articles promoted to GA & FA. A task force that can actually focus on one project could do wonders. As I'm sure we both agree, the issues go much deeper than simply creating an article for $$. It's the business of ''protecting'', ''advocating'' and ''politicizing'' those articles that creates the problem because it defies compliance with NPOV. I find it rather disconcerting to think how easy it would be for governments to infiltrate our beautiful encyclopedia and feed propaganda to the masses, but it doesn't end there. What about the internet sites that may be poisoning the minds of our children and young adults? It appears to be bleeding over to WP because they probably have no clue what journalistic integrity is supposed to look like. What are they learning, and from whom? MSNBC, CNN, FOX, ABC, NY Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, Breitbart? All pundits, opinion pieces, blogs and tweets that run rampant in today's cyberspace. I have lived to see the increasing decay in ethical journalism from the way it was in the 60s to the trade-offs we see today in exchange for the almighty $$. What truly defines a RS?
::A focused task force will be able to dig deeper into cause & effect, and dig up the ''root cause'' of the behavioral issues rather than treating only the symptoms like what we're seeing today. Too many GF editors are getting tangled up in this seemingly infinite web of spurious allegations, POV battles, promotion and advocacy. It appears to be an even bigger issue than I first imagined, starting with the link you provided. You are absolutely correct about the widespread misuse of MEDRS in instances where guidelines were used to trump policy. However, I also believe it serves a purpose when applied properly as a '''content guideline'''. I am adamantly opposed to its use as a shield to censor information before the information is properly considered from a NPOV. I do like the way ] was formatted which includes sections on ''Hypotheses'' and ''Research directions''. I consider that '''important''' information. We also have to keep in mind that yesterday's fringe is today's science so if an editor is applying common sense and adhering to policy guidelines, any attempt at '''enforcement''' of MEDRS, FRINGE/PS, and similar guidelines used to trump policy and push a POV is clearly a violation of WP:BS, a nonexistent policy which in southern belle terms equates into bull honky. I'm just trying to be polite. I believe you and I are on the same page with regards to the problems editors are facing, and I also believe it can be fixed. ].
::The root of the problem lies in how information is disseminated to the reader. More often than not, we're seeing ''dissemination with a slant'', which is all the more reason I give special credence to FAs. I would support a policy that required admin candidates to have at least 2 FAs to their credit. Anyway, slant is not NPOV, nor is it balance. To answer your question regarding MEDRS, I have to respond with a conditional '''yes'''. If a COI arises (has arisen) as a result of MEDRS, a task force should be able to handle that as well, but of course each situation is different, and must be thoroughly evaluated to determine the root of the problem. An encyclopedia is a compendium of information, and in our open editing environment, it is still up to the individual editor to weigh and measure the notability, relevance, importance and amount of information they want to include. If a fair and balanced community disputes the inclusion, discussions begin. However, if an editor determines the community is not fair and balanced after they have evaluated how loud COIduckery is quacking, then the task force should be called in to decide. If the debates continue to escalate, then so be it - we have venues for that, too. However, I see the task force determination to be quite beneficial to admins and ARBCOM if the debate elevates. <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 21:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
:::(Tiny, partial response) Regarding the issue of MEDRS used to protect special interests rather than human health, or otherwise improperly used, could you give me your views on , which shows the removal of an addition I made to the ] article?
::::{{u|Petrarchan47}}, my views: unwarranted revert. The passage was RS with inline citations supporting the information you included. What he did was censor information because it was controversial to mainstream, and that is what I adamantly oppose. His edit summary stated: '' (→Controversy: rmv. improperly-sourced biomedical claims) '' which ironically explains exactly why it should have been included. <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 00:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
==Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion==
:::I read your responses at the ANI about Jytdog's behaviour regarding MEDRS misuse, and it was the first time I had heard anyone define it so thoroughly and accurately... by a long shot. Would you feel to write up something to explain all of this to others who may not be aware of the problems? I'm not sure if it should be an essay, or just a response at Sarah's talk page, but it is something for which you are uniquely qualified and IMO, uber important.
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding a possible ] incident with which you may be involved. <!--Template:Coin-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 21:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:Excuse me while I ignore this troll-like misinformation. ] ] ] 19:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::'''...if an editor determines the community is not fair and balanced after they have evaluated how loud COIduckery is quacking, then the task force should be called in to decide.''' Yes! '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 22:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
== Nadolig Llawen ==
Petra, my views are unambiguous, once you get past the ambiguities, ]. Seriously....think ''compendium of information'', NPOV, BALANCE, UNDUE, but above all apply '''COMMON SENSE'''. With regards to the diff you included above, part of my history is ranching, livestock, raising hay & oats, top quality Quarter Horses, AKC show dogs, and show cattle. My niece was Miss Texas Angus several years ago. That's all I'm going to say without "outing" myself. Few believe the scope of my resume, including me!! How can anyone have done so much at only 38 years of age? ]. Hey, listen up all you Trekkies - I spent 2 weeks with Cpt Kirk at his Belle Reve Ranch in Kentucky! I'm a Trekkie of sorts, and proud of it. He fed his horses Kentucky blue grass - no chemicals, no insecticides. We did the same in Texas for our bermuda grass pastures, never fed our livestock anything but natural grasses and natural grains. I actually did try Round-Up in a Diesel mix to kill Johnson grass from my hay fields, but it was a spot application, not broadcast. I'm still here to talk about it, and no cancers developed in me or my family as a result.
I also used insecticides as needed in the past to reduce the damage of swarming grasshoppers, but I used it sparingly. My babies were more important to me than exposing them to insecticides so I could have a pretty garden. Also wanted to mention that growing up in Houston as a kid, I used to run behind the mosquito trucks when they were spraying mosquito repellent in a huge cloud of smoke. It didn't kill me, (or do much harm to the mosquitos), and so far, I don't have any lung diseases, or other forms of cancer (knock on wood), but I do eat a lot of almonds and apricots.]
<big>'''Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.'''<br/>Happy Christmas and Best wishes for a peaceful 2025:</big> performed by the ].<br />(], ] folk carol)
----
</div> ] (]) 21:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Hey, {{u|Martinevans123}} - Thank you!! And a Happy Holiday to you and yours, my longtime WikiFriend!! ] ] ] 02:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
== Always precious ==
Over the past couple of years, my ranch manager switched from treating our hay fields with organic horse stall cleanings to a natural bacteria that I believe is called - ] - but I'm not sure if that's accurate so don't cite my TP as a RS. All I know at this point is that our coastal fields are flourishing as a result. It's one thing to be a "scientist" in the laboratory, but guess what? We helped Texas A&M figure out how to do successful embryo transfers in horses many years ago...in the field, on location, and in our lab. Am I a scientist? No, but I respect scientists and hold them in high regard. I also have quite a few friends who are medical practitioners and specialists who come to the island and dive with me. They also believe in proper nutrition. I'm a writer - scientists are scientists, and doctors are doctors. I've worked with enough scientists and biologists over the years to know they do excellent work and are brilliant at what they do, but for practical application and being able to write about it? Different story. I trust the reality of real world applications of science, including in-the-field results, and I'm smart enough to know '''you are what you eat'''. Do I trust government? HELL NO! Do I trust big pharma? HELL NO! Do I trust what my body tells me? HELL YES! Do I trust what I read? HELL NO! Do I trust what I see with my own eyes? PARTIALLY. Do I trust what I hear? PARTIALLY. Do I trust what I experience first-hand? Yes, and when I'm out checking cattle all day, and inadvertently ''squat'' on bull nettle by accident, next time I make it a point to look before I squat. I strongly advise my cowboy friends to not squat wearing spurs. Same difference. <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">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 00:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
]
Ten years ago, ] were found precious. That's what you are, always. - Enjoy the season! --] (]) 10:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
"What is the lure of extremist rhetoric in democratic controversy? After all, most citizens are not extremists. Part of the lure lies in the fact that it is easier to believe passionately in a value or cause without regard to subtlety, reasoned argument, probabilistic evidence, and vigorously tested scientific theory or fact. Expressions of single-minded visions for solving problems and changing society can make complexity and uncertainty, frustration and regret, all appear to evaporate. Another part of the lure is that having comrades-in-argument is comforting." ~Amy Gutman (excerpt from The Lure & Dangers of Extremist Rhetoric)
Reach for the stars, and become one!
The Optimist
If you see your glass as half-empty, pour it into a smaller glass and stop bitching!
Power of Media
“The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” ~Malcolm X (1963)
"ALGORITHM-RANKED search results and social media news feeds have contributed to the creation of ‘echo chambers’ and ‘filter bubbles’, where people reinforce their beliefs rather than dialogue across differences." ~ World trends in freedom of expression and media development, global report 2017/2018 pg 67 UNESCO.
Have you no sense of decency?
We must wear our critical thinking caps, and try not to repeat history as a single incident may parallel various incidents throughout the wide spectrum of politics.
Getting an editor blocked or t-banned
If you get an editor blocked or t-banned for expressing their opinion, then you're not helping to build the encyclopedia. You're destroying it. Atsme💬📧 15:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
ARCA: As a separate issue, anything that relies on DS will fail. The only way forward is for arb com to directly regulate conduct by removing prejudiced editors and admins, either from an area or from WP, not trying to adopt rules about just how disruptive they can be. ~DGG
Signpost News from the WMF: Our role is to accurately describe the real world, with the hoped-for result that those wishing to improve it will use the information wisely. Our job is not direct action, except in defense of our right to freely publish. ~DGG
Mental Force and the Volitional Brain
In fact, the belief that our thoughts can influence our actions is so basic to our entire idea of ourselves and our place in nature, and is so essential to our actual functioning in this world, that any suggestion that
this idea is false would become plausible only under extremely coercive conditions, such as its incompatibility with basic physics. But no such coercion exists. Contemporary physical theory does allow our experiences, per se, to be truly efficacious and non-reducible: our experiences are elements of the causal structure that do necessary things that nothing else in the theory can do. Thus science, if pursued with sufficient care, demands no cloistering of disciplines, or interpretation as user illusions of the apparent causal effects of our conscious thoughts upon our physical actions. ~ Henry P. Stapp, (May 1999), Physics Division, Berkeley National Laboratory, title="Attention, Intention, and Will in Quantum Physics", published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies, .
We are never sure if a friend's heart is pure because trust is earned and I am concerned that what we know isn't always so. Burma-shave
Archives for It Will Soon Pass
Do not disturb. I'm in the middle of important research.
Useful Hodgepodge
"It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do."
I'm leaving this link for any editor who may be feeling a little stressed on the job. It has a very calming effect. Relax - enjoy - and once your blood pressure is back where it should be, resume editing.
Making this page mobile friendly outweighs user friendly, or so I'm told.
“Scientific results are always provisional, susceptible to being overturned by some future experiment or observation. Scientists rarely proclaim an absolute truth or absolute certainty. Uncertainty is inevitable at the frontiers of knowledge.” ~ National Geographic Magazine
Atsme's contribution to science: Life is all about having fun so if you're not living, you're not having any fun.Talk📧
The most useful used skill I've discovered for Alexa - Alexa, call me. Now, if I can only get it to work with my keys.
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?
I can fix stupid, but it's gonna hurt.
I have never faked a sarcasm in my life!
I'm not insulting you, I’m describing you.
I have never let my schooling interfere with my education. (attributed to Mark Twain, but could have been Grant Allen)
Atsme is not just a writer, she's award winning...she won a place in the psycho ward.
Ah, the effect of being affected while being affected by the effectiveness of the effect of the affectation of the effector's effective affecting effect. Infective, no?jc37
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.
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"
Words
People who confuse the words "burro" and "burrow" don't know
their ass from a hole in the ground.
And then comes the time when you finally realize that you don't know shit.
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
Terms We Use
We need to rethink some of the terms we use in the English language.
"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 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)
Carrots may be good for your eyes, but booze will double your vision.
To me, "drink responsibly" means don't spill it.
Useful quotes relative to WP:PAG
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 Misplaced Pages 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 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." 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 Zaerethedited for brevity; Jimbo Walesagreed 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. -- Jimbo Wales (talk)] 3:12 pm, 8 January 2019, Tuesday (UTC−6)
Deprecated sources & when to IAR
Jimbo's response to an editor's statement to not cite The Daily Mail as a source in articles because it has been deprecated. "No, that is not true. It is true that the Daily Mail is generally prohibited as a source, but in Misplaced Pages terminology that does not mean an absolute ban. Exceptions to the general rule can and do exist, per WP:IAR as well as general common sense in specific circumstances." --Jimbo Wales
Free thought isn't free anymore
“I have no beef with my colleagues, many of whom I admire and are friends,” Sullivan tweeted. “The underlying reasons for the split are pretty self-evident.” But he expressed solidarity with Weiss: “The mob bullied and harassed a young woman for thoughtcrimes. And her editors stood by and watched.”
(Excerpt from NYTimes)
Writing for the opponent
"Writing for the opponent is an important trait of good editors. They must be able to divorce themselves from their own POV so much that they can bend over backwards to aid in the writing of content which documents views they do not like. They must never block the inclusion of content which opposes their own POV or political positions. If they cannot do this, they should recuse themselves from the topic and edit in other areas. Editors who are unwilling or unable to write for the opponent are incapable of truly understanding or abiding by the NPOV policy. As such they will always cause problems."
(see WP:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content)
Volunteering
Please be aware that you are legally responsible for all of your contributions, edits, and re-use of Wikimedia content under the laws of the United States of America and other applicable laws (which may include the laws where you live or where you view or edit content). This means it is important that you use caution when posting content. In light of this responsibility, we have some rules about what you cannot post, most of which is either for your own protection or for the protection of other users like yourself. Please keep in mind that the content we host is for general informational purposes only, so if you need expert advice for a particular question (such as medical, legal, or financial issues), you should seek the help of a licensed or qualified professional. We also include other important notices and disclaimers, so please read these Terms of Use in their entirety. WMF Terms of Use
When to turn in the bit
My views on this are quite simple. An admin telling a user to "grow the fuck up" is absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances and is ground for immediate desysopping. If we care about having a serious, thoughtful, kind, adult and mature community (which I assume was the sentiment behind that unseemly outburst) then we have to model that behavior ourselves as admins. There's a bit of sad irony in behaving in a juvenile and bullying fashion in an attempt to get others to behave better. Bwilkins, I recommend that you turn in your bit and take a break from being an admin for 6 months and then return if you feel you can handle the job in a more responsible fashion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
What Am I Doing Here...
Sometimes the first step toward forgiveness is realizing the other person was born an idiot.
Did you ever stop to consider that being equal may hold you back?
Do you want to make money from Misplaced Pages? 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!
Misplaced Pages: 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 Misplaced Pages.
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.
Wait! There’s more!
I know a guy who's addicted to brake fluid. He says he can stop any time.
I stayed up all night to see where the sun went. Then it dawned on me.
This girl said she recognized me from the vegetarian club, but I'd never met herbivore.
Atsme's Education
I was educated at MIT, then went to Harvard. After that, things got fishy.
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".
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 Misplaced Pages when it's important to know when to stop arguing with editors, and simply let them be wrong.
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
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.
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.
How Woke Are We?
”The encyclopedia’s reliance on outside sources, primarily newspapers, means it will be only as diverse as the rest of the media—which is to say, not very.”
Re: the above Bloomberg article, "not very" is quite accurate, but I remain cautiously optimistic that once RECENTISM dies down, things will greatly improve.
"Since decisions are by those who participate in a localized discussion, leaving cedes the decision-making power to those willing to engage in the least logical and sane response. This incentivizes not just obsessive but also belligerent behavior and even harassment, and empowers those privileged with the time and resources to engage in this behavior. Minor quibbles about grammar is one thing, but these techniques are frequently used by political ideologues, ethnic nationalists, and conspiracy theorists. Professor Bryce Peake called this the “hegemony of the asshole consensus.”
No need to elaborate further on that particular quote. Some will be able to relate, whereas others will find it insulting. For more info, see Misplaced Pages @ 20. You may decide to submit your own essay. Talk📧14:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Should it happen that a cabal of admins, operating on the talk page of an article or the lion's den of AN/I, manage to block you on an invented charge, the world will continue to turn. The grass will grow, the birds will lay eggs, the number of Pokémon-related articles will still double every 1.7 weeks, and articles on weathermen will be brought to AfD. Sure, it won't be done as smoothly and as elegantly as when you did it, but it will be done. This encyclopedic project will continue to turn. Sad, but true.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi, I saw your user on the FA Nominations article was hoping you would be able to copyedit an article I’m trying to promote to FA-Class. Thank you! 19Arham (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
-3580144.png)
Life's lessons supported by empirical evidence.
Spread the love.
Moonlit night at Fiery Furnace, a labyrinth of sandstone towers. This picture won 3rd place in the June 2019 Geology Photo challenge.
All's fair in love and war.
.jpg)
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. 2A00:23C7:118C:A901:3D75:27EF:BBDF:1814 (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
_Adoration_of_the_Magi_in_the_snow_by_Pieter_Brueghel_the_Younger_-_Correr_version.jpg)
