Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:00, 25 March 2015

Status: Online

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	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! — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 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? Atsme☯ talk 19:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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 (WP: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).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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. Atsme☯ talk 19:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You can take the lead, and just coach me along so I can see first hand how it's done. Is that ok? Atsme☯ talk 19:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, will do later today or tomorrow and let you know what's going on.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I miss your insightfulness, your patience, and your genius, Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. I hope you are checking in from time to time post, and will see my post. Please come back soon. Atsme☯ 20:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alligator gar

The article Alligator gar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alligator gar for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

For your information, your chain moray eel image is now in The Signpost. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, thank you for the update, and congratulations on your accomplishments!! Atsme☯ 03:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Gabor B. Racz

Thought of complimenting you for this article. A good one mainly in terms of prose quality. Best --PeterCRames (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

What a nice compliment. Thank you, PeterCRames. Atsme☯ 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Alligator gar

On 20 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alligator gar, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that alligator gars (pictured) are "living fossils" that can breathe in both air and water? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alligator gar. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Great works!! You have improved a lot....Keep up.... The herald 15:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
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. Atsme☯ 16:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of American paddlefish

The article American paddlefish you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:American paddlefish for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bowfin

The article Bowfin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bowfin for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for American paddlefish

On 7 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article American paddlefish, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the elongated rostrum of the planktivorous American paddlefish (pictured) is used like an antenna to locate swarms of zooplankton? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/American paddlefish. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		To Atsme, an overdue barnstar for the impressive articles she has written on "primitive" fish. Well done! --Epipelagic (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, User:Epipelagic. Your recognition is much appreciated. Atsme☯ 22:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Bowfin

On 19 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bowfin, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that bowfins can survive up to five days' exposure to air because they can breathe both air and water? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bowfin. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Synodus intermedius

On 9 November 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Synodus intermedius, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the eyes of the sand diver (pictured) have an iridescent surface layer? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Synodus intermedius. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gabor B. Racz

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gabor B. Racz you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gabor B. Racz

The article Gabor B. Racz you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gabor B. Racz for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, thank you for your tireless efforts. Atsme☯ 22:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of American paddlefish 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 the requests page. If you'd like to see an FA appear on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with about 1,287 articles waiting their turn at present, 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. Bencherlite 10:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, 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. Atsme☯ 12:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article: Notification

This is to inform you that American paddlefish, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Misplaced Pages Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 24 December 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Precious

intrinsic beauty of sharing knowledge
Thank you, free at last, for quality articles such as American paddlefish and Gabor B. Racz, written with the background of experience and in the spirit that there's "something indescribable, yet intrinsically beautiful about sharing knowledge", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

One of the best Christmas gifts ever. Thank you Gerda Arendt. It is such an honor to receive this from you!! Atsme☯ 13:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	GREAT job! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, User:7&6=thirteen. Your collaboration was much appreciated. Atsme☯ 01:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Chain Moray

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Chain moray eel.jpg, was nominated on Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust 03:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Congrats. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Atsme☯ 08:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The Apollo Hall

Hafspajen (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Fourteen Infallibles

Would please help us to copy edit this article, because we have nominated it for FA.--Salman mahdi (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Salman mahdi, I would be delighted to help. Atsme☯ 11:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

With thanks fore your great helps, just a question, is it finished?--Salman mahdi (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@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 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. Atsme☯ 14:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning

This edit is disruptive and is not commenting on the content but instead on the contributor. Further edits of this nature will likely result in a sanction, including blocks and bans. This warning is given pursuant to the Arbitration Committee's decision on complementary and alternative medicine and will be logged as a sanction, the process for appealing it are here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It is under review. The error was inadvertent, and added a few extra emotions to a subsection title, which when combined, created the impression that I was being uncivil. Atsme☯ 21:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Is that a joke, or are you actually threatened with prosecution for using an emoji? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a joke, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). I'm pretty sure it was the result of a misinterpretation. See ], and scroll down to the subsection Atsme to see what actually happened. It was a crazy malfunction of the emoji tool bar. I contacted Technical 13, and he suggested taking it to WP:VPT which I'll do tomorrow. In the interim, I remain hopeful that once Callan has a chance to review the evidence, he will revoke the warning. Atsme☯ 00:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• For all the talk page stalkers who have been following the emoji caper, Technical 13 was kind enough to provide his insight as to what happened with the rogue emojis. Mac users need to be aware that reducing the size of your window(s) while using the SMirC emoji dashboard could be detrimental to your Wiki health as it may unleash a rampage of stampeding emojis with results you may not like, and certainly don't deserve. Atsme☯ 18:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Well you rolled the eyes and used a pun. I see though that that talk page is on edge. What are some reliable sources that are missing? – Popish Plot (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have vacated the warning following the discussion we had on my talk page, please be more careful in the future. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin

Thanks for your detailed reply! That was very useful and thought-provoking, actually. In retrospect, it was probably my mistake to raise the issue again on the talk page after noticing the unsourced assertion in the lead, but I appreciate the useful links and commentary. You've given me something to think about. Oddexit (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Tables

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Tables. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

new essay

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 WP:Misplaced Pages and shipwrights. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, Collect (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

BLP

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? Dreadstar ☥ 22:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

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 WP:OR and WP:BLP; convince me otherwise. Dreadstar ☥ 02:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

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.

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? I've included some diffs below to substantiate my position 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. I provided a few more diffs below to give you an idea of why 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? 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: .

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.

See BUILDING THE NEW WORLD ORDER (113):

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:
• Toyoo Gyohten and Charles E. Morrison, Regionalism in A Converging World LMw York: Trilateral Commission, 1992, pp. 4, 7-9,11.
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.
• A Hemisphere in the Balance," by David Rockefeller, Wall Street Journal, October 1,1993, p. A-10.

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.

(removed diffs and struck references to same as they are not needed at this time)

Thanks for all the work you do and the time you put into it. Atsme☯ 03:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• 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. Dreadstar ☥ 04:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, Dreadstar, but I'm pinging 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. WP:OR (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.

• (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)
• (cur | prev) 17:13, March 23, 2015‎ JzG (talk | contribs)‎ . . (136,467 bytes) (+274)‎ . . (→‎Proposal for lead: mre)
• (cur | prev) 17:11, March 23, 2015‎ JzG (talk | contribs)‎ . . (136,193 bytes) (+223)‎ . . (→‎Proposal for lead: reply)
• (cur | prev) 16:07, March 23, 2015‎ SPECIFICO (talk | contribs)‎ . . (135,970 bytes) (+274)‎ . . (→‎Proposal for lead)
• (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)

I am waiting for your explanation, please. Atsme☯ 05:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

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."

" https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

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. Popish Plot (talk) 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 WP:SYNTH and therefor a WP:BLP violation. Dreadstar ☥ 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. Popish Plot (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• You seem to be avoiding my request for how you connected Clinton to the subject of the article. Dreadstar ☥ 18:55, 24 March 2015 (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 WP:ADMINACCT, 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. Atsme☯ 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. Dreadstar ☥ 21:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

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. Atsme☯ 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. Dreadstar ☥ 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. Atsme☯ 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. Dreadstar ☥ 01:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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 WP:LIBEL, 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. Dreadstar ☥ 02:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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": Wilk v. American Medical Ass'n , , .

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 WP:V which makes Media Matters a questionable source for making libelous, contentious statements in Misplaced Pages’s voice. See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#cite_note-COI_SOURCES-8 "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.
• WP:BLP clearly states (my bold) 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.
• WP:V clearly states (my bold) 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 WP:OWN behavior, and that's sad because there was no basis for him to do so.

• 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.

I will share some very wise advice from admin TenOfAllTrades:

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 WP:MEDRS. (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.)

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". Atsme☯ 05:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

If you have any questions in regard to this code feel free to ping me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, 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. Atsme☯ 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 User:Serialjoepsycho/sandbox/2. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sweet! Just one question, Serialjoepsycho - don't you think the caption Importance should be flush left like the way T13 had it? Atsme☯ 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. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened

Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

quick note

i received a notification when you created User_talk:Atsme/ListJD. Just a quick note that per WP:POLEMIC it is fine to build such a list, but you must use it timely. interesting reading, in any case. Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

for some reason i don't fathom, A1 deleted the comment above. 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. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)What a horrible page. Why do I only get four mentions? After all, I gave you popcorn !! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 02:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Your popcorn was too salty for me. (imaginary smiley emoji) Atsme☯ 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. Atsme☯ 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. One of a long and glorious tradition of American loons. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)