This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
References
Islamophobe[s] Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma city bombings committed by Timothy McVeigh)
Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past.
"funding flows to the Islamophobia movement's 'misinformation experts' including...Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism
Incorrect per WP:PAG. Passing mention is not significant mention, and in Emerson's case, the source is cited for nothing more than a cherrypicked contentious statement with a footnote to a biased article by Think Progress, a project of CAP which is a biased think-tank. At the very least, it requires in-text attribution but I question its inclusion in the lead because of the sources' advocacy for and promotion of a religious ideology which creates UNDUE. [1] I am not alone in the belief that it fails the smell test as contentious material per WP:BLP, WP:ONUS, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:UNDUE, WP:ADVOCACY.
Incorrect. My statement reads...(the book) had passing mention, a very bigoted one at that - bigoted - (adj) having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others: a bigoted group of reactionaries; a thoughtless and bigoted article. mention - (noun) a reference to someone or something.
Incorrect - WP:VALID Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible, but currently unaccepted, theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. [2]
See above regarding inline text citation
Incorrect - your analogies do not represent the current situation.
See my No. 5 above, and in particular, read the link provided in my No. 3
My misstatement about book authorship is duly noted. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, and for making us aware there are several other co-authors of the book who apparently share a similar bias regarding a specific religion/ideology. Correction: The book was edited by Juliane Hammer and Omid Safi. The Introduction: American Islam, Muslim Americans, and the American Experiment was co-authored by Juliane Hammer, Omid Safi. Is that better?
will not fly? Perhaps you should watch the interview, or read the transcript. [4] It is not OR, it is fact-checking RS which WP encourages using tertiary sources such as the following: [5] In 1995 he told CBS that the Oklahoma City bombing "was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible. That is a Middle Eastern trait." Emerson says his remarks merely reflected the thinking of law-enforcement officials at the time, although he regrets the mistake. Do you see the word Muslim in that statement? Biased critics distorted his statement to discredit Emerson who was referring to Islamic terrorists which does not comprise all Muslims. The article needs to be expanded to demonstrate the difference between Emerson's analyses on Islamic terrorism and his unbiased acceptance of Muslims who are not terrorists, including his Muslim colleagues who help with translations, research and analysis.
It appears you may be emotionally involved which may explain the argumentum ad hominem and spurious claims. I know bigotry all too well, and your allegations are not helpful. The inclusion of contentious material in this BLP still remains unsupported which is your job to resolve considering the named sources have been challenged. In fact, we have provided a compendium of sources on Emerson's TP as well as on IPT yet you keep pushing the same few bigoted articles written by self-promoting proponents of religious ideology. The responsibility of providing RS to support the inclusion of contentious material rests with those who want to include it, and you have not fulfilled that requirement.
Partially correct - yes, the lead summarizes the article, but the biased opinions of proponents who are paid to advocate for a religious ideology do not belong in the lead of a BLP per WP:ADVOCACY. Emerson is about a guy who investigates Islamic terrorism, the same terrorism other Muslims fear. Ethan Bronner of the NY Times said (my bold): Emerson may not be a scholar, and he may sometimes connect unrelated dots. He may also occasionally be quite wrong. But he is an investigator who has performed a genuine service by focusing on radical Islamic groups in this country. [8] Further, none of the sources you've cited above qualify the bigoted opinion that Emerson is an Islamophobe. His critics have sensationalized a few insignificant events, like the Emerson gaffe about Birmingham or an incorrect prediction that happened 20 years ago, and they've made a lot of other spurious claims. It's acircle, traveling circus performing the same act round and round under the big top. I agree that criticism should be noted in the body of the article as long as we avoid UNDUE, and it includes inline citations, and/or inline text attributions for contentious material resulting from biased opinions that remain evidentially and substantively unsupported.
Incorrect. While Wikipedia may consider a "source" to be just p. 32 of a certain book, to prevent cherrypicking you should consider a source in its larger sense.' Also Our concern within Wikipedia is about cherrypicking from within a source or closely-related multiple sources, and an editor should be careful in handling that. The sources that contained only passing mention of Emerson were cherrypicked because the source in its larger sense did not focus on him or his activity.
Read all of the above including the associated policies, take two aspirins, and get a good night's sleep. Happy editing!
PS - I may move this to the Emerson TP as it doesn't belong on my TP. Atsme☯ Consult 04:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I was surprised that you A3ed this, since it has non-Article Wizard content. I agree that the subject's notability is questionable, though, and better routes may be prod or AfD. All the best, Mini apolis 23:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- The Herald ( here I am) 03:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It's really better to stand back when your bold edit is reverted. I understand that you may feel that your text is an obvious improvement, but once a disagreement is evident, it is best to discuss it on talk. Please consider undoing your reinsertion of text. It would be a strong display of good faith in discussing things on talk. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.
Atsme, you are at 4RR on Griffin. This is further impeding progress there. Please step back. Things will get better. SPECIFICO talk 04:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
With regard to this,
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jytdog ( talk) 03:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog ( talk) 05:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I added the redirect for the "C C of N" as somehow the current Wikipedia editors seem not to have known it <g>. Howdy Doody was "first show of the evening" and had its very own test pattern. And the first Howdy had "plastic surgery" <g> due to a dispute with the puppet maker. I know - way too much trivia. Collect ( talk) 14:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Collect: - Great trivia! Who can forget Doodyville?
And then there was, Davy, Davy Crockett, king of the wild frontier!!! I had to have a coonskin cap. Too young to know who he truly was, or what he believed. [9] Another favorite, Have Gun — Will Travel Ha! Thanks for the memories....<---my salutation made me think of Bob Hope. Never ends, but that's a good thing - like what Steven Jobs said about on-off switches. Atsme☯ Consult 15:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Is under your control -- those who seek to cow you by reverting your removal of material which is quite reasonably removed is improper. What you can not remove are block notices, until the block is resolved, and official posts by ArbCom and the like. Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments.2C_notices.2C_and_warnings . Consult all you wish. Collect ( talk) 13:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) what about people other than the "owner" of the talk page. I consult you to answer Collect - Roxy the dog™ ( resonate) 14:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
If you are accepting the changes I proposed you might actually change the model. Doing so will allow other editors to comment further on what is needed. BTW, I take issue on some items. For instance becoming a CFP is the essential encyclopedic info we want, not the motivation. Also his assistant station gig comes from his Whos Who profile (which I purchased) -- it seems to have been enhanced with time. His assertion about founding American Media is SPS, not backed by other sources, and involves a third party -- the corporate (non)-entity. I hope you'll consider my comments here. Later I shall post needed observations in the thread. Please keep up the effort. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 04:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Added suggestion: make the suggested changes and check off with {{ Done}}. 04:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I strongly advise you to drop your interest in the Griffin article. The AE request recently closed, includes a strong indication that an AE request against you would be merited. I think that if you carry on trying to edit that article, you will end up exactly there. You have, as you implied earlier, settled on a story, and angle, and it is absolutely not in line with Wikipedia policy. I do not want to see you starting to accumulate topic bans. Griffin is a Bircher, all Birchers are toxic for any editor who fails to understand and accept that members of the John Birch Society are usually extremists and very often completely unhinged. Griffin is one such. He is an advocate for a form of quackery long promoted by the society, and which has caused untold misery. Guy ( Help!) 21:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Valentine Greets!!! | |
Hello Atsme,
love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of
Wikipedia, spread the
WikiLove by wishing each other
Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
You state: " I do not have a POV". That is ridiculous. Everybody has a POV in respect of everything. Your problem is precisely that you think your beliefs are not only neutral, but self-evidently true. That this is not so should, by now, be obvious to anybody who is competent to edit a contentious article. Your advocacy for the purported validity of Griffin's false opinions on laetrile is only one example of your having a POV, whether you admit it or not. Guy ( Help!) 18:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Sunshine! | ||
Hello Atsme!
Bananasoldier (
talk) has given you a bit of
sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes
WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:[[User:Meaghan/Sunshine]]}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{
User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing!
Bananasoldier (
talk)
08:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Thank you, Bananasoldier, I've let the sun shine in!! Your thoughtful message is very much appreciated. Atsme☯ Consult 03:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Put a straw for it... - The Herald ( here I am) 16:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
The Herald - That beer was quite refreshing!! Thank you! Atsme☯ Consult 03:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent van Gogh - Enclosed Field with Ploughman - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent van Gogh - Wheatfield - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent Van Gogh - Corn Harvest in Provence - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent van Gogh - Geploegde akkers ('De voren') - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent van Gogh - De oogst - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent van Gogh - Wheatfield with a reaper - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent van Gogh - Peasant woman binding sheaves (after Millet) - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent van Gogh - Green Field - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent Willem van Gogh, Dutch - Rain - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent van Gogh - Landscape from Saint-Rémy - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent Van Gogh - Wheatfield With Cornflowers - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Gogh, Vincent van - Landscape at Saint-Rémy (Enclosed Field with Peasant) - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent van Gogh - Wheatfield with crows - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent van Gogh - Wheatfield under thunderclouds - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
I filled in the references and stuff, but you might want to way in. I am trying to explain the difference between veracity and verifiability on the talk page again. Unless I am mistaken, there was a clear consensus to not label Emerson an Islamophobe in the lead and that the references being advanced were inappropriate to even make the claim in the body of the text? Just letting you know. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
References
Islamophobe[s] Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma city bombings committed by Timothy McVeigh)
Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past.
"funding flows to the Islamophobia movement's 'misinformation experts' including...Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism
Incorrect per WP:PAG. Passing mention is not significant mention, and in Emerson's case, the source is cited for nothing more than a cherrypicked contentious statement with a footnote to a biased article by Think Progress, a project of CAP which is a biased think-tank. At the very least, it requires in-text attribution but I question its inclusion in the lead because of the sources' advocacy for and promotion of a religious ideology which creates UNDUE. [1] I am not alone in the belief that it fails the smell test as contentious material per WP:BLP, WP:ONUS, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:UNDUE, WP:ADVOCACY.
Incorrect. My statement reads...(the book) had passing mention, a very bigoted one at that - bigoted - (adj) having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others: a bigoted group of reactionaries; a thoughtless and bigoted article. mention - (noun) a reference to someone or something.
Incorrect - WP:VALID Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible, but currently unaccepted, theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. [2]
See above regarding inline text citation
Incorrect - your analogies do not represent the current situation.
See my No. 5 above, and in particular, read the link provided in my No. 3
My misstatement about book authorship is duly noted. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, and for making us aware there are several other co-authors of the book who apparently share a similar bias regarding a specific religion/ideology. Correction: The book was edited by Juliane Hammer and Omid Safi. The Introduction: American Islam, Muslim Americans, and the American Experiment was co-authored by Juliane Hammer, Omid Safi. Is that better?
will not fly? Perhaps you should watch the interview, or read the transcript. [4] It is not OR, it is fact-checking RS which WP encourages using tertiary sources such as the following: [5] In 1995 he told CBS that the Oklahoma City bombing "was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible. That is a Middle Eastern trait." Emerson says his remarks merely reflected the thinking of law-enforcement officials at the time, although he regrets the mistake. Do you see the word Muslim in that statement? Biased critics distorted his statement to discredit Emerson who was referring to Islamic terrorists which does not comprise all Muslims. The article needs to be expanded to demonstrate the difference between Emerson's analyses on Islamic terrorism and his unbiased acceptance of Muslims who are not terrorists, including his Muslim colleagues who help with translations, research and analysis.
It appears you may be emotionally involved which may explain the argumentum ad hominem and spurious claims. I know bigotry all too well, and your allegations are not helpful. The inclusion of contentious material in this BLP still remains unsupported which is your job to resolve considering the named sources have been challenged. In fact, we have provided a compendium of sources on Emerson's TP as well as on IPT yet you keep pushing the same few bigoted articles written by self-promoting proponents of religious ideology. The responsibility of providing RS to support the inclusion of contentious material rests with those who want to include it, and you have not fulfilled that requirement.
Partially correct - yes, the lead summarizes the article, but the biased opinions of proponents who are paid to advocate for a religious ideology do not belong in the lead of a BLP per WP:ADVOCACY. Emerson is about a guy who investigates Islamic terrorism, the same terrorism other Muslims fear. Ethan Bronner of the NY Times said (my bold): Emerson may not be a scholar, and he may sometimes connect unrelated dots. He may also occasionally be quite wrong. But he is an investigator who has performed a genuine service by focusing on radical Islamic groups in this country. [8] Further, none of the sources you've cited above qualify the bigoted opinion that Emerson is an Islamophobe. His critics have sensationalized a few insignificant events, like the Emerson gaffe about Birmingham or an incorrect prediction that happened 20 years ago, and they've made a lot of other spurious claims. It's acircle, traveling circus performing the same act round and round under the big top. I agree that criticism should be noted in the body of the article as long as we avoid UNDUE, and it includes inline citations, and/or inline text attributions for contentious material resulting from biased opinions that remain evidentially and substantively unsupported.
Incorrect. While Wikipedia may consider a "source" to be just p. 32 of a certain book, to prevent cherrypicking you should consider a source in its larger sense.' Also Our concern within Wikipedia is about cherrypicking from within a source or closely-related multiple sources, and an editor should be careful in handling that. The sources that contained only passing mention of Emerson were cherrypicked because the source in its larger sense did not focus on him or his activity.
Read all of the above including the associated policies, take two aspirins, and get a good night's sleep. Happy editing!
PS - I may move this to the Emerson TP as it doesn't belong on my TP. Atsme☯ Consult 04:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I was surprised that you A3ed this, since it has non-Article Wizard content. I agree that the subject's notability is questionable, though, and better routes may be prod or AfD. All the best, Mini apolis 23:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- The Herald ( here I am) 03:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It's really better to stand back when your bold edit is reverted. I understand that you may feel that your text is an obvious improvement, but once a disagreement is evident, it is best to discuss it on talk. Please consider undoing your reinsertion of text. It would be a strong display of good faith in discussing things on talk. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.
Atsme, you are at 4RR on Griffin. This is further impeding progress there. Please step back. Things will get better. SPECIFICO talk 04:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
With regard to this,
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jytdog ( talk) 03:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog ( talk) 05:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I added the redirect for the "C C of N" as somehow the current Wikipedia editors seem not to have known it <g>. Howdy Doody was "first show of the evening" and had its very own test pattern. And the first Howdy had "plastic surgery" <g> due to a dispute with the puppet maker. I know - way too much trivia. Collect ( talk) 14:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Collect: - Great trivia! Who can forget Doodyville?
And then there was, Davy, Davy Crockett, king of the wild frontier!!! I had to have a coonskin cap. Too young to know who he truly was, or what he believed. [9] Another favorite, Have Gun — Will Travel Ha! Thanks for the memories....<---my salutation made me think of Bob Hope. Never ends, but that's a good thing - like what Steven Jobs said about on-off switches. Atsme☯ Consult 15:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Is under your control -- those who seek to cow you by reverting your removal of material which is quite reasonably removed is improper. What you can not remove are block notices, until the block is resolved, and official posts by ArbCom and the like. Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments.2C_notices.2C_and_warnings . Consult all you wish. Collect ( talk) 13:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) what about people other than the "owner" of the talk page. I consult you to answer Collect - Roxy the dog™ ( resonate) 14:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
If you are accepting the changes I proposed you might actually change the model. Doing so will allow other editors to comment further on what is needed. BTW, I take issue on some items. For instance becoming a CFP is the essential encyclopedic info we want, not the motivation. Also his assistant station gig comes from his Whos Who profile (which I purchased) -- it seems to have been enhanced with time. His assertion about founding American Media is SPS, not backed by other sources, and involves a third party -- the corporate (non)-entity. I hope you'll consider my comments here. Later I shall post needed observations in the thread. Please keep up the effort. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 04:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Added suggestion: make the suggested changes and check off with {{ Done}}. 04:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I strongly advise you to drop your interest in the Griffin article. The AE request recently closed, includes a strong indication that an AE request against you would be merited. I think that if you carry on trying to edit that article, you will end up exactly there. You have, as you implied earlier, settled on a story, and angle, and it is absolutely not in line with Wikipedia policy. I do not want to see you starting to accumulate topic bans. Griffin is a Bircher, all Birchers are toxic for any editor who fails to understand and accept that members of the John Birch Society are usually extremists and very often completely unhinged. Griffin is one such. He is an advocate for a form of quackery long promoted by the society, and which has caused untold misery. Guy ( Help!) 21:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Valentine Greets!!! | |
Hello Atsme,
love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of
Wikipedia, spread the
WikiLove by wishing each other
Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
You state: " I do not have a POV". That is ridiculous. Everybody has a POV in respect of everything. Your problem is precisely that you think your beliefs are not only neutral, but self-evidently true. That this is not so should, by now, be obvious to anybody who is competent to edit a contentious article. Your advocacy for the purported validity of Griffin's false opinions on laetrile is only one example of your having a POV, whether you admit it or not. Guy ( Help!) 18:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Sunshine! | ||
Hello Atsme!
Bananasoldier (
talk) has given you a bit of
sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes
WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:[[User:Meaghan/Sunshine]]}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{
User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing!
Bananasoldier (
talk)
08:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Thank you, Bananasoldier, I've let the sun shine in!! Your thoughtful message is very much appreciated. Atsme☯ Consult 03:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Put a straw for it... - The Herald ( here I am) 16:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
The Herald - That beer was quite refreshing!! Thank you! Atsme☯ Consult 03:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent van Gogh - Enclosed Field with Ploughman - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent van Gogh - Wheatfield - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent Van Gogh - Corn Harvest in Provence - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent van Gogh - Geploegde akkers ('De voren') - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent van Gogh - De oogst - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent van Gogh - Wheatfield with a reaper - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent van Gogh - Peasant woman binding sheaves (after Millet) - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent van Gogh - Green Field - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent Willem van Gogh, Dutch - Rain - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent van Gogh - Landscape from Saint-Rémy - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent Van Gogh - Wheatfield With Cornflowers - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Gogh, Vincent van - Landscape at Saint-Rémy (Enclosed Field with Peasant) - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent van Gogh - Wheatfield with crows - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted' Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Vincent van Gogh - Wheatfield under thunderclouds - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
I filled in the references and stuff, but you might want to way in. I am trying to explain the difference between veracity and verifiability on the talk page again. Unless I am mistaken, there was a clear consensus to not label Emerson an Islamophobe in the lead and that the references being advanced were inappropriate to even make the claim in the body of the text? Just letting you know. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)