User talk:Atsme/Archive 14

Who started it?
I enjoyed your comments on Trypto's talk page, but it left me wondering, who started the "disruptive editor" meme in your case? How did it begin? I know it's not a pleasant subject, but I've seen this happen before. Viriditas (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a good place to start, no?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That's a huge, hot mess and illustrates what happens when you attempt to apply NPOV to a BLP that has fringe overtones and subtopics.  Am I to assume, therefore, that Atsme was unfairly branded as "disruptive" because of her edits in the Griffin area? MEDRS editors descended on her like starving sharks, and FRINGE editors joined in for the mauling.  I've had similar things happen to me before on the Abby Martin BLP and the human rights in the US article, to speak of only two examples.  This is why the conventional wisdom of Wikipedia is to avoid controversial articles.  Because once you step into that hornet's nest, every effort will be made to turn you into a disruptive editor.  Sometimes it helps to step back and look at the bigger picture.  Controversial topic areas must be approached very carefully.  Unfortunately, many editors and admins in these areas are given carte blanche to do whatever they want, and often try to criminalize good faith editors.  I think that's what happened to Atsme.  I will not forget how I was treated by admins when I attempted to improve the film documentary article on Sicko.  Admins allowed POV pushers to run rampant, leading me to take the article off of my watchlist. I was accused of disruption for pointing out that these POV pushers were violating our policies and guidelines.  I was also accused of disruption for repeatedly removing OR from another film article.  In that case, the editor in question had several admins in their pocket and from what I can tell, was using backchannel communication to get me blocked. In any case, Atsme, welcome to the Hellfire Club. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You nailed it, Viriditas. Minor4th  23:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It took less than an hour after my arrival at the Griffin page, after exactly two comments, before I was threatened with "admins are watching" and "this page is under DS". Special:PermanentLink/671051664 This was the comment that was seen as justification for the threat: I agree that xxxxxxx's claims are not in alignment with WP:RS. In fact even non-notable blogs can be used as a source in certain circumstances. If taken to the RS NB, the Forbes source and content, for example, can be reviewed by less-entrenched editors with perhaps a more neutral stance. (00:04, 10 April 2015) I'm not sure if chasing me away was the intention behind the threat, but it worked. This was the first time in my history (of only two thus far) that someone has played the DS card. The second time was even more ridiculous. So hearing folks cheer for DS being prescribed as a way to chill the GMO suite just leaves me wilted.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The misapplication and aggressiveness of DS warnings on the frontend is a separate problem. The use of DS sanctions on the backend, including the logging of warnings, increases the efficacy of DS, and it works quite well in controversial topic areas. If it had been implemented in 2013 as I suggested at the time, the dispute would have ended then and there.  But because admins and arbs don't seem to be able to make good decisions and lack situational awareness, the dispute dragged out for years on end.  I continue to maintain that administrative practices cause more problems than they are worth. The community has enough knowledge to solve these problems on their own without interference from people who claim to know better.  Jytdog and others violated almost every policy and guideline, yet because they pushed the corporate line, they were never sanctioned for it. There is no fairness when it comes to enforcement because the friends and allies of admins and arbs work together and give preferential treatment to those who share their beliefs. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Until very recently, I believed you were pessimistic to the extreme with regard to your views on the admin pool and hierarchy. Given what you say has proven true, that Wikipedia has an ingrained bias, one that allows people to be slandered and truth to be distorted, I argue (again) that this cannot be called an encyclopedia. The beloved Encycloedia, the Bible for truth-lovers, is unbiased. I could never imagine finding a PR statement, for instance, in what were my best friends growing up: a set of burgundy hard-cover Encyclopedia Brittanicas.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   07:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Good summaries, V. I certainly understand Petra's concerns especially with regards to how they might relate to a "group effort" with admin support. DS can be imposed by any admin and that decision cannot be overturned by another admin without permission from the 1st admin. Considering what happened to me, it is a bit disconcerting and I was wondering if there might be alternative measures? I do believe some fringe/pseudoscience concerns may be warranted, such as with relentless snake-oil pushers, but at the same time, we should be free to write biographies about authors who are notable for writing about fringy topics as long as the article maintains NPOV, cites solid MEDRS, is identified as fringe and is accurate. Instead, we are seeing more and more opinion pieces, coatracks or editorials rather than encyclopedic BLPs, and we're seeing cases where admins are involved in making it so. Anyway, I'd much rather write about topics in my area of expertise and avoid all the drama. Regarding your initial question of who started it, I tried to answer with supporting diffs while keeping it short, but brevity was never my strong point. The chronology may be off but it shouldn't really matter.
 * Griffin, started editing in Dec 2014 – I wanted to expand/improve BLP for DYK, GA and possible FA candidate. Jiminy Crickett, Charles Manson and Hitler comply with NPOV, why shouldn't Griffin?  (btw, Hitler was promoted to GA).  Stopped editing Griffin in Feb or early March 2015.  They ran me off from that article quite handily, but the last straw was when I realized Dreadstar (desysopped) had been summoned to do the "dirty work".  He started out pleasant, then started in on me at my TP for violating PAGs that were not PAGs. Huh?  He struck my evidence and deleted my diffs.  He also accused me of policy violations in the TP discussions based on (1) OR which does not apply to TP, and (2) a BLP violation that does not exist.  See the section titled Arbitration enforcement warning and on that same page, see the section titled BLP.  It's batshit crazy when you get into the mechanics of what actually took place and to what lengths they would go in order to keep that BLP a coatrack (and it still is to this day).
 * Created WP:AVDUCK after a bit of discussion at SV's TP. It was my first essay and an attempt to help new editors avoid the sandtraps.  The disruption that erupted over that essay was off the charts from day one.  There were 3 rounds of MfDs I had to defend.  Two were successful deletes; the 3rd was KEEP.  I did my best to accommodate the critics, and got most of it done except for a small group who have repeatedly shown ill-will toward me ever since Griffin.
 * Kombucha fits in here somewhere, too. Same ill-will by group members working together to avoid 3RR, one of whom notified their favorite admin to stop me from removing noncompliant material, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kombucha&diff=prev&oldid=667842107].  I was the one who got the 7-day aBan despite the lack of evidence that I had done anything wrong, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Callanecc&diff=next&oldid=668213015]. The accusations made against me were meritless and obviously parroted my accuser(s) without reviewing their claims.
 * The COINoscopy followed and I was unjustly branded as a COI editor over a handful of fish articles (EL and self-citing a couple of PBS documentaries I produced/wrote back in the 90s). RL id was probed and exposed, aspersions were cast, and even though I was innocent of the charges, there was nothing I could do but take the beating.
 * Within hours of the COINoscopy, the very first article I created, co-authored and managed to get promoted to GA, Gabor B. Racz, was descended upon by some of the same "group" who hated AVDUCK. They nominated Racz for delisting without consulting with me, then stripped it naked (see top sections of this TP for the compliments I received right after I wrote that BLP, which proves the delisting wasn't justified and could have been handled much differently). I stepped in to save what I could, but was outnumbered.  Reviewers have been avoiding re-review of the article because of the drama.  Several of the fish articles I edited and managed to get promoted to GA and FA were also targeted but editors I collaborated with in the past along with an uninvolved admin stepped in and saved them.  (See the hatted section at the top of this page).  I was also wrongfully accused of copyvio at Griffin and my accusers insisted that I admit to it.  Instead, I provided proof of no copyvio which probably made them dislike me even more.  They absolutely hate it when editors they consider their opposition happen to be right, and that's sad.
 * Disruption at AVDUCK caused me to file an AN/I against 3 disruptive editors (their block logs speak to their disruptive behavior). Same song, second verse – more of the same ill-will and vindictiveness.  The violators walked away unscathed while I endured a boomerang and textbook case of WP:POV railroad.  Multiple aspersions were cast against me by other members of the same ill-will group who hate(d) AVDUCK and/or have labeled me a disruptive COI editor because of the COIN fiasco.  That's when I realized I had been unjustly labeled and covered in what I refer to as "the stench of WP:FRINGE/PS" dating back to Griffin – all because I wanted to accurately describe a book he had written and the reasons he gave for writing it!
 * The "disruptive editor" tattoo hot-iron branding hit me again when editors I least expected to call me disruptive actually did (while I was blocked, of course), [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Advocacy_ducks&diff=675589431&oldid=675249114]. It created a fair amount of stress for me because (1) my RL id had been probed and improperly exposed against my wishes, and (2) I was being targeted by editors I actually admired and once trusted, and was forced to defend myself against a retaliatory meritless block that was based on nothing more than aspersions, POV and other reasons that should not have even been a factor.

We all learn rather quickly that protesting unwarranted attacks against one's character/integrity only prolongs the agony and increases the attacks. It doesn't matter if you're innocent – in fact, the latter seems to justify it simply because you put yourself in that position. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. I got the full lecture about the Law of Holes, and then JzG topped it off with: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atsme&diff=674902657&oldid=674900977]. That appears to be how things are handled when there are no diffs to support the aspersions. Start the backhoe, Bubba!! And if you truly aren't in the wrong and deny doing anything wrong then you're attacked as someone who refuses to admit they did anything wrong!! It's laughable!! Do you realize you will be accused of disruption if you do not agree with certain members of a "group" who have claimed WP:OWN of a particular article? Well, of course you do. Look, I don't want or expect sympathy over what I've endured, and I would be very appreciative if my WP friends/colleagues would just mull over it silently. Houston, we have a problem. I think we will all be better served to exert our energy into finding ways to stop such injustices from happening again, especially to new editors at a time when the project needs editors most. !VOTE FOR THE RIGHT CANDIDATES FOR ARBCOM and be careful who you elect to be an administrator. I still believe we can stop the bullying and POV pushing, and turn things around for the better. Atsme 📞📧 05:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

News about Alligator gar fish found in India too
Helll editor, Please visit this link and modify your article about spread of the fish.

www.newscrunch.in/2015/11/actress-nagma-shares-photos-of-rare.html?m=1

Thaks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.254.77 (talk • contribs) 15:58, December 6, 2015&lrm;
 * At least they didn't call you the editor from hell! (-: --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Or the crocodile-headed editor ;-) DrChrissy (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'll admit to having to do a double-take on that one., I actually have been referred to as the "gar lady" which isn't far off the mark.  I was anointed by WFAA, the ABC affiliate in Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx when they interviewed me for the 6:00 pm news.  It was a bittersweet label because some misunderstood it as being in line with lizard lady, as in leper.  Why else would it make the news, right?  Ha!  The two days of promos leading up to that interview made me cringe. SMirC-embarassed.svg Years later I ended-up writing a weekly relationship column titled Straight-Talk  (syndicated, Dutch Caribbean). The islanders called me Dr. Love – my most favorite label of all-time.  SMirC-chuckle.svg Atsme 📞📧 00:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Scyllarides latus
Regarding [ this edit], the overriding concern with an illustration must be that it actually illustrates the text. The photograph you have chosen was taken in the Cayman Islands, where the species in question does not occur (although the closely related Scyllarides aequinoctialis does). With that in mind, your chosen picture cannot be used to illustrate the topic, regardless of matters of image quality. For the other articles where it occurs, I am firmly of the opinion that a well identified picture is better than a poorly identified one, too. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Having referred to Holthuis (1991) and other images online, the form and colouration of your specimen is a close match for Scyllarides aequinoctialis, which does occur in the Cayman Islands. No images of Scyllarides latus from its native range show such bright colouration. The article on S. aequinoctialis could do with an image, so if you concur with my tentative identification, I would be happy to see your picture added there. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected and apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused you. Atsme 📞📧 15:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Filippino Lippi 016.jpg
An alternative image was added to the nomination 3 days ago. Could you indicate which version(s) you support? Thanks, Armbrust The Homunculus 12:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Cutting
I like the work you are doing on the cutting article. If you think it would be fun to take it to GA, I'd be glad to help... I'm familiar with the GA criteria, you are familiar with the sport and can be sure that the content is accurate... this could be fun. Montanabw (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , absolutely! Atsme 📞📧 12:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Lists of horses
I'm creating a list of the World Grand Championship winning TWHs here. When it's done I'll just copy-paste it to the TWHNC article or launch it as its own list. I stole the template from Kentucky Derby (the list of winners), and adapted it for that show, but it could be adapted for anything. I thought you might want to see it because you might like to do something similar with the Quarter Horses. White Arabian Filly ( Neigh ) 23:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Mystery solved
You have a beta feature enabled... see the Brizendine talk page for my assessment. Montanabw (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

AAAS journal access
Atsme, thank you for letting me know I have access. I applied, but heard nothing back. I would really appreciate learning how to login. I use the JSTOR all the time. For JSTOR, there is a protocol for signing in.

I would like to take advantage of the access to Science magazine, etc. Can you please tell me the link? Regards, Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 00:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi,, I am sending you an email with an update on your journal access. Atsme 📞📧 16:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Atsme, Thank you for the email reply. This JSTOR sample shows how I use JSTOR's Wikipedia Library resource. I login to JSTOR, read, investigate, and add liberal numbers of good citations to the encyclopedia articles, in depth. But no AAAS citations, because of the wall around them. I'm an examplar of the kind of editor one expects: I have used the encyclopedia since 2003 (admin since 2005). Over 20,000 edits. I attended Wikimania in 2006 and 2012. Jimbo knows me by sight (we ate dinner together in Chicago once). The foundation interviewed me once (by Victor Grigas, the storyteller, in Washington, DC), so I am not unknown to WMF. I would hope AAAS will provide us a link to the right person on their side. If there is more that AAAS needs, we can close the loop with them. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 12:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Help please
Hi there Atsme, taking a look at the list of copy editors and looking for someone I knew I ran into your name. I did a ce on the article Neonatal infection but since I'm really not at all qualified I tend to make very few changes, even though I feel there is room for improvement. I really just do not trust my own judgement and I'm right about that because the times that I've had a copy editor fix my work I've been stunned by what they can do. Anyway, this is a brand new editor doing her first DYK and she's been very appreciative of the help she's received so far. If you have time/interest, would you take a look at it? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, - I'll see what I can do to help.  Atsme 📞📧 18:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to check in here to give you some feedback on neonatal infection. I appreciate your edits and the article is better for your input. Your edits to the lead have changed the meaning slightly, but I don't feel an urgent need to go fix the (minor) problems. As for me being a brand new editor, I am not certain why would think this would be the case. I have two user accounts: Bfpage and Barbara (WVS) and the edits done with these two accounts comes to a bit over 20,000. This is not my first DYK, but my second. I've lost count of the articles that I've created, but it probably is around 60 or 70. Please feel free to 'follow' me around and check up on my editing because I appreciate improvements that others make to the content. I have a problem with prose, my articles don't flow as well as they should and it look likes this is probably a very strong point in your editing. The Very Best of Regards,
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Barbara, I am so sorry and I feel just terrible about my mistakes. I'm afraid that this is all my mistake and I've dragged Atsme into it as well.  I should have been more careful.  Please accept my apology.  Best, Gandy  Gandydancer (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It's all cool, . The collaboration improved the lead,  is a veteran editor and wonderful content creator,  and I'm happy you got us together.  I can't think of anything I appreciate more than working with knowledgeable content creators.  I can put the spit shine on an article but I need topic experts to help insure accuracy, and that's exactly what just happened.  Thank you!! Atsme 📞📧 05:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Found one for you
Team penning, which I came across as a result of researching uses of Spotted Saddle Horses, doesn't look to be in good shape (understatement). Don't know if you have experience there, but I don't, so... Also, happy new year! 🎆🎇🎉🎊 White Arabian Filly  ( Neigh ) 23:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Need help
We need more neutral opinions here. Please help! Thanx! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

A present for you!
Thought you'd get a kick out of this. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm adding it somewhere near the top of this page! Ha!! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 22:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Motorcycling invite

 * Just because I sense perhaps you ride a Suzuki Boulevard C50? If not, your contributions are still most welcome. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well fancy that, . Your insightfulness is remarkable. I appreciate the invite, and will investigate the info you provided as soon as I finish editing the Racz article. SMirC-thumbsup.svg <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 03:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Query, GA Review of Gabor B. Racz
I also probably am now deemed to be a "major contributor" to the article, which means I shouldn't do a review. Sorry about that. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, User:7&amp;6=thirteen. You did some copy editing which is not the same as contributing content and actually a common practice for some reviewers.  Helpful tweaks are always welcome.  Per the edit revision history of that article, you made 19 edits, 42.1% of which were minor.  The 2nd highest number of edits is 60 with no minor edits, and the highest number of edtis is 218 with only 4 minor edits, so it's all good.  SMirC-wink.svg  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 13:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggest you contact User:Bluerasberry. He may have some suggestions.  As I see it, the prior reviewers are answering the wrong question.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I posted a review at Talk:Gabor B. Racz/GA2. Thanks user:7&6=thirteen.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gabor B. Racz
The article Gabor B. Racz you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Gabor B. Racz for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bluerasberry -- Bluerasberry (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Renominating Loham
What are your thoughts about re-nominating Loham for GA review. It must be the main contributor who should be nominating it. --Charles Turing (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea, . Give me today to go over it again and make sure all the citations and refs are in order, and the copyediting is complete.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 19:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

A thought
Pop over to Gerda's WP:QAI project. It's another bastion of rebels... ;-)   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk) | GO  THUNDER!  23:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Only it's not "mine"! I only keep the spirit of those (men) who founded it and left, and left the work to us women ;) – The article on the Main page today received refs by member #2, DYK? Lead DYK by me, - a good day for the cabal of the outcasts! - Watch WP:QAIPOST and post yourself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , if you get a chance, pop over to the TP of Doc James where I posted the focus for WP:Project Accuracy. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 22:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I have no chance these days, don't get my projects done, + a new discussion on Pierre Boulez, see talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh grrr...
Lulu.com is a self-pub imprint. The SOB did a straight copypaste of the entire wikipedia article into his book,. Not a damn thing anyone do about it because we release everything as GDFL, but this one hurt more than most... and my editor handle is attributed in the back:  These buggers are tricky, I got caught using one as a source once too! Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk) 06:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I actually think we are making progress on the article. Your suggestions where there is awkward prose and such are quite good, and you point out where things get bogged down and boring.  Now that I've addressed the copyvio issue (man, that guy still has me torked, though... grr grrr grrrrrr) and you don't actually have to rewrite it for me (grin)  I'd like to put this up for FAC by March 1 or maybe even sooner.  I'm hoping that you can live with some of the style and layout calls I made on the existing article. Really, other than the discussion of chronological order versus topical order, I'm mostly agreeing with your suggestions.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  07:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As an aside, there is a long tale (without adequate RS, LOL) of the Magness operation, 900 horses and corresponding to when Mr. Magness died, the TCI cable empire collapsed. Inside chatter from the Arabian horse community is that there was a huge dispersal sale -- I think more than one, actually, and some of the back story on Ann Judge is that she was originally offered the job of riding Thunder but turned it down at first because she was too busy with other things. She got a second chance later and took it -- (I don't know if the first gal quit or what) and became the trainer when Hudson left the Magness operation (he now manages a Thoroughbred farm: .  And check your email. ;)   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  07:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll begin by apologizing for doubting you in the first place. Secondly, I am blown away by it. I'm posting an additional response to you on the article TP and striking my initial comment there. Thank you for looking into this and correcting me. I'm not a very good investigator but in retrospect, I'm glad I brought it to your attention so it could be resolved once and for all.  It's one thing for us to contribute to this encyclopedia and cite the parts we use (written in our own words) as gleaned from the work of others, but for that person to copy verbatim large blocks of text that you've written, publish it as his own work, and then sell it – Wow.  Having said that, I've also heard that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. SMirC-congrats.svg  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 15:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Heh, then I've really been flattered! LOL!   Thank you and all is much better now!   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  06:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm glad that there turned out not to be any ogres! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter – March 2016
– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Cutting userbox
I finally figured out how to make userboxes, and made a cutting horse one: User:White Arabian Filly/Cutting horse. In a few days I may make one for Western riding in general and maybe barrels or rodeo. I did a saddle seat one too; there was nothing before except the general riding one, dressage and jumping. White Arabian Filly ( Neigh ) 02:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * We could use a general western riding one!  Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  02:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank
Thanks for the wikignoming, I started a talk page section at the article, figured discussion best there. FWIW, if you want to observe what the gauntlet can look like, peek (if you dare) at Featured article candidates/Oxbow (horse)/archive1 and the pre-FAC gauntlet at Talk:Oxbow (horse)/Archive 1. I had helped with other FACs before, this was the first one I did as "solo lead" so to speak... I don't think I've had one that tough since, but then, I've gotten better at sourcing as I go... By the way, just so you know my general philosophy, even if I don't adopt someone's suggestions 100%, I do assume that they made them in good faith and that their flagging a section means it does need something fixed, or at least was not as well-written as it could be! Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk) 02:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome, . I actually enjoy the process, but what little dabbling I've done can't compare to all that you've accomplished or your community experiences here.  My disclosures along with a summary of my work on WP is included on my main user page.  My first FAC was promoted in late 2014.  It took about a month for all the reviewers to weigh-in and for me to get everything up to specs: WP:Featured article candidates/American paddlefish/archive1.  I also participated as a reviewer on 2 other FACs and a few GAs, then focused on FPs for a while on Commons & WP, and did some PR and CE on a few other articles that were promoted to GA.  I recently helped get an article ready for GAN, and another almost ready as a FAC.  Working with GAs, FAs, & FPs are what I enjoy doing most on WP. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 03:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah! So you know the gauntlet!  I most certainly welcome your input! I never do any of these articles all by myself, it is the collaboration and input from others that makes them work!  On Thunder, I made some of your suggested changes already; I figured that even if I didn't use exactly your rephrases, the fact you tweaked things meant SOMETHING was off.  I hope I made things clearer and better.  Feel free to comment at the article talk or in hidden text within the article itself. Yeah, FAC is about a month from beginning to end, and that's if you nag people.  GO PADDLEFISH!   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  04:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Review of Gabor B. Racz
User:Willard84 might be able to help. GA Review of Gabor B. Racz Don't know if he does GA reviews, but it can't hurt to ask. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Rosiestep (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Invitation

 * Thanks for joining the project! North America1000 08:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Failed notification
. See WP:Echo. -- Red rose64 (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thx, - I just did a separate ping.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 01:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It's up
Featured article candidates/Thunder (mascot)/archive1. Watchlist the FAC and feel free to pop by and help... Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk) 08:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yay! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 14:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've pinged a few reviewers who I know to be experienced and reliable, they'll be thorough and appropriately tough on us, but I know they have the improvement of the wiki at heart. Good folks; I hope they'll have the time to drop by.  So someone shows up at the FAC, peek at their talkpage to see if they are someone recruited, an experienced FAC reviewer, or just a random drive-by.  Sometimes the drivebys do excellent reviews, but every now and then we get someone... who might be there because they are not my BFF (this is my first FAC since the RfA...)  ;-)     Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  17:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Guess what else needs an article?
A venue you've probably seen: Special:WhatLinksHere/National Western Complex (the linked articles need cleanup too!) Maybe  might want to help, she's done some articles on show venues. Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk) 05:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd help with that. White Arabian Filly  ( Neigh ) 21:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Loham GA review
Happy to say that User:Jaguar has agreed to finish the review by tonight or tomorrow. --Charles Turing (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Question
Do you have software of some kind that automatically detects vandalism, and if so is it exclusive to admins? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 23:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Atsme. There are a variety of counter-vandalism tools available, and to the best of my knowledge they are available to all registered users.  See WP:OLDSCHOOL, which provides a directory of such tools and their features.  Prior to the deployment of rollback to non-administrators, I used Godmode-Lite in conjunction with Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool.  For purposes of notifying would-be disruptors, you may also wish to enable Twinkle from the Preferences/Gadgets menu if you have not already done so.  I still use the Lupin recent2.js to this day, but you may wish to explore Vandal Fighter and some of the other options listed as well to find which suits you best.  Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2016 (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 Montanabw -- Montanabw (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I boldly tweaked some stuff in the article to demonstrate what I am trying to say at the GAN. It isn't my intention to hijack the article, so if you see a better way to do what I am suggesting, no worries.  I'm being very careful with this GAN due to its past history; don't want **my** approval to be quashed!   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  06:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you did the right thing – to boldly go where...and still maintained the "safe zone" for a GAR. 😊  I tweaked it a bit based on the prior GAR and my inherent desire to accommodate the different POVs but all is good.  Thank you, .  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 22:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

- remember the beta feature that had us all scratching our heads for a minute or two – the one that shows related articles at the bottom of the page? The one for Racz shows him to be an "innovator and scientist". In fact, the prose in the tidbit feature is more engaging than what some would have us write in the article itself. Wonder if that beta feature is somehow connected to the Knowledge Engine? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 00:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That's an LOL to contemplate!  Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  07:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Project Accuracy

 * I might as well answer here, since it probably would involve both of you. I just need a lot more details.  An Editorial Review Board sounds like a very interesting idea and could be fun.  But actually I think it could easily violate Wikipedia rules, such as forming some sort of exclusive club that others couldn't join without an invitation.  If it's just another rating scheme (that anybody can participate in whenever they want) – well this could be done better than it is now, but I think I'd rather not – rating something properly takes a huge amount of time.  Working up a consistent rating scheme and the organization to implement it would take a huge amount of time.  Right now you're probably saying something like "I didn't mean that at all" so I'll go back to the beginning – I need a lot more detail.  Thanks.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the questions. The table below that Wikicology put together shows what we've identified so far as potential risk and includes proposed mitigation.  Of course, we are in the development stages which is why I was hoping to recruit experienced editors to work with me.  The grant will help compensate for the dedicated time required to put everything together and get it off the ground but you might want to review that, too.  The effort required will be substantial and what some would consider a part-time job but again, it's still in the development stages.  There will also be a promotional initiative once everything is underway and we have a substantial number of articles that have been promoted but I haven't gotten that far, yet.  I think starting with FAs would help expedite things.
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Risks !! Possible negative effects !! Mitigation
 * 1. Low numbers of participating members || *Excessive backlogs
 * Low numbers of volunteers may create risk of burn-out || Project coordinators have identified at least (?#?) highly experienced editors across all WikiProjects who are willing to serve on the ERB
 * 2. Unequal representation in the ERB || *Contents monopolization
 * Unequal representation on ERB may result in content disputes || Project coordinators will ensure that all the WikiProjects will be equally represented by highly experienced editors
 * 3. Poor protection of promoted articles || *High risk of vandalism or inaccuracies || Promoted articles by the ERB will have pending change review protection
 * }
 * 3. Poor protection of promoted articles || *High risk of vandalism or inaccuracies || Promoted articles by the ERB will have pending change review protection
 * }
 * }

- just redoing the ping as I forgot to sign the last post. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 03:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I am ambiguous about this idea. I think that having content review boards with some kind of actual authority on content would be a great idea for improving the quality of wikipedia's articles. It would however, I think, not align well with our general vision for what wikipedia is (a collaborative user-created encyclopedia) or with our basic principles of community structure and decision making. I think that a much easier way to do this would be to include content accuracy and fact checking in the FA criteria. And then to simply have a team that organizes fact checking of FA and GA candidates. I dont think the community would be positively disposed towards any "cabal" of "elite users" with "special privileges" to validate content (note the scare quotes denote expressions I think many members of the community might use about the project to explain why they would find it problematic). Personally I would be happy with an Editorial Review Board as long as I was on it myself, but if I were not then I would very probably not. I suspect many others would share that feeling. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful input, . My initial thoughts when developing the project included involvement by as many project teams as we can possibly recruit.  We could then draw from those project teams to form a well staffed, wide-ranging ERB – one that would alternate – one that would still be under some level of scrutiny by the project coordinators not too unlike the trusted editorial review boards of numerous other publications and perhaps even medical journals.  The fact checking or accuracy check, whichever you prefer to call it, would basically involve corroborating info to cited sources.  In other words, if the cited sources do not support the information in the article, the article would not be promoted.  Pretty simple on the surface, but still requiring the talents of qualified ce and experienced reviewers.  Yes, it will have some teeth in so far as the article will not be promoted with the seal attached if it does not pass the criteria of the ERB.  It will also not "automatically" be eligible for "pending changes review" until it is promoted, and that includes "automatic" semi-protection against vandalism by problematic IPs.  No one wants to see their hard work and valuable time go up in smoke because of vandalism, or advocacy, etc.  Once we are able to promote the reviewed articles, we can initiate a PR campaign defining the purpose of the gold seal, and what all was involved in the promotion of an article.  We can specifically target academia with our promotions so WP will become acceptable as a cited source as it relates to the "sealed" articles.  We currently have a grading scale for article importance to a specific project.  There's no reason we can't add a grading scale regarding reliability as determined by a qualified editorial review board.  Project Accuracy is still in the developmental phase, so please keep contributing your thoughts and excellent ideas!  They are not going to waste. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 00:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there is a problem with the way that the idea that conceives of accuracy as being simply correspondence between information in the article and in the source. That is easy. The real problem of accuracy is in the choice of sources. To fact check something one needs to actually do the research needed to determine if the source selected is the most accurate source available. This in turn requires topic expertise. And often it is a matter of some degree of subjective judgment that can be discussed. Which is why consensus building between topic experts is the best way to promote accuracy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that we will have project coordinators working with project teams where the expertise is concentrated. If an issue arises regarding the source, the coordinators and ERB discuss it with the project teams.  It's actually "coordination" of effort rather than editorial disputes between two editors in an edit war.  I forsee a substantial reduction in content disputes using this method.  The driving force behind it will be the seal because only the articles with seals will be the ones promoted in the PR to academia and the like.  It doesn't change anything about the basis of WP itself.  What it does is take some WP articles to a higher level of reliability which can only help, not hurt the project. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 00:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you propose that the ERB then act when other editors disagree with their assessment of what are the facts? If an editor arrives at an article and wants to change some piece of information that the ERB has "verified" then how will that be dealt with? Coordination is fine, but coordination also means that those who are not part of the coordinated effort are shut out and excluded. That does have the potential to severely hurt efforts at recruitment and retention. Also you didn't actually respond to my point about the fact that source selection is more significant for achieving maximal accuracy than faithful reproduction of a given sources content. This speaks to the question of what "reliability" is – and the answer is that it is a fuzzy concept that can only be determined through a consensus process. So the key question here is how the "board" relates to and deals with the normal consensus building process – and how its "authority" will be enforced. I will need a much better description of that to consider supporting the project.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood so I'll begin by saying our first initiative will be a review of articles that have already been promoted to FA. I can't think of a better place to begin.  Those articles have already been run through the mill so the ERB will be able to focus on the key elements for accuracy.  We cannot automatically assume that FAs are noncompliant with WP's 3 core content policies or that they have issues, correct?  Project Accuracy will not hinder the FA process rather it will help to enhance it.  PA is the next step up and we already have over 4,000 articles to get started on.  I'm sure there will be issues raised which can be addressed as they occur, and yes, we will certainly maintain the standards that have helped WP grow but there is nothing stopping us from improving them if we dare to think a little beyond the norm – beyond the stub and starter article – beyond DYK and GA, all the way up to FA.  I have the utmost respect for the FA review process, and hold the reviewers of FA in high regard.  Project Accuracy basically helps validate all the work they've invested – takes it a step further, not because the FA reviewers didn't do a good enough job, but to validate what they did and to serve as an additional level of checks and balances, and an even broader coordinated effort.  It will garner respect in so many ways, some of which were evidenced in the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval in its heyday but for much different reasons; it will be an outreach effort to recruit more readers by accommodating some of the needs of academia regarding reliability as a source. We can't expect much more than that.  It won't be easy.  It will require coordination and cooperation.  We will hit bumps in the road but I strongly believe that with the right team we can make it work. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 01:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

An editorial review board of actual recognized subject matter experts might fly, but unless the experts are externally (off-wiki) recognized and identified by their real-world identities, skills, experience and qualifications, there will always be suspicion and accusations of conspiracy. In many cases these will probably be true, but almost always unprovable. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
North America1000 10:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Project Accuracy and the WMF
Project Accuracy will not work as long as the WMF remains hands-off and the community of editors are mostly against accuracy and try to get their POV into articles. The only way it will work is if you remove most board members from the WMF and replace them with active Wikipedia editors and create a new organization run by experts to review articles. The WMF is run by people who keep secrets from the community. See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 205. QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I hear you,, and I'm almost inclined to agree, especially after what I just discovered: that Project Accuracy has been plagiarized, another grant has been proposed and ironically, it has support from some of the same people who were dissing Project Accuracy. Nice, isn't it?  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 18:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you know where is the real Accuracy Project for academic input? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand your question, QG...are you asking me for this link? or implying there is a real Accuracy Project and we're not it? SMirC-spent.svg <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 20:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Project Accuracy does not have a specific proposal for academic input such as "Experts with a background in writing peer-reviewed articles are suitable candidates." The Project Reform Essay does specific proposals. For example, "It is proposed that at least five WMF board members are active members of the Wikipedia community." QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it actually does if you'll read the discussions; however, if you've decided that what you stated is the determining factor, then good luck with that. For some reason, I've always believed WP already had editors who are academics but I suppose anonymity gets in the way.  Before writing them off, I would suggest asking them if they would be willing to join the ERB and identify themselves.  I don't see that as a bad thing for the project.  Basically, what the other proposal tells me is that WP doesn't value the input of our own academics and prefers to go outside the project to academics who are not editors because?  They identify themselves, that's why. And that is supposed to be acceptable in the broader sense?  Project Accuracy has its barometer set at recruitment wherein levels indicating plus or minus will be gaged on utilizing our own available resources.  The results of the polls (input) regarding level of acceptance will be measured by outside input from academia.  Sorry, but I'm inclined to believe that academics who have experience as WP editors are far more valuable to the project than those who are detached and don't have a clue about our procedures.  I'll close by saying may the best proposal be adopted. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 21:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A new group of editors who will act as fact-checkers will not work unless they can override consensus because Wikipedia is committed to amateurism. That is the reason behind a new organization run by experts. Consensus overrides accuracy. Of course there are experts on Wikipedia, but there are not enough experts. There is no place on Wikipedia to report inaccuracies to quickly resolve disputes. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are not even on the same page. We're talking about recognizing articles as being one level up from FA review.  What are you talking about? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 22:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We are not at the point of creating a one level up from a FA review. There are far too many problems. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your input but quite a few other editors disagree. Just curious, how involved are you in the FA review process, or as an FA contributor? I'm recruiting. 😊 <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 22:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not involved with FA. I edit mainly controversial articles. I could bring controversial articles up to GA and then FA, but other editors prefer inaccurate text. I have seen a very good article get deleted and replaced with a different article because they didn't like the notable topic. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting, QG. That's a horse of a different color.  Perhaps we could discuss a possible resolution for that issue sometime in the near future.  I'm certainly willing to help but right now, I'm up to my earlobes in alligators here at the ranch.  Good talking to you! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 22:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was walking by the river and out of the blue an alligator/admin replaced sourced text with blatant OR. There won't be any resolution any time soon. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)