User talk:Atsme/Archive 7

Sources & stuff

 * (The following was copied from another Talk page for further discussion here...)


 * You left out important parts of what Guy actually stated - The text the source purports to support is: "Some of Emerson's statements and networks have been challenged as fomenting Islamophobia". It does not mention fomenting, and I don't see any such mention in the others either. The source is scarecely without an agenda, either, since it's written by academics on Islamic studies. So instead of nit-picking, how about finding a robust, independent source that actually supports the sentence, or modifying the sentence to something actually supported by the sources? He has been accused of islamophobia by islamists, would be entirely uncontroversial. You seem determined to go much further. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The Cambridge Companion to American Islam had passing mention, a very bigoted one at that - ...cited Islmophobes Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh) and the equally notorious Daniel Pipes as his sources.
 * The Washington Post included one short statement - However, Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past.
 * Carl Ernst's Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance, also passing mention in a chapter titled "Women as Producers of Islamophobic Discourse" - Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Newt Gin[g]rich, Steven Emerson, Glenn Beck, Frank Gaffney - many of the most prominent producers of Islamophobic discourse are male.
 * Law as movement strategy: How the Islamophobia movement institutionalizes fear through legislation - ...funding flows to the Islamophobia movement's 'misinformation experts' including...Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism.
 * All but one source represents an allegation, none of which are backed up by anything but biased opinion. Co-authors Safi and Hammer who wrote the Cambridge published book are the only ones who actually called Emerson an Islamophobe, and then cited a Think Progress article which incorrectly paraphrased an evaluation made by Emerson during a CBS interview 20 years ago, an evaluation that was supported by law enforcement. Emerson called it "a Middle Eastern trait" with no mention whatsoever of the word Muslim.  WP should not be the forum for such unfounded allegations and echoing the bigotry shown by scholars of Islamic studies.  Editors should be striving for accuracy and verifiability.  If the criticism by Safi and Hammer are included, they don't belong in the lead, rather they belong in the section about the Murrah Bldg.  The phrases were clearly cherrypicked to give readers the impression Emerson is "fomenting Islamophobia".  Smells a lot like WP:SYNTH. Regardless, this discussion belongs on BLPN, rather than as a critical distraction to my RS questions to Guy. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  00:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Atsme. I seem to be hearing a lot of the same unpersuasive arguments. Sometimes there is a simple misuse of a word or phrase; sometimes the arguments have been completely refuted, yet they still crop up in discussion after discussion.  Some of them are in your paragraph I copied just above.  I'd like to break down and itemize what I see are some of the stumbling blocks in our discourse and see if we can maybe achieve some level of agreement and understanding.  At the very least, this should clue you in to what I see as the biggest weaknesses in your assertions, and allow you to either adjust your argument or explain to me what I might be missing.  Here goes (I apologize for the length)...
 * Hi, Xenophrenic - my responses follow each of yours with my sig inserted at the summit.


 * (1) The Cambridge Companion to American Islam had passing mention...
 * Actually, it didn't have "passing mention". The sentence describing Emerson as an Islamophobe and discredited expert was actually cited to an external source and had a brief parenthetical justification. These two facts mean that the description was absolutely not a "passing mention". Perhaps you meant to express concern that there was but a single sentence describing Emerson as a matter of fact, without further elaboration? You can try to advance that argument, but to do so you will need to provide a reliable source which directly mentions the Cambridge University book, and then refutes that sentence. Otherwise, by default, the description is considered reliably sourced.


 * The description of Emerson is not a "passing mention" because it is supported by not only a parenthetical example, but is also cited to an article containing additional substantiation and source citations to an additional dozen sources (including Emerson himself), and those sources further contain another 30+ sources. You claim my explanation is "incorrect per WP:PAG", which is a dead link. I await your substantive argument as to why you keep mislabeling this citation as a "passing mention". And please support your argument with specific Wikipedia policy. (I'll respond to your unsupported accusations that a "biased article by Think Progress" is "a project of CAP" (not), is biased (not), is a "cherrypicked" statement (not) in sections 6, 10 and 12 respectively, already covering those, as they don't address the "passing mention" mischaracterization.)
 * (2) a very bigoted one at that.
 * No; describing someone as an Islamophobe is not a "bigoted" description. It's a description of a bigot.  Perhaps you misspoke and intended to say that the book was describing Emerson as a bigot (Islamophobe); well, yes, it did describe him as such. Are such descriptions prohibited on Wikipedia? No, but they must be accompanied by high-quality reliable sources.


 * See where even your definition describes "opinions", not assertion of fact. What was cited was not opinion, but substantiated fact. Note also that the 20 presenters of that fact, as vetted by an academic oversighter, did not express "a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others" in that statement, and to the contrary, took all opposing opinions into consideration of their assessment. That's what high-quality reliable sources do. Claiming the description of Emerson as a bigot (and factually challenged) is itself bigoted is amusing, but incorrect.
 * (3) The Washington Post included one short statement...
 * Yes, it did. It stated as a matter of fact that Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia, without further elaboration. To refute that fact, you will need to provide a reliable source which directly mentions that WaPo article, and then refutes that sentence.


 * I caught you. You seem to have accidentally omitted a salient sentence when citing WP:VALID, so I took the liberty of inserting it into your quotation for clarity. WP:VALID doesn't apply to the WaPo statement, as it isn't a "conspiracy theory"; it was an assertion of fact. WP:SUBSTANTIATE doesn't apply, as the statement wasn't given as an opinion. WP:EXCEPTIONAL only says that you can argue that additional mainstream sources be provided that say "Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia", which is fine -- there are a gazillion of them which note that Emerson has been so accused. (And no, WaPo doesn't have a conflict of interest, so that isn't applicable.)
 * (4) Ernst's Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance, also passing mention
 * No, also not a "passing mention", as Emerson was also mentioned and described before that in both chapters 1 and 2, and there are citations to external sources in support. In one instance, he's described as a "professional Islamophobe".


 * I looked for it, but I don't see where you have made a cogent case for requiring inline citation for any of the passages in Ernst's book. Could you summarize your argument here, noting how it specifically applies to Ernst?
 * (5) All but one source represents an allegation...
 * This is not correct, as none of those cited sources use wording that indicates they are only giving an opinion or "alleging" what they are saying. They are clearly giving those descriptions as assertions of fact. That means it must be you who is characterizing these descriptions as mere allegation, right? That argument won't get you very far. If an academic book by a reputable publisher contains a sentence which says "water is wet", you can't claim that is just an allegation.  Unless you can produce reliably sourced information showing that water is not wet, or that the assertion is at least disputed, people will assume you are just objecting to what you personally do not want to hear.  If you do produce reliably sourced content to the contrary, then there may be a case for offering both 'realities' with attribution.


 * Wow...no. You can argue that the statement "Emerson is an Islamophobe" is an allegation/accusation. You can  not  argue that it's not a fact that he has been so accused. For instance, CAIR accused him of it. That's a fact.  It's a factual statement that he has been accused.
 * As for the "many of the most prominent producers of Islamophobic discourse are male" part of the sentence, the "many are male" assertion may indeed be opinion as that is a subjective statement, but that isn't the part being conveyed in our article on Emerson. If we were to add the "many are male" argument to an article, you could successfully argue that it should be attributed; but we aren't And I think you already knew that, since you cleverly omitted the salient part of the sentence that cannot be confused as "allegation".
 * (6) none of which are backed up by anything but biased opinion
 * See argument #5 just before this. Since the descriptions of Emerson come from quality sources, with cited external sources and research, and vetted by stringent publishers with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, your personal exclamation that statements of fact are instead statements of opinion won't fly. No source is 100% infallible, of course; but you've produced nothing from other reliable sources to challenge the ones presented thus far.


 * I looked for your evidence that the statements of fact from the above cited reliable sources were just "biased opinion", but you've produced nothing from other reliable sources to challenge the ones presented thus far. I checked you response to #5, and there is no evidence there. I looked at all four of the links you provided at #3, and those are all just links to WP policies, not to evidence about how or why these statements of fact are instead "biased opinions". Perhaps you misunderstood this issue? To clarify: If you are going to mischaracterize assertions of fact from reliable sources as "biased opinions", please cite your evidence.
 * ✅ *(7) Co-authors Safi and Hammer who wrote the Cambridge published book are the only ones who actually called Emerson an Islamophobe
 * Flat out false. The authors who wrote that book are: Sylvia Chan-Malik, R. David Coolidge, Edward E. Curtis IV, Nabil Echchaibi, Kambiz GhaneaBassiri, Zareena A. Grewal, Julie Hammer, Rosemary R. Hicks, Sally Howell, Amaney Jawal, Akel Ismail Kahera, Michael Muhammad Knight, Karen Leonard, Debra Majeed, Kathleen M. Moore, Amid Safi, Richard Brent Turner, Gisela Webb, Timur R. Yuskaev. Also, that is just one book (he's one of the "professional Islamophobes" in the Ernst book, for instance).


 * Since you've acknowledged your mistake and know understand that Hammer & Sufi are just 2 of the 20 authors of the academic textbook, and since you didn't dispute the fact that other books (like Ernst's) have described Emerson as an Islamophobe, I've marked this segment as "done". I saw your unsubstantiated "who apparently share a similar bias" silliness, which I expect you'll substantiate with evidence in section #10, where you've made similar unsupported pronouncements.
 * (8) and then cited a Think Progress article which incorrectly paraphrased an evaluation made by Emerson during a CBS interview 20 years ago
 * That argument will not fly. Unless you provide equally reliably-sourced refutation saying that TP misparaphrased, you are just spouting your personal opinion, and your argument will fall flat. The article posted at Think Progress has at least a dozen links to other sources in it (including to Emerson himself), and some of those links lead to sources with dozens more links. You really don't think the 20 authors of that book didn't pour through those sources to uncover the facts?


 * Okay, I read what you called "the transcript" (your first link). It's not a transcript of his 1995 remarks. It's from 7 years later, and only conveys a little video clip excerpt - the same snippet as I've seen in dozens of other sources. It does not show the "inaccurate paraphrasing" you allege. In fact, the reporter in your link makes the very same paraphrasing in a follow-up question, and refers to "Muslims". So do you have an actual link to the actual interview or transcript? I also read your Brown link; same snippet - no transcript, and no evidence that there was any inaccurate paraphrasing. (I like that Brown BAM source, by the way, but it is very outdated ...it even mentions Emerson's lawsuit as pending, which he lost.) Still waiting for evidence that there was inaccurate paraphrasing, or your argument will not fly.
 * (9) Emerson called it "a Middle Eastern trait" with no mention whatsoever of the word Muslim.
 * And your point? Are you conducting your own original research here? That won't go over well, either. Following the links in the article at Think Progress, as if I were a University researcher, it's not hard to find numerous reliable sources supporting the paraphrasing. Or news sources and interviews where instead of challenging that he "didn't say Muslims!", he acknowledges it and says he has learned his lesson. He even whined that other news outlets who originally blamed Muslims were trying to make it seem that he was the only one to blame Muslims. (What an odd thing to say if you didn't blame Muslims in the first place.) The point: screaming that a reliable source is inaccurate will not advance your argument; you need equally reliable sources which refute it.


 * Did you just shoot yourself in the foot? First, both of your links appear to be deadlinks. But I was able to read the opinion piece from Rizvi that you posted on the Emerson Talk page, and I was able to find the NYT book review with a Google search. Um, the NYT book review says, "This was especially true after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which he initially suggested was the likely work of Muslim radicals." Were you linking that just to reinforce the fact that Emerson's accusation, when taken in context of the interview he gave in 1995, wrongly accused Muslims of terrorism? Anyway, I've read your two links, and also your "statements above", and I am still awaiting your actual evidence that Emerson apologized, and said he "learned his lesson", and promised never to accuse "Islamist terrorists" again, as you insist. (Instead of Muslims, as all these sources you keep producing say.)
 * (10) WP should not be the forum for such unfounded allegations and echoing the bigotry shown by scholars of Islamic studies.
 * You have not yet provided one piece of evidence showing any "unfounded allegations". As for the ridiculous "bigotry shown by scholars" silliness, you've just shown that you do not understand the definition of "bigotry". Describing someone as a bigot is not one of the definitions of bigotry. I really have no response for such baseless hyperbole.


 * "It appears you may be emotionally involved..." LOL. I see where you tried that exact same chill tactic on some other editors just a few minutes ago here. Hysteria will not serve you will in this discussion. You seem to forget I've been around here for more than a decade, and won't fall for that ploy. So back to my question: Where is your evidence of "bigoted articles written by self-promoting proponents of religious ideology"? Just one little, teensy bit of evidence. Surely you can produce just one scrap from a whole 'compendium'?
 * ✅ *(11) If the criticism by Safi and Hammer are included, they don't belong in the lead, rather they belong in the section about...
 * Incorrect. Per policy, significant content, including critical content, will likely be in the body of the article as well as summarized in the lede.


 * Given your acknowledgement that the lead will summarize the article, I'll mark this as "done". Your unsupported personal opinions about what constitutes "biased opinions", "paid advocates", etc., appear to be reiterations of the stuff in #10, where we are still patiently waiting for evidence.
 * (12) The phrases were clearly cherrypicked...
 * You are using that phrase incorrectly. Cherrypicked means you can produce contradictory or significant qualifying information from the very same sources, which you have not done (and I'd wager can not be done). I think what you meant to say is "Editors have produced sourced phrases which are unflattering or critical of Emerson", and indeed they have.


 * "because the source in its larger sense did not focus on him or his activity" is not part of the definition of cherrypicking you just gave, nor of the one I gave. Did you mean to say "because the source in its larger sense contradicts or significantly qualifies the information that focuses on him or his activity? Now that would indeed be cherrypicking, but the cited source doesn't have such contradictory information.
 * {{done} *(13) the impression Emerson is "fomenting Islamophobia". Smells a lot like WP:SYNTH.
 * There is indeed some merit to the argument that using the word "fomenting" would require synthesis of the present sources. However, there is no synth required for the criticisms of Emerson's factually-challenged assertions or his Islamophobia. That's just a minor matter of word choice.


 * Since you have not expressed disagreement, I'll mark this one as "done".
 * Best Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

PS - I may move this to the Emerson TP as it doesn't belong on my TP. Atsme &#9775; Consult  04:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to copy the discussion to whichever forum you like, but you might need to reformat it to allow other editors to participate. I placed it here with the specific intent of allowing you to parse the hell out of it and respond to each individual point (as you have done) without the need to stick to the formalities of signing each interjection, etc. The goal is to reach agreements and understandings; not to argue endlessly. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a good way to respond to such complex discussions - nice. And yes, less than a single sentence in a 300 page book is a passing mention. I cringe at anyone who says otherwise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Naw, because as I explained above, nobody cited "a single sentence". What was cited was a description of Emerson as an Islamophobe and discredited expert which itself was actually cited to an external source containing a dozen more referenced sources (including Emerson himself) and had a brief parenthetical justification. So you can cringe all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot more than a "passing mention" was cited. The only people who will be fooled with the "passing mention" description are those who haven't actually read the cited source. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

George Edward Smith
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)

Talkback
- The Herald (here I am) 03:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

BRD at Griffin, please
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)
 * , I've been discussing the same things repeatedly on Griffin Talk for 60 days, and the discussions have gotten us nowhere. Now Jytdog is WP:SQS, WP:OWN, WP:Tendentious editing and WP:Forumshopping. His behavior requires review by ARBCOM.  I am currently reviewing the process for filing.  But I thank you for your suggestion.  My edits are fundamentally compliant, they are good edits, encyclopedic, and have improved the article.  There was not one reason for Jytdog to revert the work I did.  I have bent over backwards to appease the POV pushers, and I believe the diffs I have accumulated will establish what is necessary for an ARBCOM review. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  23:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fine for you to pursue whatever channels you feel are appropriate, but remember it's important to assume good faith. Calling other editors "POV pushers" here doesn't help resolve the matter, but it can be expected to inflame the interactions around this article. FYI, Arbcom is going to examine whether you have exhausted other remedies and Arbcom will not decide content-related issues, only behavioral issues.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Griffin Edit Warring
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.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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)

warning no personal attacks
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)
 * Also - someone who has more than twice your own edits is not a Single Purpose Account. I find making stubs to be worthwhile and helpful to growing the encyclopedia. I've expanded dozens of stubs to Good Article status and I only became aware of them because they existed in a poor state. I would have gone right past them otherwise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at 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)

and I had to add a redirect
I added the redirect for the "C C of N" as somehow the current Wikipedia editors seem not to have known it . Howdy Doody was "first show of the evening" and had its very own test pattern. And the first Howdy had "plastic surgery"  due to a dispute with the puppet maker. I know - way too much trivia. Collect (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

- Great trivia! Who can forget Doodyville?
 * Buffalo Bob: Who's the funniest clown in town?
 * Audience: CLARABELL!
 * Buffalo Bob: Who makes you laugh when you wanna frown?
 * Audience: CLARABELL!
 * Buffalo Bob: His feet are big, his tummy's stout, but we could never do without...
 * Audience: CLARA, CLARA, CLAR-A-BELL!!!

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. 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 &#9775; Consult  15:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Phineas T. Bluster. Princess Summerfall Winterspring (definitely made an impression).   Flubadub (who loved "meatballs and spaghetti") and so on.   And of course, Clarabell's only spoken words. Collect (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

your user talk page
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. User_pages. Consult all you wish. Collect (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * All I noted was your revert - your proper course should have been to contact the one who deleted the post, not Atsme who bore no fault. My UT page, for example, asks others not to refactor it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you consult me to do anything further? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I consult you to stay off my TP and stop taunting me. Your disruptive behavior is a violation of WP:INCIVILITY. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  12:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed lede
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)


 * - please take a look at GA Murray Rothbard, under section title Life and work, subtitle Education - He attended Columbia University, where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics in 1945 and, eleven years later, his PhD in economics in 1956. The delay in receiving his PhD was due in part to conflict with his advisor, Joseph Dorfman, and in part to Arthur Burns rejecting his doctoral dissertation. That article is in line with what I'm shooting for with Griffin and why I feel the explanations are important to the BLP.  Atsme &#9775;  Consult  05:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But ... the Rothbard material you reference are in the article text, not the lede. Since the Griffen page is off of PP, you might make the changes in the sections. Remember, we want to keep the lede as concise as possible. Moreover you've got to get consensus for your proposed lede. The lede is the center of most of the contentiousness.. – S. Rich (talk) 05:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you drop the "was honorably discharged" phrasing. Unless something unusual happens (such as a court-martial, or administrative board action) everyone leaves the military with an honorable discharge. Seeking to add the phrase is gilding the lily.  – S. Rich (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - I can't believe he lied straight up at 3RR. Talk about passive aggressive behavior. And of course, the team is on top of it. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  07:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Advice
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)
 * And what sort of "misery" has the JB society caused? - A1candidate  21:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You got me there, I had thought that they were against things like health and safety legislation, and promoted cancer quackery. Oh, wait, I was right: they are historically against anything that controls the unfettered freedom of the individual, even when it is an essential part of civilised society. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Valentine Greets!!!

 * How sweet! Thank you, .  I consider you and  very special Wikipedians.  Thank you both for being so kind, and for sharing your thoughts of kindness to others. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  23:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail
 Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This is your problem
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)
 * Not true. I have no agenda at Griffin except to make it a GA, and in order to do that, it has to pass a GA review.  As the article stands now, it wouldn't pass a DYK review.  I have tried my best to be accommodating to you but your aggressiveness toward me is not helping. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  19:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sun!
Thank you,, I've let the sun shine in!! Your thoughtful message is very much appreciated. Atsme &#9775; Consult  03:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!
- That beer was quite refreshing!! Thank you! Atsme &#9775; Consult  03:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Steven Emerson
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)