User talk:Atsme: Difference between revisions

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How sweet! Thank you, Govindaharihari. Your cupcake made it a nice day. Atsme^📞📧 14:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i just wanted to say that i enjoyed reading the article WP:AVDUCK. Thanks for creating it. One of the crucial issues your article highlights is that one has to be frankly political if one wishes to be a successful editor on WP. One problem that can arise, and that your article does not deal with, is if a new or relatively new editor confronts a duck or a flock of ducks who may also have the support of an Admin or a few Admins. (Such support may consist of an Admin building a tool to invite new editors who are having serious problems with a senior editor to offer criticism of that senior editor on a pseudo complaint page--the objective being to protect the senior editor from being repeatedly taken to ANI or Dispute Resolution, and also when new editors make their serious complaints on the pseudo complaint page it would be easier to tackle them through banning or blocking--away from the public eye of ANI and Dispute Resolutions.) Invariably the new editor is pushed into a corner and demoralized by the flock of ducks with their Admin allies (who are armed with tools like WP:ARBIPA); the new editor may stop editing on WP or if he continues he will no longer do any bold editing. A third, and most unfortunate possibility is that if the new editor is blocked, then he/she may resort to vandalism on WP (including showering abuses at the blocking Admin and/or others) through anonymous socking. Sure, ANI, dispute resolution, and ArbCom exist but first they are often very time consuming and secondly in my experience if you are taking on a flock of ducks (who moreover may have the support of a few Admins), then you will almost always lose the argument unless you have sufficient number of allies to support you on boards like ANI on WP (which is unlikely if you are a new or relatively new editor on WP).

I think one key reform that needs to be implemented to strike at the root of this problem is getting rid of 'bad' Admins; and giving incentives to retain 'good' Admins on WP. I don't know the details of how this should be done though, particularly since WP is understandably uncomfortable with getting rid of any Admins unless there is a strong reason to do so in view of the drop in people willing to be WP Admins. Soham321 (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Soham321, I think I'm too disheartened about the ANI process and the biased responses of a couple admins, one of whom I once held in high regard, to respond with any sense of neutrality, so I'll just say "yep" and leave it at that. Thx for your comments - they are food for thought. Atsme^📞📧 17:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should have received an email from me regarding AAAS a few weeks ago - can you please fill out the form linked from that email? If you did not receive the email (check your spam folder), let me know. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Nikkimaria: - I did receive the email on May 25th - Your Individual subscription has been successfully entered for Science Online. I tried it out, and was able to access what I needed. Hopefully it will stay that way!! Thank you so very much for making this happen. Atsme^📞📧 22:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm - I think perhaps that's the Elsevier email? I was referring to one for WP:AAAS, which didn't launch until June...but I'm certainly happy you're enjoying Elsevier access as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria The email I referenced issued an AAAS# - Science Magazine. I also have access to Science Direct (Elsevier) so I've got access to both. You did good!! Atsme^📞📧 22:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, interesting. Happy to hear that it worked out! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take my decisions personally. It's just based on what I see and understand. Everyone has their own point of view. I came here to say that I admire your gut. You have the courage to stand up to admins. I have always been afraid because they can pull up any WP policy/guideline and take a millisecond to hit that block link. I admire that quality of yours. You don't see that around. I, as editor, feel discouraged and give the impression that admins are high superiority and there's nothing you can do to fight that fight. I am not sure if I am the only one feeling this way. That's it. Just a little words of encouragement, if you will. Fight that ANI report of yours. At least you will know if it was worth fighting that battle. Bye (: Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 00:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have character, Callmemirela, and I truly appreciate it. I thank you and respect your courage. Let's keep improving the stubs and do what we can to expand them to GAs and FAs. That's why we're here!! Maintain neutrality, make your content informational and encyclopedic but keep the prose engaging! We want people to read what we write! Collaborate with editors who are experts in their field - respect the project teams - ignore the disruption the best you can, and keep moving forward to build WP into an encyclopedia students and teachers will respect as a RS. Happy editing!! Atsme^📞📧 00:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here to long. I don't even remember my first account name. Hell I've used a few Ip's before this account and I've used a few when i forgot I even made this account. You know I had to argue the case that the state of Hawaii is not currently under military occupation. I'm sure you are aware there are a number of secessionist movements in the United States. You may or may not be aware that there are a number in Hawaii. These are fringe movements with low followings. It's necessary as you can understand to not give these movements any weight. We can't be the ones to legitimize these movements. They have to do so on their own. But the individual in question they didn't understand that their small movement was fringe and that would be wikipedia legitimizing it if we included it. I think it took a month to deal with them. Needless to say I was reaching the extent of my kindness and my respect.

You're tired Atsme. You're worn down. Why did you open a GA review right after that one closed? Honestly was it anything more than stubbornness? The prior one had just closed after sitting still for days. Was the way that went down wrong? Yes I will agree that it was. I've said that it was and prior I've made my opinion about this loud and clear. You were there. And because it was wrong in that GAR I asked some things of the individuals there. I asked them not to close that GAR themselves. They did so. I asked them to wait a few days before seeking an official close and they gave more than a few. You didn't, it seems, even attempt to address the highlighted problems. as my aunt would say, they pissed in your doll house. But even though pissed in your dollhouse the question becomes about the legitimacy of their content complaints. I view them myself and I see legitimacy. I ask you now if you have viewed them or have do you still see how they pissed in your dollhouse. If you are still seeing how they pissed in your dollhouse then really just have to walk away until you don't see it. You can not be mad and do this work. I've seen you try but it doesn't work out. This is however my opinion of what I've seen.

You now have grounds to go to ARBCOM. On the situation you just took to ANI. I recommend against it. You do have the grounds it seems. But ask you what is necessary for you to calm down and de-escalate. For you to be less emotional right now so that you can take a moment and make a clear decision of the best choice for you? Slow down and think about your next move.

It's never going to be unicorns and sunshine. Every job is important. We have people that just create stubs.Some people make GA's while others break them. There's people that just sit on the noticeboards. There's all kinds of things. Admins aren't more important than newbie editors. Nor are college professors or even Jimbo.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your wisdom, SJP. You're spot-on about tired and worn down. Just wanted you to know the GAN was made in GF based on the responses by Doc James, such as this edit summary. In retrospect, I think the following diff speaks volumes about his sudden interest and timing regarding the Racz biography, [2]. It's even more disheartening that he filed the GAR considering his position as an admin and functionary, and ignored the proper steps to take before doing so. In corporate speak we'd call it a hostile takeover. See the quote at the top of this TP because that's exactly what happened. Sorry, but I don't consider such an influence the perfect approach for biographies or for the project overall, even though certain aspects of it have merit. Certainly I welcomed what few improvements were made regarding sources and compliance with MEDRS. GF collaboration is always welcome and I expect the same in return. I also welcomed what little bit of copyediting and tweaks were needed in the prose but the remainder of what happened was unwarranted and based entirely on POV. Add to that, the PAs and incivility demonstrated by certain editors during the COIN fiasco, ARBCOM, Kombucha (which resulted in an unwarranted 7-day aBan against me by a biased admin), the attack on Racz, AVDUCK and the recent ANI...well, it leaves little to the imagination. The diffs will certainly provide substantive evidence of patterned behavior and motivation. As you correctly assumed above, the thought of ARBCOM entered my mind but I will heed your advice, contingent upon their future behavior and remain cautiously optimistic.

I don't know how closely you've followed the events as they unfolded, particularly here, [3]. Racz was the first article I created with help from Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. You know how our collaboration began at IPT, and while we all lost patience with each other from time to time, I truly appreciated Alf taking the time to understand the points I was trying to make. It all became clear to him when he started investigating the sources and realized the problem. I smile when I think back on those early experiences with you and Alf and how his advice had a calming effect. I miss him. He was patient and understanding but stern. He walked me through the creation of Racz, tweaked the prose as needed, helped me find sources and you both taught me things I needed to know about WP. Perhaps that's why Racz holds special meaning for me as does the Aztec sun on my TP. Alf nominated Racz for DYK, and showed me how to do the next one. When I nominated Racz for GA last year, it was reviewed by one of the best reviewers on WP. Racz has pretty much been stripped of its engaging prose and biographical content since then. In Doc's own words, In English their or boring words like "developed" and "designed" and promotional words like "pioneered" and "innovated". We should always be using the boring ones even if the sources use promotional language. It is mostly fixed aswell.[4] It is now focused on the medical procedures and treatments and as you will witness by comments on the TP, there is still unwarranted resistance for its promotion to GA. I've also studied the council guidelines for project teams and I am quite certain those guidelines are not being followed. It has caused disruption to the project, and while I have no problem keeping snake oil and crazy cures in their place and identified as such, I believe issues arise over NPOV on the opposite end of the spectrum regarding BLPs. There's also the malleability of MEDRS which is sometimes misused at the expense of NPOV. Kombucha is a pretty good example of the latter, and David Gorski is a good example of the double standard shown to BLPs. Atsme^📞📧 18:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)^{added underlined text later today 20:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Hello. Until the recent ANI-discussion and the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks our paths have never crossed, neither here on Wikipedia or anywhere else, and you have AFAIK never shown any interest in Wikipedia articles about rare species before, so would you mind explaining why you all of a sudden PRODded 14 well sourced and properly formatted stub articles about rare catfish species that I have created? Claiming that they don't belong on en-WP since species.wikipedia.org exist is IMO not a valid reason, especially not without discussing it with me on my talk page first. Thomas.W ^talk 11:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ... and now also nominating them for deletion. Thomas.W ^talk 11:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles belong in Wikispecies. Actually I do have an interest in rare and endangered fish species. A better option would have been to list all 16 of the rare species since all are of the same genus, Glyptothorax, in a single article, not 16 different articles that are less than stub quality articles taking up unnecessary space when they are nothing more than dictionary entries. They would serve more benefit in Wikispecies which I recommended in the deletion request. Atsme^📞📧 12:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point me to where it explicitly says we can't have articles about rare and endangered species here on en-WP. The reason they're short is that there is very little information available about those species, other than that they exist, and are rare. Also point me to diffs or other proof for your previously shown interest in rare and endangered fish species, because your actions look very much like trying to get back at me for voicing an opinion that you didn't like. Thomas.W ^talk 12:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. All correctly described species are considered inherently notable. I suggest you cease bombing these articles with PRODs.--Elmidae (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Save your arguments for the deletion discussion. My suggestion to you now is to consider merging those 14 dictionary definitions into a single list if you want to keep them in mainspace without being challenged. I did not request an AfD for Glyptothorax_kashmirensis because it actually is a stub. Readers will actually benefit more from having all 14 species listed in a single article. They can grow into stubs from that list. Now please excuse me while I finish my work. Atsme^📞📧 12:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC) ^{added clarification 13:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

I cannot see why these species or subspecies are not qualified to be separate stubs. They can of course be mentioned in a main article but even if they only have one ref, that is sufficient for a stub article.--MONGO 18:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a taxobox holder. The fish are all the same genus and the most beneficial thing to do for the sake of readers is add them to wikispecies, and create a list on WP. The same taxobox can be used in the article, up to the point of naming the species - leave that for the list. Was the intention of this author to create articles for 90 some odd species with 90 some odd taxoboxes? That does not qualify under GNG and there's not enough information in each stub to warrant an article. Common sense - organize - think of the reader and why they would come to WP to find a two sentence article with a taxobox about a fish they wanted to learn something about. At least with a list you give them more options all in one organized place. So much for the unwarranted revenge prod. And I get blamed for causing disruption. Please move along and continue your discussion on the TPs of the stubbies your so proud of. Atsme^📞📧 21:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC) ^{strike inappropriate comment}[reply]

Atsme, I'm not your enemy. I do not disagree that it would be great to have a featured list of all species in a genus so we can get that overview, but as is true with many lists, they are linked to specific articles that may be very short stubs. What is wrong with that? Take List of hiking trails in Grand Teton National Park...each linked trail has a linked stub article, where the details are slightly expanded. Do you think these stubs should not exist independently? I'm just trying to get your angle on this is all.--MONGO 05:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO First, I apologize to you for my out of character comment. It arose from frustration and disappointment. I understand your point and agree for the most part. The stub articles you mentioned about the trails are legitimate stubs and can actually be expanded including the addition of more images. The list is quite helpful for readers and actually demonstrates the point I was trying to make about the catfish stubbies. For example, [Glyptothorax chindwinica] - a species of catfish that was first described by Vishwanath and Linthoingambi 2007. Glyptothorax chindwinica is a species in genus Glyptothorax, family Sisoridae and order Siluriformes. IUCN categorise the species as least concern globally. No subspecies are listed in Catalogue of Life. That is the full text of the stub which is not much more than extended prose mirroring the taxobox. As I mentioned before, since all 15 species/subspecies are of the same genus and only one of the stubs is worthy of being classified as a stub, (the rest are definitions), they could have been merged into a single list. Then as more information became available, off-shoot articles could be created. It's actually better for WP because it creates more wikilinks and increases the number of times the name appears in the text which causes it to appear higher up in a Google search. The species I exampled actually does have more information available, [5], so with some time and a little effort exerted toward improving what we create, the project benefits. That less-than-stub sat as is for nearly 11 months. I'm not sure why the author portrayed it as a "rare" catfish when that clearly is not the case. Atsme^📞📧 13:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to see your block reduced, so how do we go about making that happen? I see your point but have to say that as an inclusionist, I would have probably voted to keep these articles. Is there still a way we can keep and still have have you make the list article your focus for now?--MONGO 17:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My postings here have been brought up by two editors on my talk page and the gist of what they are telling me is that I'm not helping things. Here is what I have learned on Wikipedia...of you post something at a noticeboard, there is a one in five chance it is going to be resolved to your liking. More often than not, it results in making everyone mad. I know you've been around here awhile, and I thank you for your FA and GA work and elsewhere, but we have to figure out why a half dozen editors have no interest in seeing you unblocked...and feel you need an extended break. Bishonen stated in the ANI thread she supported a three month block...but has since stated that she would not fight your unblocking. In the unlikely event that we can see your block amended, what steps do you think we need to do to get this to happen?--MONGO 22:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Atsme. Don't you see anything wrong with prodding 14 pages created by Thomas.W within a few minutes, and filling User talk:Thomas.W with 14 bulky proposed deletion templates, without discussing the general principle with him first? Bishonen | talk 11:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

You asked me to stay off your TP, Bishonen, [7], so why are you here now? The proposals for deletion were made in GF and I will continue doing so regarding the ones I felt need to be deleted and moved to Wikispecies, or possibly merged into a list. They do not warrant being separate articles. I did not tag Glyptothorax_kashmirensis since it is a legitimate stub. What you're doing now - your immediate accusation that I've done something wrong - is why I believe you have a bias against me and this isn't the first time you've made accusations. The things you said about me at ANI demonstrated ill-will toward me [8] and coupled with your remarks on your TP, you need to recuse yourself and please cease further interaction with me. You are not a neutral administrator where I'm concerned and you showing up here now to accuse me yet again further demonstrates my concerns. I am just doing my job here for the reasons I explained to the editor. I do have an interest in rare and endangered fishes - see my user page - and now I am being wrongfully accused for simply doing my job? It doesn't matter where I go or what I do. I have grown weary of the PAs. Atsme^📞📧 12:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All properly sourced articles about correctly described species (as all of the articles you targeted are) are inherently notable, and belong here, and your PRODs and AfD-nominations were obviously made in bad faith. Your attempts at intimidation might work on editors who are less experienced than me, both on en-WP and in real life, but I can assure you that they do not work on me. Thomas.W ^talk 12:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support modification. See my comment here. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Guy Macon. Give her a chance, if she messes up, it's a clear case of WP:ROPE and she can be reblocked, but if we WP:AGF and remember that blocks are not supposed to be punitive, what are we really losing? Nothing, and potentially we gain a productive editor and content creator. GregJackP Boomer! 02:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I empathise with those editors that have commented over at my usertalk page and have I no desire to upset the works here. I do however agree with Guy Macon and GregJackP and hope this block can be reduced to time served. Atsme...you have a lot of editors that will be expecting your best so my advice is to really be careful before you hit save.--MONGO 04:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the above sentiment. In addition I'll point out that blocks are not meant to be punitive, but instead to prevent disruption. Atsme's unblock request differs alot from the prior and the ANI (specifically in the ANI everyone else was the problem and she certainly did nothing at all.) A major long standing issue has been that she allows her emotions to get better of her good judgement. This recognition is to the best of my knowledge a first. This reasonably suggests that the disruption has ended and as such the block is no longer needed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The unblock request is personalized with regard to various editors whom Atmse "likes" and is full of vague, empty language ("weighed heavily" means a lot of things). Nothing in the unblock request shows self-recognition about the persistent disruption for which she was actually blocked -- that she has consistently taken the stance that only she is Right, and that any consensus that does not agree with her is a conspiracy of bad-faith editors, and is worth taking up the community's time with at drama boards. Nor any recognition that serially nominating 14 (!) "fish" articles created by exactly one editor, who had happened to oppose her at ANI, was terrible judgement. Calmer, does not mean acknowledgement of past bad behavior nor actual lessons learned, nor less likely to cause future disruption. This block is an opportunity for Atsme to take a step forward in learning what it means to be a Wikipedian. This particular unblock request is not an actual a step forward but is really focused on what unfolded after the block. Jytdog (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC) (amend Jytdog (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Her mentioning that she has allowed her emotion to get the better of her good judgement was actually a whole lot of self recognition. Remind me of something for a moment, weren't you the editor that recently opened a bad faith COIN case against her? Has she not fallen on her sword enough for you? What do we need an apology?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledged my bad judgement in that COIN case and apologized to Atsme for it. This request is a step forward from where she was yesterday and I just amended my statement to acknowledge that; she did apologize for all the post-block lashing out and that is a good thing, and the promise to avoid disruption is a hand-wavy move in the right direction. But unblock requests need to show an acknowledgement that the blocked editor understands the reasons they were blocked; I named those reasons in my statement above. I am not looking for blood or grovelling; I am looking for clear acknowledgement of the problems. The block was already shorter than what was called for at ANI and this unblock request at least validates that generosity; if Atsme cannot bring herself to acknowledge the actual issues, riding out a month is not the end of the world.Jytdog (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll point out that it took her a lot less time to admit her shortcomings than it took for you to apologize for your inappropriate actions in the bogus COIN case. If she's unblocked and goes off the straight and narrow trail, she can be blocked again. That's what WP:ROPE is for. I don't see why you wouldn't support an unblock, unless you really didn't mean it when you apologized. GregJackP Boomer! 21:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll point out that the issues with Atsme started a few months ago in regards to the issues that eventually lead to a ban and only now after the ban has admitted her faults. That's not the short amount of time that you are trying to sale GregJackP. While I feel that Atsme is making clear that the letting her emotions get the better of her good judgement caused this, everyone else is asking for a little more. @Jytdog: as I understand you are hoping that Atsme will show a little more specificity of what she did wrong. If correct I assume this would be so Atsme can assure that she will specifically not engage in that type of behavior again or any escalating variation of that behavior. Kind of hard to avoid doing something if you do not know what you have done. Am I correct Jytdog? This certainly would not be alot to ask if it is.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is too long, but so be it. My interactions with Atsme go back to December 2014 when she first entered the Griffin article, which Guy writes about elsewhere on this page. When she entered that article she demonstrated the behaviors that got only worse with time and led to this block. I tried to warn her about these things here and here way back then. It is has been hard to watch those behaviors get worse over time. Not happy. And I have no glee that she is blocked now. Bish's cutting through the noise to pull out the consensus that arose at ANI and administer the block is a good thing for Atsme, and for the community. The things for which she was blocked have been described to her many, many times, by several editors, even on this page. If she doesn't know what they are, it is not from lack of people trying to communicate with her.

I'll try to rehearse it concisely... the core issue is a pride and self-certainty and a concomitant disrespect for consensus or the advice of very experienced editors (eg the interaction around copyright with Doc James was so wrong but entirely in-character - not just her rejecting his telling her that she violated WP's copyright policy but the way she treated him); that is a character issue and one she is going to have to be aware of and actively try to check (I have my own character flaws that I struggle with, not always successfully). This is all about WP:CONSENSUS, the core of this place. The next layer is also a character issue - a strong counter-cultural streak that drives POV content editing on alt-med topics and the conspiracy-theorizing that led to the deleted COI ducks essay and the current Advocacy ducks essay, and all the GANG activity by disaffected editors around that. This involves WP:AGF with regard to other editors and WP:PSCI consent-wise. The topmost layer is her misunderstanding of what good WP content and sourcing are - the surface of the Racz article was promotional (to her, good, colorful writing); the structure and surface of the Griffin article she wanted to create would have been uncritical of his FRINGE notions and maybe even treated them heroically); the sources she argued for on Griffin were... terrible (e.g here). So this is WP:NPOV], WP:RS, WP:MEDRS. You put those three things together - the pride/self-certainty/ignoring of consensus and the counter-cultural/consensus-is-conspiracy streak and the willingness to use bad sources to write glowing content that violates NPOV (which includes PSCI) (which others are going to disagree with and always will), and like 2+2+2=6 the tendency to make WP a battleground and continually go to the drama boards makes complete sense. As does the failure of every one of the drama board cases she brought.

She can be a good writer. But these long-term behavioral issues overwhelm that. In my view, she will end up banned from WP if she doesn't change and that process will suck up yet more of the community's energy and time. Change starts with concrete self-awareness; this block is a real opportunity for her to listen to the community.

OK, that was too much writing, but I wanted to explain where I am coming from and what I am hoping for, which is Atsme seeing some daylight here - a foundation from which she can start to do the hard work of actually starting to change, which is a road she still needs to walk. If she chooses to. But we should be trying to help her to see. We owe that to the community, and I think to her. Jytdog (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you are not steering clear of me, per Tryptofish's very good advice but are continuing to steer hard into me. That's all I will say. Except to ask for a handkerchief to wipe your spit off my face and to ask you to please restrain yourself going forward. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, please don't turn my TP into a BATTLEGROUND by attacking other editors. It's time for you to lead by example. I am also aware of and very disappointed in your attempts to "poison the well" against me by asking other editors to not show me kindness, [12]. I was humbled by MONGO's response to you and the strength he demonstrated by not honoring your request. It was inspiring. I feel the same about Thomas.W regarding his response to your reprimand on his TP over his concerns regarding my inappropriate PRODs. I find it curious that you oppose lifting this block considering your own behavior, beginning with the post at ARBCOM by Risker regarding your mass deletions and disruption, [13]. Hopefully Thomas accepted my acknowledgement that I took the wrong approach and finds solace knowing I've learned my lesson. However, your comments on his TP clearly demonstrate a much bigger problem regarding your behavior, and why editors often respond to you the way they do: [14], [15], [16]. Even though you strike and apologize for your hurtful comments, your actions contradict your sincerity. Just look at how quickly you forgot your apology to me over the COINoscopy I had to endure, and why it's difficult for me to dismiss the thought that your motivations are anything but punitive and retaliatory over the ARBCOM case I filed against you because of your punitive actions at COIN. It never ends. I am honestly trying to understand the reasons certain editors are upset with me and why they would oppose ending this block. You have made your motivations quite clear. Swarm summarized your behavior rather well when he closed the ANI thread #Jytdog:_Protracted_uncivility_and_harrassment, March 28, 2015. That warning was quickly followed by a warning from SlimVirgin regarding your edit warring [17]. I find it rather curious that you weren't blocked since the circumstances are very similar to what just happened to me. Regardless, it's time for you to honor the apologies you've made, including the one you made to me, and stop saying hurtful things to others, and thinking you can make it all go away by simply striking your comments and summarizing with an empty apology. And please, take some time to self-analyze yet again and stop obsessing over me. Atsme^📞📧 15:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Her editing has caused significant long term drama. I am thus hesitant to support an unblock. I do not expect an apology I simply want assurances that the prior issues will not happen again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Doc, I know you don't expect an apology from me but I owe you one nonetheless. I should have handled our disagreement with far more consideration for your feelings but I let my emotions speak for me and that was clearly wrong. The timing of it all and the swift attacks after Jytdog's botched COIN investigation, the probing into my personal life and personal domain registrations, and the false accusations of a COI which also included an article I never edited, and the Gabor B. Racz BLP which I created and helped get promoted to GA last year - well, it had me in a tailspin. The timing of the GAR you filed to get Racz delisted without consulting me first seemed like an all-out attack but in retrospect, I should have stepped back and AGF. My response to what was happening was not professional and I regret having made the wrong decision. If it's any consolation to you, I have learned a valuable lesson as a result. Atsme^📞📧 13:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Atsme, I accept your apology, and your comments about me were never a big deal anyway. They were certainly not any part of the reason I blocked you, and shouldn't be taken into account when an uninvolved admin reviews your unblock request (because I don't think I'm the best person to do it). As for what you wrote after you were blocked, it's fine, don't worry — a block is a shock, and it's human to react. I can't believe JzG is upset, either. I could wish you had addressed the ANI thread that I linked to in my block rationale in a more concrete way — there was a lot there, and I have to agree with Jytdog that your language about those issues is vague. But for my part I'll leave it to the reviewing admin to make the call; if they want to uphold the block, or shorten it, or unblock with conditions such as some kind of topic ban, or plain unblock, it's all good with me. Bishonen | talk 08:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

By saying that Atsme should have addressed the ANI thread (which Bishonen had given while blocking Atsme) "in a more concrete way", Bishonen seems to suggest that Atsme should have expressed further contrition. This is possibly a hint to the reviewing Admin. I completely disagree with this approach. I would like the reviewing Admin to show as much compassion and leniency as Jimbo Wales had shown to Bishonen after he had earlier blocked Bishonen for addressing an editor using inappropriate language. Further, the community had continued to express compassion and leniency towards Bishonen when other behavioral criticism had been directed against her. I ask that similar compassion and leniency be shown towards Atsme, particularly since Atsme is a solid content creator and since Atsme is a female and there is a paucity of female wikipedians. Soham321 (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I mirror Doc James and Jytdog in that I'm wary of a straight unblock at this time considering the conversations that still occurred after the block was put in place. It's looking like Atsme may have stopped digging her hole, but part of the block was to give Atsme time away from Wikipedia. Atsme needs time to climb out of that hole now, so I am concerned the digging may just start again after an unblock now even after looking at this most recent appeal. Something from the reviewing admin such as a topic ban, etc. using a WP:ROPE approach would be helpful if the problematic behavior comes up again (there was consensus for such action at ANI). Ideally things will shape up instead, but the community has already invested a lot of time in this drama where we shouldn't have to go through this whole process again if the problems come up again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I support unblock, but only in the context of a timed ban from Wikipedia space - that is where Atsme consistently ends up in hot water, and the number of frivolous and vexatious requests for admins to remove others from her numerous content disputes shows, for my money, a worrying tendency to escalate rather than discuss. I'd be a lot happier if the request did not diss Bishonen, who in my experience has reserves of good faith that make Mary Poppins look lie Donald Trump. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not seeing that the current unblock disrespect Bishonen—am I missing something? GregJackP Boomer! 00:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted at WP:AIN#Astme redux on matters which concern you. Thanks, Alexbrn (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see you blocked. I have been trying to avoid that. I would support an unblock if it was coupled with a restriction from Wikipedia space, where you seem to display consistently poor instincts. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, it was unwarranted. The irony of it all is that I actually was trying to stay away from the articles I created that were hijacked by the "team members" and I went back to editing fish articles. Ha! My comments above to the author explain my reasons for proposing the deletions. They clearly are warranted and justified but I was attacked before I even had the chance to finish what I started. Swoosh down attack - totally unwarranted and for all the reasons they are falsely accusing me of doing. Sad. Atsme^📞📧 13:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came here because I was inclined to support (the other) Guy's suggestion to modify the block, but after reading the above I would like to see some indication that you understand why so many people are upset with your behavior and that you will avoid such behavior in the future. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the conversation below, it is clear that Atsme does not understand why so many people are upset with their behavior and has zero intention of avoiding such behavior in the future. Support block and suggest a zero-tolerance policy after the current block expires. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we adopt a "policy" on an editor's potential future behaviour? Why not just wait a month and see what happens. I suspect that Atsme might be responding in ways today that will be different in a month's time. People have had their pound of flesh - why not leave her alone to consider what has happened.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon, while DrChrissy makes a good point may I ask if you read my discussion above with MONGO [18]? I will also strike through my comments below which I made in frustration of this block. Atsme^📞📧 22:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon the above (and the other comments on this page) I am going to reverse my position and support a modification to a less restrictive topic ban or even no restrictions at all (that's up to an admin to decide). I fully agree with WP:ROPE. If the problems don't recur, then everybody is happy and Atsme will be able to continue improving the encyclopedia. If they do, it takes about three seconds for an admin to reblock -- probably for a longer period.

Nine years ago, I stated editing Wikipedia as an IP. I behaved very badly. An administrator gave me a warning, and then when I responded by acting like a total jerk, calmly explained what I was doing wrong and how to become a productive editor. that encounter turned my wikilife around. I see no good reason why Atsme should not be given the same chance. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke with Bish and came here to see if you would consider rewording your unblock request. I've been in your position and ended up with an indef block and topic bans in addition to that. Ping me if you are interested, or email me, and I'll be happy to help. GregJackP Boomer! 17:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The unblock request justifies the block. It's amazing how often that happens, but in Atsme's case particularly there is a recurrent theme of everybody else being wrong, everybody else failing to assume good faith, everybody else being obdurate, and if only they'd admit Atsme is right the world would be sweet again.

Atsme surely knows by now about the WP:BOOMERANG. She's been warned more than once for abuse of process to try to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Several times in my personal experience she has continued to assert a specific interpretation of policy as the only possible correct one, in the face of numerous long-standing Wikipedians stating the opposite. The kerfuffle over Gabor B. Racz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is very reminiscent of that over G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with uncritical content being aggressively pushed on the grounds that it makes for a "good" article, which is the canonical opposite of the truth where the ideas in question are not widely supported - we have an absolute mission to challenge bullshit.

I think it may be too late. The disputed essay is the ship on which I think Atsme may go down. It was written as a retaliation against the cabal of MEDRS supporters, asserting the "pharma shill gambit", and I think that Atsme has by now gone into full-on paranoia mode. I have supported Atsme in the past due to content contributions, but reviewing recent actions really undermines that.

Overall, I think Atsme needs the break. I've gone on long Wikibreaks when things get stressful, it helps to get the sense of perspective back. I don't know if this works when the break is enforced, alas. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to believe the attempts to get rid of me now are rooted in the ARBCOM case I filed: [19] and the closing comments, particularly the one by Seraphimblade who said the following: while noting that the concerns raised here, if correct, are legitimate and serious. I will echo the suggestions to seriously consider what has been said here in the future. In the future. It explains the boomerang and the attempts to silence me at the noticeboards. When that didn't work, I guess Bishonen figured the block should do the trick. It didn't matter why she blocked me, it was going to happen regardless. You just don't block editors for RfDs especially when the reasons are valid. So why the block? Well, let's see....

But let's assume the worst which seems to be the norm for some - and say Atsme was being retaliatory against an editor she doesn't even know. That has to be it. I'm being accused of picking on that one editor because I had a grudge, but I didn't have a grudge against anyone else, right? Jiminy Cricket - is he/she an admin's son or daughter and that's why the special attention? Whatever the reason it was enough to get me blocked for a month while none of the above behavior against me warranted anything more than a frigging slap with a trout. But I'm the one who should apologize. That way I can come back to WP in a month as a beaten, downtrodden, abused female editor which appears to be a serious systemic bias on WP already. They want me to behave like an abused wife would behave. Yes dear, I'm sorry dear, I didn't mean to overcook the meatballs. I wish you hadn't thrown them against the wall but I realize it was my fault and I will clean it up and make you a better dinner. Please don't beat me with that stick anymore. It's really sad but there it is in a nutshell. Atsme^📞📧 20:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was because you flatly refuse to accept that any opinion other than yours could possibly be right. I invite you to contemplate the law of holes, and put down your spade with all due dispatch. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, Guy? I don't know what you expect of me. Give me something I can build on - specifics, please. What was I wrong about? The RfDs? Do you want me to say I shouldn't have requested deletion of the dictionary definitions and suggested they be moved to Wikispecies, or to combine them in a list? What? Atsme^📞📧 21:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My last word on this: Stop. Fucking. Digging. If that does not immediately tell you what to do, then I honestly cannot help. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears to me that you have been unjustly blocked, though I have yet to review various walls of text. Hang in there. I believe you to be a good contributor to the 'pedia and that you will get past this current situation. Blessings. Jusdafax 01:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice in the ANI discussion a proposal has been put forward by Andy the Grump that you should be temporarily unblocked for the purpose of filing an Arbcom Appeal wherein you will only be permitted to write in the ArbCom appeal page. I would advise you against accepting this offer if it is made to you. The reason is that you must be in an emotional state of mind right now. If you do wish to file the ArbCom appeal then it is best to take a one month break, collect all the supporting diffs, and make your appeal to ArbCom in a cool and calm manner. You will have a better chance of success in your ArbCom appeal if you follow this approach.Soham321 (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized this is a block, not a topic ban so appealing to ArbCom after the block period is over would be infructious. If you wish to appeal your block again you will have to admit some error on your part for your appeal to be successful. I think you can agree to the fact that while you continue to believe that the numerous stub type articles on Catfish species should have been merged into a single page you should have discussed this issue with other editors about this and tried to ascertain the consensus (on what seems prima facie to me to be the correct view) before nominating the articles for deletion. Soham321 (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Soham321 - You incorrectly characterized AtG's comment. He suggested that Atsme be unblocked so that she could file a case at ArbCom, not an appeal. Atmse can appeal her block to ArbCom at any time without being unblocked by contacting BASC by email. Generally, however, this doesn't occur until several regular unblock requests have been rejected. BMK (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise Atsme not to file a request for a case to ArbCom at all, as she is bound to lose the case, the result of which will likely be a site ban. That's a fairly objective evaluation based on years of following ArbCom cases. The best thing would be for her to use the one month break from Wikipedia to re-evaluate her attitude towards her colleagues on this project, and to return to editing with a much less confrontational attitude. Without that change, this block will simply be followed by others, as her current modus vivendi makes that inevitable. BMK (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme: I'm commenting here because you have previously told me that you have found my advice to be helpful, so perhaps I can be helpful again. I agree completely with what BMK just said. I hope that you will follow that advice. When the block is over, I hope that you will focus your efforts on content, and not on disputes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish I was focusing on content - that's what caused this block. I went back to editing fish articles after being pushed away from the article and essay I created and co-authored. I started to do a little article rating, and was looking into some other stuff I could work on when I found the 14 stubbies (15 actually, I left the valid stub alone) which were not much more than dictionary entries. I mean, really - c'mon - why would I single out an editor I don't know to cause him/her grief? No matter what I do they claim "retaliatory". Excuse me, but I don't have a grudge against that editor (don't hold grudges), and (2) if I was wanting to be retaliatory, I sure as hell wouldn't have picked that editor. There are quite a few others who would have been a much better first choice if I was going to be stupid. I simply believed the stubbies would have been more productive on Wikispecies (all are Genus: Glyptothorax) and if left here, combined into a list. They looked vacated to me - nothing in them but a few sentences - so I used TW save time. It wasn't like I committed some big sin like what was done to me or that I was involved in tendentious editing. I made requests for Pete's sake. This block is clearly retaliatory and punitive. Just read the comments. I'm the one who should have balked at the trout slap considering the hate filled comments that were said about me at the ANI and the fact that my work is being hi-jacked so a group of tendentious editors can change it to their POV. That isn't right and it certainly isn't what WP is all about. They're telling me I have to do things a certain way, but they don't? They can do whatever the hell they please and I get blocked for following PAGs? That's insanity. Atsme^📞📧 21:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme - Recently blocked editors are usually given some leeway to let off steam immediately after the block, but if you keep going on in the way you are going, with near-rants and continuations of your earlier arguments, it is more than likely that your access to your talk page will be cut off by an admin. Again, this comes from years of observation, and has nothing to do with "right" and "wrong", just with the norms of Wikipedia. When you are blocked, it is considered that the primary use of your talk page should be to address having the block reversed, not to use it as a platform for polemics. I would suggest that you take a break for a couple of days, and maybe file a new unblock request after you've had a chance to calm down a little and think about what happened. I wouldn't hold out high hopes for an unblock, but a sincere statement of an attempt to change your behavior pattern sometimes works wonders -- if it really is sincere, and is followed up by an active presentation of change. BMK (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't perceive the block as being for content edits, at least not primarily, but for how you reacted when other editors raised issues about it. I'm not seeing other editors hijacking anything, and I think that your seeing them that way is what causes the editing community to become unhappy with you. Let me revise what I said above: When the block is over, I hope that you will focus your efforts on content, and assume good faith if other editors disagree with your content editing – if they continue to disagree with you, just let it go, and don't pursue a dispute with them. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few observations. There were at least four Admins who wanted Atsme to be sanctioned in some way or the other in the ANI discussion prior to it being closed with everyone getting a trout. After she got out of that scrape Atsme should have considered herself lucky and should have been cautious when doing any bold editing at least for some time. Secondly, Atsme thinks it was ok to have nominated the fourteen stubs for deletion because they were according to her akin to dictionary meanings. I only partially agree with her. The fourteen stubs Atsme nominated for deletion were different species of Catfish, and in my opinion they should all have been combined into a single WP article (even though WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES says that each species can legitimately have their own WP page). I explained my reasoning for this in the ANI discussion in reply to Thomas W (the creator of the 14 stubs Atsme nominated for deletion): [20] I cannot claim credit for coming up with the idea of merging all the stubs into a single article since Atsme had suggested this before me (when she nominated the articles for deletion).

However, i think it would have been better for Atsme to have discussed the matter with other editors and evaluated consensus before nominating the articles for deletions. On WP, all editors are to be treated as equals irrespective of who is right and wrong and irrespective of how intelligent or knowledgeable you are. This is official WP policy and this needs to be respected. And she should have taken into account the need to be more cautious considering she just got out of an ANI discussion with no sanctions imposed on her. I think if Atsme acknowledges this error of not having evaluated consensus before nominating the stubs for deletion, then the Admin who evaluates her appeal to unblock her should approve it since it must be taken into account that she is a solid contributor to WP in terms of content, and secondly she is a female and there is a paucity of female wikipedians. Soham321 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is your change of heart the result of this [21]? I'm sorry if I caused any negative energy to flow your way. My only advice - apologize when you're wrong, defend your honor, and follow your heart. You can't go wrong. Atsme^📞📧 22:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, it has nothing to do with Jyotdog's note on my talk page. There is no change of heart. I am continuing to support you. Soham321 (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly if you calmed down you could make a reasonable case here in your defense.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also must caution you as I and others have before about taking it to Arbcom.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SJP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs)

There are certain editors who have a talent for inspiring comical levels of anger from Wikipedia undesirables, generally POV-pushers and trolls, and as a result of repeated complaints against them by undesirables, develop a teflon coating. The sequence of events goes something like this: Undesirable does something undesirable. Teflon editor swoops in, tells them to go away, and gets an admin to block. Undesirable decides to stop at nothing to get rid of their antagonist; posts at ANI, gets all of their friends to chime in, etc. The regulars on ANI see that the complainant is an undesirable and/or is wrong, invoke WP:BOOMERANG, and the undesirable is forced to give up. When this happens repeatedly with many undesirables, and the teflon user is so frequently correct, the ANI regulars start to assume that any complaint against the attack user is a WP:BOOMERANG, and it becomes pretty much impossible to make anything stick against the attack user even if the complaint happens to be valid. As you have apparently discovered, AndyTheGrump is one of these users; some others are Sitush (at least before CarolMooreDC got the best of him) and JzG.

You've gotten yourself into a fight that you can't win. Whether or not you are correct is totally irrelevant. Accept that and move on. Once you've done so, get yourself an admin account so that you can't be pushed out as easily. Bobby Tables (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another tactic that seems to have emerged in recent events is that some of Teflon's mates lurk, watching the discussion progress but not posting. Then, if there appears to be something that just might stick to Teflon, or perhaps reinforce a boomerang raised against a Teflon-Mate, they can dive in and hat or close the potentially damaging thread whilst declaring themselves "not involved".DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do I sense Project Teflon in the making? Actually, the few days I've had to study what's going on, why it happened, and whether or not I can do anything to help make WP a better place --- hold on --- just had a text message. [pause] OMG!!! *LOL* I have to share....

• Incoming: You at home?
• Me: Uh huh - playing on outer.
• Me : peter - damn spell checker
• Me: OMG!!!! It gets worse!!!
• Me: computer!!!! ROTFLMAO
• Incoming: Playing with Peter huh? Ya, blame it on computer, lmao!
• Incoming: Was gonna stop by, I'm on way back from gym? You need more time? Lol

Nuff said. Atsme^📞📧 19:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The first law of holes refers to a proverb which states that "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging". The meaning behind it is that if you find yourself in an untenable position, you should stop and change what you are doing, rather than carrying on and exacerbating the situation."

Seriously. You really need to stop digging. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you're saying the only difference between a rut and a grave are the dimensions. I get it and I have stopped stopped digging, Guy M, and I thank you for the clarification. Atsme^📞📧 22:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! I like that. And yes, it's essentially true. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some day the community will see me, not with preconceived notions, but for who I am...[22]. (PS:Lana Del Ray blows me away) Atsme^📞📧 00:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment here. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, sometimes, even when you are the wronged party, you just need to move on and let it go.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Advocate, thank you for that link!!! Now I know what the kids have been singing. *lol* Isn't it amazing how animation has advanced to CGI? I remember struggling with 3D images on an Amiga (Commodore)!! I still have the instruction manuals to remind me of the horrendous rendering times. Just thinking about what we had to do to key graphics live and what those CG boxes cost. Wow!!! Takes me back a ways. Atsme^📞📧 03:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do miss the traditional hand-drawn 2D animation, though. Most Western animated films are CGI now. Even the upcoming Peanuts movie is going to be CGI. I just shook my head when I saw the trailer for it. CGI is great, but there is something to be said for the artistry of that hand-drawn 2D look.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather odd statement. I have no preconceived notions of you, my view of you is formed entirely from your edits. If that is not who you are then you need to work out how to edit in a way that reflects your image of yourself. I am pretty confident that a review of my edits will show me for exactly who I am. There are some vile attacks out there that make up ridiculous bullshit like me being a paedophile, but most of the critiques by people who are not certifiable I would acknowledge as having at least a basis in truth. I am, I freely admit, rude, obnoxious and grumpy at times, but I survive on Wikipedia because I am prepared to admit I might be wrong, and have several times put my hands up and apologised when I definitely am wrong. You once made a post to my talk page that encouraged me to believe you could do this too, but since then you have consistently doubled down on views I know, form long and detailed analysis, to be objectively wrong. You need to learn to take it less personally. You Google some stuff, you make an edit, someone comes along and reverts it, you talk, and you realise that they actually know what they are talking about. You learned something. This is actually a good thing: you have not lost face, you can say thanks and be a better Wikipedian. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme. I'm not here to pile on. I'm sure you are aware of how I feel about your behaviour so I don't want to comment on that, (but if you could introduce me to Steven Tyler's daughter I would be extremely happy.)

When I first arrived here (with an internet mate) we were righteously going to sort out the issues on a terrible wiki page that concerned us both. I ended up incandescent with rage at Jimbo, wikipedia generally, and those effin stupid people who kept reverting me removing all the important stuff we had contributed. It said that anybody could edit wikipedia, and those ignorant bastards kept on changing all my corrections. I didn't come back, after all what was the point, for a couple of years. I still remember the name of the so called editor who was so rude and inconsiderate and hostile and generally unwelcoming. She happens to be still here, still editing, and seems to be one of those editors that commands respect everywhere she goes, and is certainly as well respected as could be. When I look at what she said then, I support her 100% now.

I have been banned from the internet place where I met my mate above, by that mate. I have been banned from many places on teh internetz. Since my return here, with awareness that my own behaviour could do with some careful examination, I have been contacted privately and told that the way I was behaving would inevitably lead to worse and worse things happening to me here. I've been incandescent many times since, been blocked for an astonishingly petty reason imho, (you might not agree that it was petty btw), but I try to stay within the rules nowadays. It is difficult with the kind of non AGF editing that goes on around my watchlist. I'm still hanging on and hoping that the petty contributions I make nowadays are sufficient.

Much of what I see still annoys, but I've made an edit today that was almost immediately reverted, and I have chosen not to edit war the correct version back in. It'll get corrected eventually, and I am playing my part in the procedure. This is not my instinctive behaviour, but an acknowledgement by me of how it should be done. On re-reading this, I would not want anybody to think I believe my own behaviour to be particularly exemplary btw.

That's it. I will support whatever the consensus is around the issues that brought me here. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was right. At the moment that page above stands at my version. We will see how it develops. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I figured Steven was a better option than the Britannicas - he's far more "wiki". Thank you for sharing your experiences with me - definitely food for thought. Wishing you happy editing! Atsme^📞📧 15:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^{Roxy the dog, how rude of me! You should have said something. I forgot to offer you some popcorn and a beer. Oh, well - let's skip the popcorn.} 🍻 Atsme^📞📧 19:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thomas.W you might want to look at the Aflac duck to verify what a Pekin duck looks like. Google it or go to the Aflac home page. They are clearly ducks, not geese. I'm also pinging @DrChrissy: to further verify. Thanks. Atsme^📞📧 17:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they're ducks too. The ducks in the picture look just like the "old country breed" ducks an older relative of mine had on a farm in the UK when I was a child (a looong time ago). Thomas.W ^talk 17:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It can be really difficult to identify some animals from only the photo. I believe there are some sheep that can not be distinguished morphologically from goats except by a scent gland between the toes. In my own opinion, the birds in the image look so much like ducks, it does not actually matter if they are geese. The image is for illustrative purposes and is not stating that the image is of ducks.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my - scent gland between the toes? Well, identifying a sheep/goat with a quick sniff to the hoof is tolerable - could be worse - like where poodles and other small dogs have scent glands. Must be why nature made them distinguishable by sight so please remember folks, it's not nice to fool Mother Nature. She's liable to get pissed off at us and make it so the only way to id any animal is via palpation. Atsme^📞📧 19:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GULP! Brings tears to the eyes! DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the irony. It looks like a duck but actually it could well not be. And there, in a nutshell, you have the problem with this essay since the outset. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaflack! The white Pekin duck close up and personal. [23] . The image actually serves a very good purpose - but wait, it looks a duck but is it a goose? Hmm. Same message in the essay - is it a duck or a coot or a newbie? It sends the message that if you're in doubt, don't say it's a duck until you're sure of it. Atsme^📞📧 02:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC) ^{add purpose 02:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)}[reply]