If you came here to alert me to DS for post-1932 American Politics (AP2), climate change, BLP, GMO, or anything else included in the WP:Arbitration enforcement log, please be aware that I am PERMANENTLY AWARE - awareness is tatooed on my - so there is no need to post another DS alert.
People who confuse the words "burro" and "burrow" don't know
their ass from a hole in the ground.
How do I know?
I don’t know how much I don’t know because there’s no way to gage how much I don’t know when I don’t know what it is I don’t know, so stop telling me I should've known.
There has to be some merit to “ignorance is bliss" Atsme✍🏻📧
And there comes a time when we have to rethink some of the terms we use in the English language. 11:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Snake in the bullpen
"I come from an environment where, if you see a snake, you kill it. At GM, if you see a snake, the first thing you do is go hire a consultant on snakes. Then you get a committee on snakes, and then you discuss it for a couple of years. The most likely course of action is -- nothing. You figure, the snake hasn't bitten anybody yet, so you just let him crawl around on the factory floor. We need to build an environment where the first guy who sees the snake kills it." ~Ross Perot
You look like rookies
"I'm sorry, but you two appear to be:
treating each other civilly
accepting the possibility that your own actions might not have been correct
trying to work out the best thing to do for the project without concern for you[r] own egos.
I don't know where you people think you are, but you definitely don't understand how WP:AN is supposed to work. Where's the disrespect? The attacking of each other's characters and motives? The entertaining temper tantrums? Please immediately review other threads on this noticeboard, so you can better participate in WP:AN. Right now you look like rookies.
I don't do AFD, so I have no opinion on whether to relist or not (couldn't hurt, tho, right?), but that's a good example of what should be going on here; useless babble without any helpful outcome. --barneca (talk) 9:57 pm, 16 September 2008, Tuesday (10 years, 8 months, 12 days ago) (UTC−5)
Carrots may be good for your eyes, but booze will double your vision.
To say it in WikiVoice, or not??
While this list of sources is really good and does establish "commonly used by reliable sources" I think we should additionally ask ourselves - what added benefit is there to Wikipedia saying it "in our own voice" as against simply reporting in a neutral manner that it is common for his comments to be described as racist.
As of this moment, we are engaging in what I think is admirable short-term restraint. We say in the lede "He has a history of making controversial [weasel words] comments." That's fine as far as it goes, because 'controversial comments' is true, and is neither positive nor negative as an evaluation. Sometimes controversial comments are good, sometimes they are bad. Fine.
But we are at the same time here being too cautious, I think, in that we fail to inform the reader as to why the comments are controversial. Is he saying things that might be controversial in Iowa like "Gay marriage should be legal" or "Marijuana prohibition has done more harm than good"? No, actually.
So I think we should cautiously say something like "He has a history of making comments that have commonly been referred to as racist." Well, maybe 9 footnotes is excessive, but you see my point. We have more than enough to make the point that the reader needs to know, and I think the point is stronger than if we simply say, in our own voice, that he has a history of making racist comments. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 9:57 am, 19 June 2018, Tuesday (19 days ago) (UTC−5)
To include it in a BLP, or not??
BLPs wherein a subject's work, beliefs or ideologies are perhaps more controversial than the actual subject, should not become focused on bolstering and subsequently refuting the subject's views or theories rather than actually defining the subject. In many cases this may in fact be due to the subject trying to push their own ideas, while others work diligently to refute them, but many such cases involve editors who have no affiliation with the subject other than a personal belief/disbelief in their work. A person's biography is not a good place to debate scientific theory or ideological beliefs; such debates belong in the articles that focus on those topics. For BLPs, it is enough to simply state what their views are and link to the articles which expand on those views. (quote by Zaerethedited for brevity; Jimbo Walesagreed with Zaereth’s explanation.)
Politics, presidents and NPOV
I'd like to add that I don't mind a little bit of personal chit-chat here about politics, I'd like to always seek to tie it back to Wikipedia. We have chosen a very tough job: NPOV. Dislike for the President, fear about things that are happening in the world, may make it emotionally harder to remain neutral, but remain neutral we must. I happen to personally think that given the decline in quality of the media across the board (there are still fantastic journalists out there, but overall the landscape isn't great) the best way for us to help the world heal is neutrality.-- Jimbo Wales (talk)] 3:12 pm, 8 January 2019, Tuesday (UTC−6)
Writing for the opponent
"Writing for the opponent is an important trait of good editors. They must be able to divorce themselves from their own POV so much that they can bend over backwards to aid in the writing of content which documents views they do not like. They must never block the inclusion of content which opposes their own POV or political positions. If they cannot do this, they should recuse themselves from the topic and edit in other areas. Editors who are unwilling or unable to write for the opponent are incapable of truly understanding or abiding by the NPOV policy. As such they will always cause problems."
Hi Atsme. A bit ago you invited me to assist in editing an article and/or guideline about a dog breed/pedigree? For the life of me I can't recall the specifics exactly. I can't find the talk page section in your archives. I should have replied right away or made a note about it because I got distracted and then it slipped my mind for awhile. If you still need assistance, I am happy to help, although I might need a little guidance. At the very least, I didn't want you to think that I just ignored it intentionally. Hope all is well with you. I also have not heard about it from montanabw either. But I know she has been extra busy with her book schedule. Happy Trails! dawnleelynn(talk) 18:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah, ok. You know I think I will join dogs and cats. I never thought of it but they are both very interesting to me in my real life. And I have always had cats my whole life. And sometimes dogs. :)) dawnleelynn(talk) 21:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, FunkMonk. It was one endeavor we won't soon forget. Your patience, understanding and the fine work you did as a reviewer is much appreciated. I hope all who participated will proudly share the GA achievement on their UTP. AtsmeTalk📧 15:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Welcome, I look forward to working with you again under less heated circumstances! FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll be sure to time my future GA noms for Fall and Winter. 😁 AtsmeTalk📧 14:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Would you be able to look into the state of an OTRS ticket?
that I thought I had properly explained to The Relevant Parties how to release for Wikipedia use, but OTRS first wanted additional info, which The Relevant Parties sent, but haven't heard anything from OTRS since the 11th, which is almost 2 weeks now. --GRuban (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
GRuban - yes, will check to see what else is needed if anything. AtsmeTalk📧 20:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Er... OTRS template on the image? --GRuban (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Slave driver! 😆 YAtsmeTalk📧 23:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! --GRuban (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I didn't delete it. I really don't see such bibliographies as promotional, except in the most general sense that any article about anything that might be seen by someone as good or interesting will inevitably have a certain tendency to promote it. But it is true that an over-detailed bibliography on a very minor author might seem excessive and promotional -- but this wasn't really excessive nor is he really minor. Anyway, when I've raised that argument over the years for what I consider ridiculously expanded bibliographies, I have never once obtained consensus. , DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok. One day the light will come on and I'll feel more comfortable about when to go with a G11 vs other options. A merge has been proposed since the biblio is already in the BLP. AtsmeTalk📧 03:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
REST as it relates to brain activity (according to a Harvard study) may be linked to a longer lifespan. Does it suggest that we eat more chocolate, smoke more happy cigs, spend more time fishing - of course!!! What else? AtsmeTalk📧 19:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, you should know never to trust anyone from Harvard. But more time fishing? EEK! That might not lengthen the fishes' lives. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
But if the fish are heeding the advice, they'll never get caught. AtsmeTalk📧 20:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, you should know that no one from Harvard ever heeds anyone else's advice! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
lol* I only know of one person like that - perhaps I'll meet more during the Boston conference. Lucky me. AtsmeTalk📧 20:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
File:Four hypotheses of phylogenetic relationships ray-finned fishes.jpg listed for discussion