This is an archive of past discussions with User:Atsme. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I saw on a page that you are having something to do with project med. I was wondering if you would look at a conflict of information I am seeing in reference to anatomy and math. I was trained as a medical laboratory technician. All references to oocytes state that a female is born with approximately one million. The given size is 20μm in diameter for the oocyte and 30-50μm for the primordial follicle which contains an oocyte. If you use the equation. V=(4/3)πr3 to find the volume of the oocyte, then multiply that times the number of oocytes, then reverse the formula to find the required minimum radius you will find my reason for questioning the accuracy of this information. The reversed equation to lead to radius from volume is r=3√((V÷(4/3))÷π).
Ironically, when compared to the number of this section on your talk page, try using 500,000 cells(the number of oocytes there would be contained in each ovary) in the above mathematical equations and see what happens. Perhaps a coincidence? Some may still say spooky though...
(Crlinformative (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC))
Hi, Crlinformative I truly wish I could help you, but when it comes to medical articles, I don't venture beyond being a copy editor and layperson disseminator of such information, but not without expert guidance for the sake of accuracy. I can refer you to some of our medical editors beginning with User:Doc James which may be the place to start. Good luck, and don't hesitate to come back if you need more referrals. Atsme📞📧01:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
No, doc james is the person I was arguing with about the accuracy of medical references on the subject.Do you have another medical referral? I attempting to gain assistance from mathematicians on mathematics reference desk page for mathematical debacle it has brought up, due to the differences in a cube of one million and the radius of minimum required containment space for 1,000,000 being so vastly different. Though, I'm not getting a lot of help, just a mathematician correcting my grammar, hopefully with enough corrections he will actually do the math and compare notes. I'm finding a lot of snobby attitudes on Wikipedia in my discussions, though you seem very polite. Thanks :D have a good evening, and don't be afraid of using a calculator just for some mathy fun!!!(Crlinformative (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC))
Thanks. I'm getting some math people to help me with it currently, the sooner I can get others to do the same math answers I did the sooner this information can be verifiably refuted and folliculogenesis considered similar to spermatogenesis throughout the entire western scientific community. I know no Original research is allowed to be published, but rebuking referenced information through math should be entirely allowed in discussion for the accuracy of information right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crlinformative (talk • contribs) 23:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Crlinformative, what I've come to learn about WP is that "right" is what the mainstream asserts is right per verifiable, high quality RS, especially where health and medical topics are concerned. You are correct that OR is not allowed as it is one of our 3 core content policies. I'm undecided whether or not factual math would be allowed as factual or considered OR if a conclusion is drawn from that math, so I'll leave that ball in your court and wish you only the best. Happy editing!! Atsme📞📧23:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that is the problem. In America we have learned not to accept the mainstream or government approved data releases with out questioning its validity. Just as all mainstream reports of the 2000 election no longer report what actually occurred here, including Wikipedia, but if you were to ask any one that is old enough to remember and was paying attention we will tell a completely different story as it was all over the news at that time. Jeb Bush was caught with boxes of ballots that were missing and when they recounted the opposing party would have been elected president, but the electoral college representative of that district voted opposing that of the popular vote. Wikipedia, however reports it to be a problem with voting machines that occurred and stated that my Information on the occurrences is invalid because I am not a reputable source of historical information.(Specifically the part about the stolen or missing ballots is missing, also in reading it you will notice certain distraction methods used in the article when it talks of the recount issues) (Crlinformative (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC))
OK, now we also have to read WP:SYNTH (which is a pretty good piece) and consider WP:FRINGE too. The bottom line is that there are a lot of people who are not merely outside the mainstream that want to edit WP, there are some that are pretty far from anyone's stream, main or otherwise... Montanabw(talk)06:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Montanabw (talk·contribs), in reference to WP:SYNTH, what do I do if the reference used for certain information does not state that information but in the extreme of one graph, however, in the text of the published article it actually states a different value than what the reference is directed at?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crlinformative (talk • contribs) 11:12, March 31, 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I was lurking on someone else's Talk page and I noticed they suggested you take a look at pharmacognosy. You might also want to have a look at zoopharmacognosy which also relates to placebos and animal studies which you have been discussing elsewhere. DrChrissy(talk)17:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Verrry interesting, DrChrissy. Well, after a bit of research driven by my own curiosity, evidently arising from the suggested reading, I landed here. In essence, what I've gleaned so far is that we have scientifically based studies of certain natural treatments and their efficacy as they relate to ancient civilizations and animals in the wild, much of which has led to incredible breakthroughs in science regarding human treatments, cures and preventions, particularly with regard to the marriage of "molecular biology and combinatorial chemistry". Academic and independent scientific research, much of which can be attributed to funding in part by pharmaceutical interests, have played a significant role in improving and/or prolonging life for humans and domesticated animals, some claims of which have given rise to seemingly endless debate. From a scientific perspective, certain treatments are designed to target specific molecules thereby vastly improving efficacy over that of natural treatments, the latter of which in many instances are considered canonical quack remedies, even though "natural" is at the root of it and where some of the most sophisticated science of today actually originated. Scientific medical breakthroughs have led to the development of effective natural treatments using combinatorial chemicals developed by and/or funded by the biotech and pharmaceutical industries whose interests are typically protected by patents; therefore, they are better able to capitalize on and in some instances replace what the natural world has provided in raw form since the beginning of time. It has certainly given rise to some of the most highly publicized and controversial philosophical debates.
On the flip side, science is an industry unknown to undomesticated animals, yet many species have managed to survive living on nothing but natural products, and on an evolutionary scale are highly derived. Then humans entered center stage, and in a progressive manner, began encroaching and exploiting the world's natural resources. Nature in its very essence is the perfect design as it is based on the natural order of things; i.e., life, death, and renewal. I can't think of anything that lives infinitely, much less unchanged that is or can be scientifically proven to possess such a capability beyond speculation, be it living & breathing or inanimate. Instinct and learned behaviors help to ensure sustainability and prolong life. With the arrival of humans came massive extinctions and extirpations due primarily to exploitation and habitat destruction. Many of the species that remain today are struggling to survive because of the detrimental effects caused by commercial interests and human encroachment. What we're seeing is a paradigm shift in what once was the natural order of things in that certain aspects of science and technology in combination with commercialization and industrialization have taken a lead role over nature. To date, there is no good evidence, scientifically supported or otherwise, that can ensure us the path we're on today will unequivocally lead to a healthy future for humans or animals. I tend to believe in what environmental indicators tell us, particularly keystone species, but I do so with an open mind. DrChrissy, if you haven't seen it already, see if you can get your hands on the DVD series, "Down the Rabbit Hole". It is very thought provoking. It features interviews with David Albert, Masaru Emoto, Amit Goswami, John Hagelin, and Stuart Hameroff, Andrew Newberg, Candace Pert and others. I'm not at all into the channeling bit - I watched it strictly for its entertainment value - but don't let that minor inclusion taint the science which was truly compelling. Atsme📞📧17:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Malayalam-language
Hola, I disagree with your argument here. Your analogy is flawed because A) we wouldn't need to point out the language for an American film because it would be presumed as English unless otherwise specified. Same with a British film or a French film or a Spanish film. B) People who speak English already know it's a language because they speak it. C) India has a ton of languages and we cannot assume that a global readership will know that Malayalam and Kannada are languages, and forcing them to click the wikilink isn't convenient. D) We have precedent in the form of hundreds of categories formatted just like Category:Malayalam-language films. Why would we go out of our way to obfuscate? Anyhow, if you'd prefer to hash it out in a more central public forum, I'm happy to do so. Great choice of Blazing Saddles as a choice of movies. Can't throw shade on you for that! :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Synchronicity in the universe: COINCIDENCE? I think not!
Hi Atsme,
Relevant to our discussion on my talkpage, this listicle appeared in my newsfeed THIS VERY MORNING. Not a reliable source for Wikipedia pages, but a nice little rundown of the problems I've seen with claims surrounding acupuncture. Thought you might find it interesting food for thought anyway.
Yes, Tryptofish which raises two fingers worth of concern regarding the latest trend in my wandering/wondering thought process. Surely it's just a phase. Atsme📞📧18:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Fusce convallis, mauris imperdiet gravida bibendum, nisl turpis suscipit mauris, sed placerat ipsum urna sed risus. In convallis tellus a mauris. Curabitur non elit ut libero tristique sodales. Mauris a lacus. Donec mattis semper leo. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Vivamus facilisis diam at odio. Mauris dictum, nisi eget consequat elementum, lacus ligula molestie metus, non feugiat orci magna ac sem. Donec turpis. Donec vitae metus. Morbi tristique neque eu mauris. Quisque gravida ipsum non sapien. Proin turpis lacus, scelerisque vitae, elementum at, lobortis ac, quam. Aliquam dictum eleifend risus. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Etiam sit amet diam. Suspendisse odio. Suspendisse nunc. In semper bibendum libero.
Proin nonummy, lacus eget pulvinar lacinia, pede felis dignissim leo, vitae tristique magna lacus sit amet eros. Nullam ornare. Praesent odio ligula, dapibus sed, tincidunt eget, dictum ac, nibh. Nam quis lacus. Nunc eleifend molestie velit. Morbi lobortis quam eu velit. Donec euismod vestibulum massa. Donec non lectus. Aliquam commodo lacus sit amet nulla. Cras dignissim elit et augue. Nullam non diam. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Aenean vestibulum. Sed lobortis elit quis lectus. Nunc sed lacus at augue bibendum dapibus.
Feel free to welcome the new members who have recently joined the project.
Hi Atsme. I'm an editor of the Italian Wikipedia. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks,--Kenzia (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Northamerica1000 thx for letting me know. I reverted the revert and disabled that option on all of WP. It's gone - reverts are no longer allowed...EVER...and neither are AfDs. ~ signed: The Inclusionist aka Atsme📞📧10:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Nah - looks too much like me. It would have to be an inclusion, not a replacement - I disabled that feature on WP, remember? Besides, my sunshine image has sentimental value and now yours will, too. I just haven't figured out how best to display it. Atsme📞📧15:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Well shiver me timbers, Northamerica1000!! There actually is a sentence in the quotations atop this page which states, of finding unicorns in magical forests. Thank you for finding an image to accompany it, which now places the onus on you to explain why you believe in unicorns. I was concerned that if I wrote anything more about them, I'd be in deep 💩 with an overly skeptical (talk page stalker) cabal that already mistakingly believes I'm "fringy". Unicorns would surely push them over the edge. Besides, we have a WP article on Unicorns and I wouldn't want to distract from it with my incredibly engaging prose that is often so brilliant one needs sunglasses to read it. Atsme📞📧18:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I know we haven't seen eye-to-eye a lot, and I know you've occasionally found common cause with DrChrissy, but if you might could you help me with a personal dispute that I'm having? Maybe you can convince DrChrissy to not get involved in personal attacks against me on pages that (s)he follows me to?
Hi, jps - I'm responding to you as a WP:3O. I don't believe either you or DrChrissy are "mean" or harbor any ill-will toward each other. What I see are two knowledgeable editors who have formed wrong impressions about each other based on unfortunate circumstances in the past. Let it go. I have not reviewed content, and focused only on the diffs with my sights on behavior so I think it would be a wise decision to close the ANI, and open a discussion on RSN about the questioned source. JPS, I for one would certainly respect your expert opinion about that particular topic, and would feel the same about DrChrissy's expert opinon if the topic was animal behavior. I know experts aren't supposed to hold the trump card in any discussion, but I also believe that when we know they are experts in a given field, we should respect their input. I hope both of you will see it the same way regarding each other. It's healthy for editors to have disagreements about content during collaboration as long as it doesn't become personal. Discuss it on the article TP a bit more - get consensus from RSN on the source DrChrissy wanted to cite, AGF and close the ANI incident. There's your 3rd opinion. Happy editing!! Atsme📞📧01:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. To be clear, I did not remove the source from the article even while I do think the paper is awful. The topic that the Wikipedia article is about is so fraught that it is hard for me to justify removing almost any source, even really poor ones. jps (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
On 5 April 2016, at WP:AN participant HughD requested: "Respectfully request an uninvolved administrator please assess the proposal..." Were you aware of this request when you closed?
On 6 April 2016, the bottom, most recent comment in the discussion, participant EvergreenFir requested: "Requesting an uninvolved admin look this over and close it." Were you aware of this request when you closed?
In your opinion, is there no actionable behavior documented in the ANI report?
Hi, HughD, the following comment by admin Arthur Rubin is why I thought it was ok to close that discussion. It has grown stale, and it appears to me that since there was no admin action, and the last proposed remedy was by Arthur Rubin to iBan both of you, and his further advice to all was "don't ask", my close seemed appropriate. I won't object if you decide to revert the close. Atsme📞📧18:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I think the close may have been controversial, and I wouldn't say there is no actionable behavior, but there is no likelyhood of agreement between the parties, or consensus of the community, or agreement between any uninvolved admins, as to any specific sanction. Closure seems appropriate, but not necessarily advisable from a non-admin. — Arthur Rubin(talk)19:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't wish to comment on the present closure by Atsme at all. There is a bigger issue here. I don't think there is sufficient guidance for non-admins about where they should and should not close. Perhaps this could be clarified in more objective ways. For example, NAC's should only be done if there are less than x number of editors involved, less than x number of comments, the last comment was x hours earlier. Perhaps a pick-and-mix to indicate we want only admins to close the more complex threads. just a thought. DrChrissy(talk)19:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
DrChrissy, I accept full responsibility for that close because I was speed reading, and misinterpreted the comment by EvergreenFir. She said she would have closed it herself but couldn't because she was involved; therefore, my brain decided that since she is not an admin, her request must be for a non-admin close which wasn't the case - the mind plays funny tricks sometimes. I extend my apologies to HughD and Arthur Rubin, and will do my best to not repeat such a mistake in the future. Atsme📞📧03:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I know how you like a bit of comedic value on your pages. I thought you might like this which I just found on another user's page. {{User:Krimpet/peek}} hee hee. DrChrissy(talk)15:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
DrChrissy, OMG!! I saw it creep onto my page before I read your post. Might need to add a pacemaker warning at the top; not sure if it will have a positive or negative effect on editor retention. Atsme📞📧16:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hee hee. Of course this is your talk page and you are free to edit my comment to delete it and save the pacemaker batteries. DrChrissy(talk)16:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm using it in an in-home clinical study to determine the efficacy of Rolaids vs Crown & 7 to see which one works best for agita. Don't try this at the office. Atsme📞📧18:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Good job, DrChrissy!! WAF, bet you learned to stop pissing-off that horse, huh? And we think we train them. No doubt in my mind ever that animals respond to emotional stimuli - which makes me think....it wasn't that long ago when women were believed to be inferior human beings, and not just in strength but in all aspects of intellect as well. Man (the species) has only recently discovered how much of what they originally believed to be true was wrong - isn't evolution wonderful when it actually occurs? 🙈🙉🙊🐒 Body language, eye contact, sounds, smell - all relative to how an animal responds. Birds are pretty damn smart, too. And they can dance. Atsme📞📧21:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't agree with you more about birds - in the last few minutes I have just made this edit at animal cognition - [3]DrChrissy(talk)21:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.
Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.
I just realized I probably gave you the impression that a Racking Horse is the same thing as a Saddlebred. It isn't. A Racking Horse is a separate breed and generally has more Tennessee Walker and Standardbred in its bloodline than Saddlebred; they don't trot either and are actually shown in only two or three gaits.[4][5][6][7] I should have explained what it is when I asked if you had a picture. White Arabian FillyNeigh21:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
No problem at all, White Arabian Filly. Unfortunately, I don't have any images of Racking Horses or Trotters. Most of the photos I have in stock are AQHA & cutting related as well as ranching, tack, agriculture (equipment, hay, etc), cattle, insects, butterflies, birds, flowers, landscapes, barrel racing, trailers, cattle haulers, etc. I don't get many opportunities to be around gaited horses but when/if I do, I'll be sure to take my camera. Atsme📞📧00:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I went to a Racking Horse show years ago but didn't take any pictures or video, although I wish now I had. They and other gaited breeds are pretty popular where I live. White Arabian FillyNeigh20:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, TParis - you can be me if you promise to assume my debts as well. (female who loves to shop for clothes, shoes, computers, cameras and electronics) Atsme📞📧13:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
TParis - not my doing, but I figgered what the hell, I'll get an early start on Halloween. Oh, and Atsme - I need an address to forward these invoices. Atsme📞📧21:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I suggest forwarding those invoices to that scary guy who keeps poking his head onto this talk page. We do get paid for editing here, don't we? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
It's a doddle making money on here! I got offered a fiver just for introducing a little light-heartedness into a rather heated debate on sheep sex![8] By the way, I am also the culprit who introduced Atsme to the "Bobbing head Jimbo". On my page layout, he appears to be heading the ball of Wikipedia. Anyone game to load it on the front page of Wikipedia? Hee hee. DrChrissy(talk)22:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I looked at that shaggy sheep thing, and just as I said in my comment above, it goes to Wales! Doddle? All this shows why the US decided to be revolting. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Huh? Paid? Somebody is getting paid (besides Jimbo)? No way - this is a democracy which means the government pays for everything; therefore, everything is free so if money is getting passed around, I want my fair share. What? What was that you said? I now OWE money because it is a democracy? Atsme📞📧01:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I note this edit and, while we don't see eye-to-eye about this specific article, I agree that it's pretty scandalous that such a low percentage of our biographical articles are about women. If you wish to do so I would support the creation of a deletion sorting category or categories specifically for women, because there certainly are some cases where it appears that some editors hold women to different standards than men. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
After filing the DRN case, the filing party decided that it was better to handle it at the edit-warring noticeboard. Thank you for trying to help. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Use of your photo
Hi. I hope you don't mind but I have "borrowed" your photo of a Carribiean reef squid for a new article on animal welfare legislation, EU Directive 2010/63/EU, that I have just created. DrChrissy(talk)18:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
DrChrissy - you are free to use any of the photos uploaded to Commons. In fact, the squid image and the flatworm image made it to round 2 of the 2015 Featured Picture of the Year. Voting is still open so if you and any of the regular TPS would like the pleasure of seeing some of WP's most extraordinary images, head on over there if you've a mind to. Atsme📞📧12:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I had not realised that competition existed. Wow...amazing photos! You have some stiff competition over there! But your squid did get my vote. DrChrissy(talk)14:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I had been swatting away the banner without looking at the contest until I saw this here. Yes, indeed, quite an amazing collection. But I too voted for your squid! Good luck! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I've voted for your squid too, along with van Gogh's hypnotic starry night (which I've put in my edit notice) and Pluto. Very handsome flatworm, too! Bishonen | talk22:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC).
Bishonen - I'm honored! Thank you so much, and the same to DrChrissy & Tryp. There are some pretty incredible images to choose from in Round 2. The Gogh, Hubble and lightening image are absolutely amazing. I'm delighted to be part of it. Atsme📞📧22:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
My eye was also caught by the image (next to yours I think) of the ship's steering wheel, and the lion portrait. Lovely images. Best of luck, but perhaps you could have sold your image and you would have been squids in! (it works in the UK!) DrChrissy(talk)22:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I didn't previously disclose my full slate. I decided to vote for two instead of three, and they were the aforementioned magnificent squid, and the multicolored confocal microphotograph, the latter because of my neuroscience affinities. But truly, I could have voted in good conscience for dozens of the entries. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Categories
The cats you wanted on Commons are
Category:American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame and Museum
And
Category:National Cutting Horse Association Hall of Fame.
The AQHA one was already there but I created a redirect to make it more accessible. I created the NCHA one but accidentally made it a page, so I had to get admin help to fix it. However, it's there, so you can upload all the pics you want. White Arabian FillyNeigh21:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
By the way, thanks for requesting an infobox for horse people. I've been annoyed that there's nothing for non-Olympians for a long time. Also, you may be interested in User:White Arabian Filly/Bob Avila. I have a lot of old Western Horsemans with stuff about him that I have to dig out, but he is definitely in need of an article. White Arabian FillyNeigh20:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
And congrats to you too, even though you didn't win, in such a competitive field. Both of your photos were outstanding too. Personally, I'm disappointed that the NASA photo came in first, because NASA isn't an editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Tryp. The winning images were extraordinary and further demonstrates the incredible talent we have in our midst. I am humbled to have been a finalist in such great company. Atsme📞📧01:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, very tough competition, but yours were certainly up there and you should be very proud of that. I also agree with Trypto re. the images should be taken by editors, not organisations, - perhaps we should suggest that as one of the criteria for inclusion next time? I often wonder about the astronomy-type articles with false colours - is this "photography"? (rhetorical question - it is probably me being a photographic dinosaur.) DrChrissy(talk)15:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
WAF, the closest my pictures got was mention as being in the top 56 Finalists. They did not make top 12 but just being a finalist with a squid and a flatworm was memorable for me considering the extraordinary space images and so much more!! I thank you for your sentiments nonetheless. Atsme📞📧22:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Rodriguez Gelfenstein until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Montanabw(talk)06:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Allegations of COI and the COIN fiasco
Except for my very first run of newbie stupid in September 2011, I actually did do what I was supposed to do regarding the fish articles. No reason to cry over spilled milk but at least now my mind is at ease knowing that I acted above board from day one. I did disclose/declare COI on the talk pages of both paddlefish and sturgeon before any edits were made to the fish articles in 2014. Oct 14, 2011, Oct 14, 2011
The only response I received to my posts on the TPs of those articles was made on the Paddlefish TP 2 years later from an editor who collaborated with me on all of the subject articles plus a few others:
I don't think any video showing people caught into questionable activities would fly here, unless the article was exactly about these questionable activity and those people. There would be concerns related to WP:BLP and privacy. About the documentary, that is probably a decent external link. By the way, why you editing the paddlefish article(s) would imply COI? Are you a paddlefish? --cyclopiaspeak!15:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm a primitive species. Self-trout I made the COI comment back in 2011 before I fully understood what it meant. Oh, and I'm still working on uploading some bowfin video. I also have some footage of a paddlefish filter feeding, which should probably go with the American paddlefish article, and not the paddlefish article, or should it? And what about the taxobox on both the American paddlefish article and Paddlefish article? The image is an American paddlefish which doesn't look anything like a Chinese paddlefish. It was confusing enough trying to keep the information in the article itself separated especially considering there are only two extant species with more differences between them than similarities. Anyway, look over it when you get a chance. Atsme☯ Consult05:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, trout myself as well, I didn't notice it was a 2011 comment! I now still want to go ahead with the bowfin, but I'll have a look at the paddlefish situation when I can. --cyclopiaspeak!07:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, same editor participated in the Alligator gar GA review and he knew about the COI as evidenced above. He had no issue with the inline citations to Earthwave. In fact, he insisted on keeping citations in the lede: [10]
Another Self-trout for not remembering. I just hope what happened to me never happens to anyone else. Atsme📞📧03:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Is self-trouting the latest wiki-sport? ;-) I don't know if you have noticed but the COIN editor claims they are taking a "time-out" for "feedback". What a shame that those editors who can perhaps offer the best feedback are banned from his Talk page!DrChrissy(talk)12:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but if you'll notice, my trouts are smaller than yours. This is one of those instances when smaller is better. Atsme📞📧12:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John L. Furth until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Primefac (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
--cyclopiaspeak! 15:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
