User talk:Atama/Archive 3

< Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  ... (up to 100)

jeff

jeff hardy is cool now that he is champion am i right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardyman77 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue what you're talking about, sorry. -- Atama^chat 16:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Kool Keith

Because it's not notable. The more notable aliases are mentioned in the main body of the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

• Why do you insist that I am trying to start an edit war? Are you trying to start an edit war? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group

Hello. I wasn't sure if you were from the Seattle area or not, but I thought I'd add this invite to your page just in case. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided - one is April 8 (Wednesday) starting at 6 pm and the other is April 18 (Saturday) starting at 10 am. (Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration.) Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

WoW

Thank you! Please fill out the survey here. Thanks again! --Pbroks13^talk? 19:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Atama, I've added a suggestion to the talk page of the WoW article here, maybe you'd like to add your thoughts. Regards, 84.59.174.138 (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Five Wits

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Five Wits, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Five Wits. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

Your proposed transwiki has been declined. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Richmond Extension

Hey, just read your proposing this artical for speedy deletion on the basis of it being wrong/hoax. Actually the contents of the artical are completely correct, and a reference can be found in the relevant section of the Central Lines main page. Hope this helps :) OutrageousBenedict (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. -- Atama^chat 15:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of ADVANCE Student Organization

An article that you have been involved in editing, ADVANCE Student Organization, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ADVANCE Student Organization. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Why No "Warning" For HereToHelp?

Please explain in simple English why you chose to give me a big, scary "warning" on my user page for undoing edits, and gave HereToHelp - who was doing the exact same thing, except without justifying his premise with any solid statement - a barnstar? These are the most biased actions I've seen on Wikipedia to date.--[ Dario D. ] 18:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. -- Atama^chat 18:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#IPod Touch Criticisms Section and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dario D. (talk • contribs) 21:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WoW

Just posted an update in discussion on Original Research, explaining a bit more for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croc97 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration request rejected

Hello, Atama. A recent request for Arbitration which you were listed as a party for, "IPod Touch Criticisms Section", has been rejected by the Arbitration Committee. The reasoning for the arbitrator's refusal to hear the case may be viewed at the archived version at this link. If this is still an issue requiring resolution, you are encouraged to seek out other forms of dispute resolution such as a request for comment or Mediation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. For the Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Mobile Entree

Dear Atama, Wanted to thank you for all of your comments and personal support as we work through the Mobile Entree issue. I have posted some additional comments to the AfD page this morning and am hopeful that my colleague at the NY Times will post something before the article is deleted. On another note, I was hoping that you could offer your opinion on weather I should begin editing under a different username. The administrator Brian McNeil took some pointed personal attacks at me that you can see here. This may have a negative affect on my ability to eventually become an administrator some day with Wikipedia. Any advice that you can offer will be greatly appreciated. Respectfully --Jason! (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied on User's talk page. -- Atama^chat 17:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kairos society

You might want to consider a {{Not a ballot}} tag. My best to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion! -- Atama^chat 17:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

iPhone article review

It is just me? Or, is this User:Pmlinediter person even qualified to review the article? He's only been on Wikipedia since last year. May want to check his credentials to see if he is indeed qualified, or he's just one of those who slept at a Holiday Inn Express the other night. Groink (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. -- Atama^chat 23:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Thank you for your clarifikation. I do hesitate about doing that, as I am the creator and thereby naturally not very neutral, but what you say makes perfect sense. I have posted my answers on the discussions. With your solution, it would be easier also for others to provide references. My trouble is my time. I hope this will be solwed for the best!--Aciram (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a question regarding this. I seem to remember, that articles nomnated ford eletion are deleted if the problems are not solwed within seven days after the have been nominated? I will not be able to alter them until that time limit have passed. I do not have access to the references right now. However: you have suggested that they be renamed to be about the phenomena in itself rather han about a specific case. I have no problem with this. In that case, anyone can expand and add references to them before that time limit is up on the 31th, even though I could not find the time within that time limit. I do not know when it is okay to rename them, if this is decided.--Aciram (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I see, that's a relief! Thanks for your replies and clarifications! --Aciram (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for your help. I've just googled my name and it prominently brings up the COI page with two critical comments about me. This will be having an adverse effect on my academic reputation. Given I fully intend to comply with guidelines and not to further edit my own page how long is this necessary? Fauncet (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

I hope you're not accusing me of vandalizing the Meet the Deedles page, as it was actually Freedom Fighteer. NitroMan3941 (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Dabizi or anyone else can't keep me from making any helpful contributions to the page if theres ever one thats needed, but overall the page looks better. I was rude to other users like Dabizi's world news states, but i felt i was treated with rudeness from them aswell. He sent me an extremely long paragraph explaining the premise if Wiki editing, and at the end maybe added a few of his own words, so naturally i wasn't going to read it all. 90% of this with he and i was user conflict, the other 10% if that was edit conflict NitroMan3941 (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

How can i call one vandalism and not the other? Easy, my edits were not vandalism, i legitimately thought pot smoking was in the movie. I'm glad you're not shy about sending generic templates, i've been getting several since Dabizi started complaining about me to the rest of the users. NitroMan3941 (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i was just misinformed. As you probably realize, if i were a vandal i wouldn't be trying to improve pages on here, and i would be banned by now. I make no attempt to justify my uncivil actions, but its nice to know you could see it was both of us and not just me. Let me know if theres anything i can do to improve the page during this time; finding proper links, ect. NitroMan3941 (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

How can i get involved in a WikiProject, like for example WikiProject Cannabis? I'm interested in working on cannabis related projects, thats actually how i ended up on the Deedles page. NitroMan3941 (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for volunteering your insight regarding Meet the Deedles and all the other stuff! Dabizi (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor query about COIN

I have a question about coin but i dont know where to find the appropriate solution to this. A user enters his name and identifies himself on a talk page and is in violation of a conflict of interest with the article he is editing. Then a discussion about COIN develops the page is nominated for deletion. After this discussion (or at least after the concerns of the page are addressed) can we blank out his name in the threads he created if he requests? Thank you for your time (I havent dealt with COIN much so i dont know if this is a good idea) Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Ive posted some requests with some admins. So will see if the edit is a good idea. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Noticeboard

Thanks for not persecuting me on the Wiki Noticeboard. Your seemingly neutral stance is the way more editors should act; without traces of favortism. NitroMan3941 (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck to you aswell on any future projects you might get involved in. Currently i'm not doing anything on that WikiProject, i'm pretty much taking my time and still deciding on what on there i would work best in. NitroMan3941 (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost talk page

Join the club. Almost every uninvolved editor has looked at that page and backed away warily, leaving those of us not smart enough to do likewise stuck in an echo chamber.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

About What You Said...

You know what? You're right. As long as I contribute, it's no matter that my talk page is nearly empty. At least I still have a barnstar. I can work from there. Hey, I was wondering... Where could I put in info of my novel? Tell me on my talk page. Typingwestern015 (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

J.E.S. Lawrence

Hi Atama,

Thanks for you help. I agree he is an interesting character according to his Autobio and CV, it is strange no one else has dived in before now to tidy the article. Btw I have raised a query with User Talk: Ukexpat who like you knows about the world of COI as to why he did a redirect but left the article unchanged otherwise. I will keep an eye on the various articles going forward, Cheers Tmol42 (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Note

You write, "In that case, (1) name the organization and (2) give evidence that Jakew is associated with it." It's possible Garycompugeek was referring to CIRCS, www.circs.org, of which User:Jakew is the founder. See this fragment for Jakew's explanation as to why his organization, CIRCS, chose to publish more articles judged to be pro-circumcision and fewer articles judged to be anti-circumcision, in relation to the collection of all available articles on circumcision. I believe Jakew demonstrates clear bias, unabashedly claiming that anti-circumcision groups are deceptive on his user page, and has carried this bias to Wikipedia, has enforced this bias in circumcision and all circumcision-related articles (including female circumcision), and has had the constant assistance and unanimous support of certain administrators, also biased on the topic, namely User:Jayjg and User:Avraham -- allowing him essentially to dictate the contents of all circumcision-related articles, often in the face of multiple editors in opposition, clamouring for what they claim is a more neutral treatment. Less zealous editors, perhaps; editors who perhaps have better things to do than incessantly argue with the circumcision organization founder in question. Thanks for your interest in this situation, I hope the above was of some use to you. Blackworm (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you had to be dragged into this, Atama. Blackworm, unfortunately, may be guilty of projection here. Blackworm has been counseled about his edit warring and lack of POV editing in the past, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Blackworm. It would serve his purpose well to misrepresent Jake. What Blackworm has not told you is that he is a zealous believer in genital integrity, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision&diff=prev&oldid=142854571 and try and find anything remotely as extreme in any of Jake's edits. Blackworm is a big fan of CIRP, a website that goes out of its way to push anti-circumcision philosophy, to the point that they will use HTML to highlight portions of articles that support their position and ignore the portions that do not. Their mal-distribution of papers on the subject is why I believe Jake started collecting scientific papers to begin with. I do not know if Blackworm is associated with CIRP, as Blackworm has never revealed his real-life identity. Jake has never, that I know of, pushed CIRCS as a source, and on the circumcision artile, we try not to use either source for papers unless we have no choice, and there is a notice at the top of the reference section. So, I request that you compare the edit histories of Blackworm and Jake, and then decide who has the more extreme POV, and who may be trying to place the other in disrepute. -- Avi (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen Jake promote his website (it's not an organization--he's one person), and, as I said, we try to link to neither site for papers unless there is no other freely available source. I agree that while there are strong POV's on the article, I do not think anyone, or I should say I have neither evidence nor reason to believe, that anyone has a conflict of interest on the article. Thank you for your time and patience! -- Avi (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I take the repeated accusations of my having psychological issues as a direct personal attack, part of a pattern of harrassment. Blackworm (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Blackworm, on this page nobody has accused you of having psychological issues. So please relax. I'm not interested in having my talk page be a battleground between the two of you. -- Atama^chat 23:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I could argue that psychological projection, as was linked to above, is a psychological issue. It gives "blaming others for one's own failure" as an example. I'm sorry that this ongoing conflict has spilled onto your talk page. Blackworm (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The lead to that article says, "A modern view of projections is that they are prerequisites for normal social functioning." I've never heard of "projecting" being considered a mental illness, ever. It's something everyone does now and again. My interpretation of what Avi said is that you are assuming bad faith in Jakew because you have been acting in bad faith. I assume that this opinion has derived from a long-standing dispute that has been going on at circumcision and probably elsewhere, and I'm not taking sides; you can call each other whatever you want and it's not going to sway my opinion one way or the other. In any case, I do appreciate the courtesy of your reply, and I have to say that I don't hold any ill-will toward either of you; I think you've both been civil to me even when discussing what are obviously heated matters and I thank the both of you. -- Atama^chat 00:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Atama, thank you for reply, but I didn't say mental illness, I said psychological issues. You said, "nobody has accused you of having psychological issues." Now you switch to mental illness, which I didn't discuss. You're right, he hasn't accused me of mental illness to my knowledge. Psychological projection however seems a failing by the example given (blaming others for one's own failures, which Avi directly accused me of the first time he said I was "guilty of projection:" "You, however, seem to need to focus on attacking the person of those who disagree with you, as opposed to discussiing issues"[1]). Psychological projection may indeed be a common failing, but it's a failing that Avi has directly accused me of twice now, and which I deny and resent in both instances, hence my response. He talks about marginalization while marginalizing others, and apparently leading you to believe such marginalization is the motive for the COI claim, and arguments. I ask you to consider if that's possible, and perhaps review the discussion and better explain where the error of those arguing that a COI exists is made. Blackworm (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Atama: Re: this message, I don't believe it is clear that promotion of his website is the criteria defining a COI. WP:COI states [emphasis in original], "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Promotion of a website is clearly not the (sole) interest of www.circs.org; that organization clearly has other interests. The discussion between Jakew and myself I referred to in my earlier message above, in my opinion, makes clear that the interest of circs.org is to provide authoritative material on male circumcision, carefully selecting such material in order to present the practice in a more positive light than, say, a large random collection of these authoritative sources would -- that stated aim specifically being to serve as a counter-point to sites doing the same, from an "anti-circumcision" point of view. A kind of affirmative action for points of view, perhaps. But that interest is in direct conflict with the interest of Wikipedia to serve as a neutral source of information, which is not a brochure for a point of view. Jakew may claim that his outside interest, as founder of CIRCS, to counter anti-circumcision groups he accuses of deception, and provide a picture of circumcision that is more favourable than a large random collection of authoritative sources would provide, is not advanced by any of his actions here, where his interest supposedly instantaneously switches to providing a complete, balanced picture. I believe the source of dismay from several editors stems from a belief that these interests are indeed in conflict, that Jakew does not change interests like a switch when he logs into Wikipedia, and that Jakew's presence here does de facto advance this interest of CIRCS, as evidenced by the character of his edits and his arguments for those edits. So the question is, what is CIRCS? Is it Jake's personal website, or is a website for and funded by people who share his point of view? If the latter, then I believe an argument for WP:COI can certainly be made. In any case, COI or not, several editors believe that WP:NPOV is not being served by his edits, especially combined with the terse and indignant expressions of support and editwarring of his edits into the articles by a couple of other editors apparently sharing his views. Blackworm (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. You're quoting part of the lead of WP:COI and taking it out of context. It later defines examples of what constitutes "advancing outside interests" and simply violating WP:NPOV isn't included. You're essentially saying that Jakew was jaywalking because he stole a lady's purse. You might have a legitimate WP:NPOV claim, you might not, but you don't have a COI claim here. Honestly, what I see is that everyone in the dispute is biased, and that's okay. It's fine for one side to have a POV, and for the other side to have the opposite POV. Hopefully what that would result in is a balanced article, where each side keeps the other in check. That only happens if both sides work together. But that's obviously not happening in that article. I have no interest in getting in between the two sides there, my only interest was giving an opinion about a COI. If you can't show Jakew actively promoting CIRCS, then you don't have any basis for the COI accusation according to the guidelines. Honestly, what you have is a content dispute and I'm not interested in getting into that. Thanks -- Atama^chat 23:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I never made a direct COI accusation, actually, since the guideline isn't that clear to me. The guideline does state that "Campaigning: Activities regarded by insiders as simply 'getting the word out' may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest." User:Jakew states: "In 2003, I became aware of the deceptive activities of many activist groups opposed to neonatal circumcision. My research has continued and intensified since, and I now consider myself something of an expert on the subject." I can see how this may cause some editors to argue that a COI exists, whether a consensus would agree or not. I attempted to explain why they may see it that way. Blackworm (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict $\times$ 2) I was going to point out that I don't agree with Blackworm's interpretation of what Jake wrote [2] etc. but never mind; thanks for giving an outside opinion, Atama. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Blackworm, the COI guideline can at times be unclear because all it does is give recommendations, it isn't a very firm one. Jakew doesn't seem to be campaigning, as you've quoted yourself, campaigning is "trying to get the word out" about an organization, but he's not getting the word out about CIRCS. I understand perfectly why some people think that he has a COI, and it's due to confusion between COI and POV. Having a POV does not automatically mean you have a COI, even being a member or founder of a group that has a POV on a subject does not mean you have a COI. -- Atama^chat 00:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Campaigning may also be for an idea. When they talk about editing articles and "engaging in advocacy in that area," well, Jakew is editting articles, and the organization he founded is engaging in advocacy in that area. That may be read as a COI, per my reading of that policy. Now maybe that indeed is not what the spirit of the policy is -- but it's unclear. How about we get outside input; and move this discussion to WT:COI? Nothing is to be lost and I'm honestly curious as to what the consensus would be on it. It seems an important issue warranting outside attention. Blackworm (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If "campaigning for an idea" could be a COI then COI would be redundant, any time you make an edit that is slanted toward a particular POV, you're "campaigning for an idea", so what would be the difference between WP:COI and WP:NPOV? COI is specifically for someone editing to the benefit of a person or organization that they are tied to, that doesn't include someone editing for the benefit of an ideal. Simply put, it's along the lines of a McDonald's CEO editing the McDonald's article and writing "McDonald's is great according to most people" in the lead. But, if you still think that Jakew has a COI despite all that I've said, that's no problem, I'll remove the "resolved" tag because clearly the issue isn't, and you can bring up any arguments you like there. I don't think I'll participate any longer because I believe I've said all that I have to say on the matter. Thank you. -- Atama^chat 00:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done

		Civility Award
		For remaining civil, if not downright cordial, when caught in the middle trying to explain issues to editors with strong feelings on either side. -- Avi (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment

Hi. I was encouraged to become part of the campaign again systematic bias (see my talk page). On 18 July editor Quibik reversed links by me to 'Royal Canberra Hospital' in the 'Royal Canberra Hospital Implosion' entry on the basis of 'overediting.' (see history of edits) But the links were in separate paras and so (I felt) not contrary to the policy and I wrote this up on the article discussion page. There has been a campaign by the ACT government to downplay the public angst felt about its demolition of this much loved hospital and I accused this editor of possible bias in explaining my undo. Now this editor as added notifications to both the article about me (which has now been through many editors hands and which I haven't touched since requested not to) and that of my father Marcus De Laune Faunce (whwre I acknowledged neutrality issues immediately). This motivation of Quibik in doing this seems clearly related to my accusing him/her of potential bias and I suspect him/her may have some COI related to the Royal Canberra Hospital and my father's opposition to its closure. In relation to myself my reading of the Wiki policy was that opposing 'harrassment' and 'outing' was supposed to take precedence. I wish the edits of Quibik on those two articles taken down as flowing from COI or harrassment. Should I do that myself? Should I report him/her to the COI page? Fauncet (talk) 07:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Atama. You resolved the COI discussion of Fauncet (talk · contribs) with the comment "He seems to have left Wikipedia, for better or worse". Given that he apparently has not left, and is again embroiled in controversy, might it be time to revisit that case? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

He has stated definitively on his talk page that he has left, so I think it's a moot point now. Unfortunately, while he seemed full of knowledge on certain subjects he didn't seem to quite fit in and was easily frustrated; he may have tried to do too much at once rather than taking it slowly and learning the policies and guidelines before heavily editing. -- Atama^chat 23:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Maurício Dottori

I agree with the PROD. I found the article via my daily check here and added what refs I could since it was an unreferenced BLP. But what's there is all I could find. I very much doubt it would survive an AfD. If the article's author/subject can't provide anything more in the way of recordings, reviews, journal citations etc. I don't know who else can. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your reply. Your agreement with the prod means much to me because you seem to be something of an expert with these kinds of articles. -- Atama^chat 05:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Clive Fiske Harrison

Please address the comment - reprinted below - from the Clive Fiske Harrison AfD page. He has been extensively quoted and referenced in the media over the years. I think a failing of this process is that people do not realise that notability in certain areas does not always spill out into celebrity. This is why the lead financial columnnist for the London Times said "one person whose views I respect." and why he is the goto for quotes by the City editor of the Evening Standard which is the newspaper of the financial community in London--Fiskeharrison (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. It is easy to find vast amounts of mentions in the newspapers. E.g. Highbeam research shows entries for The Independent, Evening Standard, Sunday Business and Investor's Chronicle see here --Fiskeharrison (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: This

Atama, in your opinion Libs' warning was wrong and, as such, a separate reply for Libs on his own talk page would've been better. Regardless, the warning was fine but he used the wrong template. The user seemed to be genre trolling and the correct template for that would be {{uw-genre1}} et al. Just thought I'd clear up any confusion you were having. You can reply here if you wish as I don't know if the IP talk page bug still exists or not. Thanks. 86.3.61.125 (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I was drawn to the talk page for that editor because he had made a request at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Now, clearly there was no COI involved in any part of that dispute, but I saw that the editor was confused, new to this particular wiki, and asking for help. Libs has had a problem in the past with accusing others of vandalism without justification, and no it's not simply a matter of using the wrong warning template on an editors' page, it's a combination of giving a person a warning over a content disagreement as if they had violated policy and the reverting of edits with no explanation. Libs was totally in the wrong there. My intent wasn't so much to admonish Libs, as warranted as it was, but to offer guidance to the new editor. That's why I didn't just reply on Libs' page. That guidance was also in the form of admonishment as well, Ole's edits were against consensus and if he had a dispute it should have gone to the talk page. It definitely shouldn't have escalated into a 3RR situation. I hope that clarifies things a bit, I think that both of them acted inappropriately. -- Atama^chat 17:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... perhaps. Thanks for replying. In regards to you saying "Libs has had a problem... with accusing others of vandalism without justification", have you yourself been "falsely" accused of that? I would think that he would know, having been here much longer than you or I, the difference between unconstructive edits and vandalism. Though I haven't been here as of late and haven't kept up to speed with any goings on... 86.3.61.125 (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You could say that he should know better than that, perhaps. But looking at the contributions Ole made, then the responses to them, it's clear that the charge of vandalism was inappropriate. When I talk about having a problem with accusing people, look at User talk:Wiki libs#3rr, where he is warned by multiple editors that he shouldn't be falsely accusing other editors of vandalism in content disputes. His response is, "My AGF ran out 4 years ago. Trolls are trolls no matter how hard they try to lie in their edit summaries. This is where Wikipedia suffers from the loss of Scarian and his monsterous admin balls and zero tolerance for trolls." If anything, maybe being on Wikipedia for too long is the problem? I don't know, but WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:BITE at the very least are all being ignored. As to whether I've been falsely accused of vandalism I can say with relief that I've never received a warning of any kind, whether because I'm careful with my edits or because I've been lucky. In any case, I don't have a beef with Wiki Libs honestly, as I'd said I was just responding to a request for help from an editor. -- Atama^chat 22:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

MR Neurography and Diffusion MRI COI issue

Atama - I have added a COI statement to the end of these articles and to my user page. I pointed out that the Neurography article was reviewed for this issue when it was first posted. It is worth knowing, in terms of real conflicts, that thousands of patients have these imaging studies in hundreds of locations quite unrelated to me (e.g. Johns Hopkins, UCSF, etc). I have a long history of well regarded academic publication in this field. I'm not sure who put the banner: This page contains many passages with clear conflict of interests. Please refer to(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#diffusion_MRI) for more information. at the top and if it needs to be there, then I certainly encourage it - but is that a standard for Wikipedia? The other article that CogitoErgoSum101 drew attention to is the Diffusion MRI article. In this case there are thousands of publications and image centers involved all of which have no affiliation with me. The banner makes it sound as if the article is riddled with misleading statements and that certainly is not the case. I don't think there is any specific dispute about any of the content. I did file a patent with the first images in this field with a lead of several years on other groups and this work was immediately praised and promoted by the leading scientists in MRI at the time (which is documented in the article). I understand that this was the conclusion of your review but again, is that banner necessary? I have worked on various pages in the Wikipedia and if there is going to be a "scarlet letter" posted in broad banner over every article I work on, it seems that I will harm any subject that I touch. We don't know the identity or conflicts of the person pursuing this agenda. It seems that we should be able to resolve any specific factual difference. I don't feel someone with an agenda should be able to drive me off of Wikipedia just because I am a creative productive person who also likes to write and teach. I am a huge fan of Wikipedia and believe I can do a great job. The Diffusion MRI article was in very preliminary condition, made up mostly of puzzling complex mathematical formulas (several of which had errors). There are thousands in this field who never took the time to touch up the article. I do think it is a much better article now although there is room for improvement. It gets 300-400 visitors per day so there is definitely a lot of interest in this subject.Afiller (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Irekei

Thank for merging the Irekei article into the main one. I just wanted to let you know that when you merge something, you should link the title of the article that it comes from in the edit summary. ("Merging in material from [[Irekei]]"). In this case I think the summary you left is probably good enough, but for future reference be sure to link it. Also you should put a {{R from merge}} on the newly redirected page. (I went ahead and did so.) These two steps ensure that proper attribution is possible, and that the redirected page won't be deleted (which would break attribution), as required by our licensing agreements.

Thank you for your consideration and have a nice day, ThaddeusB (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

YTB

Thanks for tackling this. I tried to help out and I think Zulualpha has some valid points but I couldn't get past the ramblings on the talk page. Rees11 (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Devendra Banhart Page

Thank you for your comments Atama. I am just trying to add to the page in a constructive and helpful manner. I have since sourced the correction I was attempting to make and will be adding more great facts about this artists with sources. All the best.Lktmgmt (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Khokhar

Hi fellow editor, thanks for your comments here. I will leave the WP:NPOV report for now to see if the user in questions adds the valid sources I added (which he deleted). I am still a little concerned about comments on his talk page (which I highlighted on his talk page):

• calling Indians names
• again calling names
• accusations of being Islamaphobic

There seem to be elements encouraging edit wars. I am also concerned about the use of weasel words in the commentary, and lack of assumption of good faith by the editor. Any advice would be welcome. Thanks--Sikh-History 14:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fladriff: COI Noticeboar post

OK, how to proceed? Should I strike through the content and repost on ANI? Please advise.--Kbob (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ballard Pool

Well, cool. I didn't look too hard for notability because the original text also included "All the lifeguards there are competent and knowledgeable in water safety. Some have super powers." That didn't give me a lot of confidence to research very far. Good call. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 18:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincenzo Cox

For your information. SilkTork *^YES! 22:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Your TM page comment

Atama, welcome to the TM page and thanks for your comment. This quote that you mention also has source issues and is currently being discussed in the TM page talk section called: Proposal to Remove Paragraph, Off Topic, Unreliable Source. This questionable source is being cited in multiple places in the article. If you would like to read that section and make a comment there it would be welcomed.[3]--Kbob (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. The sentences being discussed were sourced to page 267 of the book "Spiritualities: Websters Quotations", not the source being discussed in the section referred to above. So no need to visit that section unless you want to explore another source issue. However, there is no such information on the specified source page for the info you brought up, as seen here. [4] So its good you have brought this to our attention so we can resource or remove it. thanks.--Kbob (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm still not sure I want to get heavily involved in the article, but I might hang out there a bit. -- Atama^chat 20:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'm sure you have many other projects on your plate. But if you wanna drop by, "we'll keep the light on for ya". cheers! --Kbob (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Scotland is a nation; the UK is a state

Concerning Bob Taggart you wrote:

3. He isn't the oldest living person of his nation (nation being United Kingdom).

The United Kingdom is the state in which he lived. The nation in which he lived is Scotland. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the terminology that is used in the UK. In the United States it's the opposite, we have states that are part of a nation instead of nations that are part of a state. In either case Wikipedia seems to consider the UK to be the equivalent of a nation when it comes to ages; it doesn't care who is the oldest in Scotland, or England, or Wales, or Northern Ireland. No more than the oldest person in California. So my statement is still correct even if I got the terminology wrong. -- Atama^chat 21:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's true that he was not the oldest person in the UK. What's not clear is whether that's what matters.

Sometimes the term constituent country is used, and in the term Six Nations Championship, the six "nations" are England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, France, and Italy.

But it is certainly not only in the UK that such terminology is used. See nation. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Wikipedia should have a WP:OLDPEOPLE guideline for the notability of really old people? :)

I was basing my notability arguments on what is already in the articles about the oldest people in the world, I figured that those articles would have grown from consensus and could be used as a guide as to whether or not Mr. Taggart was of a notable age. I noted that anyone over 110 received a special notice, and anyone who was the oldest in their "nation" was mentioned (and again, as wrong as it might be the UK was counted as a "nation" in the list) but he didn't fit in either list. I also noted that there is no article about the oldest people in Scotland because that's part of the article showing the oldest people in Britain, and again in that article he's the youngest.

Taggart is 109 years old, so as I suggested in the article in case someone does bring up the article for AfD (I won't do it because I think it scrapes by WP:N) the article can be recreated when he reaches 110, and he would also have a place on the article that lists the world's oldest people. -- Atama^chat 00:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Customize User Name

Hey Atama, where can I find info and/or tools to customize my user name/signature with colors or font like you have done? Many thanks.--Kbob (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!--Kbob (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on my User Name not pointing to my User page, ooops! Got it fixed but still can't get the Chat part to become a clickable link even though I copied exactly from you and another editor. When edit to enter my user name, for some reason it nullifies the chat link. Anyway no worries, my fellow editors can make another click for my discussion page. Thanks again,-- — Kbob 18:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Got it, it works!-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		This is for your most eloquent explanation on User talk:UkFaith I am very impressed with how you did that in the manner you did. You explained everything that needed to be covered! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I was just coming over to comment on that being one of the best explanations I've seen in quite a while. I wasn't even upset, and it still managed to calm me down a bit. Well said. --Onorem♠Dil 03:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Another agreement here. Its rare on Wiki to see people talking to each other as people and going so far out of their way to rehabilitate a wayward editor. I commend your efforts and hope that it has the desired effect. I have also admired your even handed, no nonsense and balance approach on the COIN page. You are a very good editor. Great to have you on the Wiki team. Namaste! --Kbob^chat 13:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks guys! I appreciate it, sometimes I don't know if I know what I'm talking about (if that makes sense) but I'm relieved that it wasn't the rambling mess it felt like 5 minutes after I wrote it. -- Atama^chat 20:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

re Aryan Khan

Am editing from PSP via a McDonalds in South France so cant saY much. But OK wont AfD it i agree is notabLe but was unsourced BLP. thanks 4 improving. SockofSpongefrog (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was me. Have you ever tried typing on a PSP? Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 15:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to criticize, that's pretty impressive. -- Atama^chat 16:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Award

		The Good Friend Award
		For always assuming good faith until proven otherwise and in particular, for rescuing an editor from apparent self destruction, thereby moving Wiki one more step forward on its path to greatness. --Kbobchat 00:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Holy hell you are having a barnstar gathering here!Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Another award!

		The Special Barnstar
		Your exemplary work and dedication at WP:COI/N has been recognized and appreciated. :) œ™ 05:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

AMG BARNSTAR`

		The Half Barnstar
		For cooperating with other editors on Talk:Vivek Kundra Falcon8765 (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Kundra has moved beyond this and gone on to dedicate his life to public service. This is more than what most people can claim… To punish him again (and all his family members) publicly thirteen years later when a Judge with material facts deemed it to be a misdemeanor should not be supported. This is in direct contradiction to the disposition that the judge (the law) intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.128.243 (talk) 02:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There was already a consensus to include the information, considering that the mainstream media had considered it notable enough to cover at some length, and because the White House felt the need to comment on the matter. On the other hand, I tried to show that he pled guilty (admitted his guilt), that he served his sentence, and that the sentence was fairly minor. Essentially I was trying to mitigate the portrayal of the crime in the biography. My attempt was met with resistance because extending the discussion of the incident past a single sentence was considered as giving it undue weight. So I compromised, and kept it at a single sentence, but replaced "convicted" with "pled guilty". Your attacks on me are misguided. -- Atama頭 04:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

My comments here were not an attack against you at all. Quite the contrary, you expressed your doubts about the content. I am questioning the motivation of the original posting and whether it is judicially correct. The mainstream media is driven by a sales imperative and the White House summarily dismissed it. To include it in a BLP based on a consensus of two vs. three is moot. The key question that interests me here appears to be of judicial intent. If a judge thirteen years ago (who had all the facts) determined a certain course of action, don't you think that it's inclusion on a Wiki page with a world audience is in direct contradiction to the intent of the judge? This is worse punishment than the judge intended. As you pointed out, to call a PBJ dispositon of fine and community service as a "conviction" (with a strict definition) is wrong and may be libellous and points to the true intent of the original authors which may be biased. Wikipedia editors need to tread with extreme caution in a BLP. I would urge you to help remove this content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.128.243 (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

So calling my actions "willfully malicious" and "unconscionable" isn't an attack? Give me a break. I suggest reading WP:NLT, WP:NPA, and WP:SOAP. Now that the article is protected from anonymous contributions they come to my talk page. Wonderful. -- Atama頭 18:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Atama, The references above were not intended for you. It was unfortunately copied from the talk pages and I have amended it. Infact, I commend you for instinctively removing the "conviction" apellation that was published. Your instincts were correct and the PBJ judgement was intended for a purpose. This was really to request you and other administrators and editors to remove the debated reference and to influence a sitewide action to retain the policy from WIKI:BLP-- "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." 66.171.128.243 (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. -- Atama頭 03:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As an attorney and objective observer, I would have to strongly agree with the previous unsigned comment about the appropriateness of including information on this incident. Legally, Kundra was never convicted of anything--in Maryland, probation before judgment (or PBJ) is not a conviction and can be expunged from a person's record within three years. A person receiving a PBJ could honestly and legally say that he/she was never convicted of anything and does not have a criminal record. In fact, the whole point of a PBJ is to prevent people from having the "black mark" of a misdemeanor follow them for life. While Kundra's information is now out there on some blogs and a few publications, that does not mean it SHOULD be out there. Moreover, given the tone and purpose of his Wikipedia page (i.e. to provide information on his professional background and responsibilities of the CIO), it seems completely inappropriate and almost partisan in nature. For example, why is the theft that President Bush committed as a twenty-year-old not on his wikipedia page when it was covered by publications such as the New York Times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved Template

Hey Atama, do you know anything about the Resolved template? (like the one being used on the COIN page) Can it be used on User Talk pages? Can anyone editor use it? Sometimes on the TM page there are some many threads its hard to know what's completed and sometimes threads that are ongoing go unnoticed because they are far up the page. Any experience with this kind of thing?-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Atama, thanks for the speedy and highly informative (as usual) response! PS what is the significance of your name? It reminds me of the Sanskrit word Atman, which means cosmic self. Is there a story behind it that you care to tell? -- — Kbob • Talk • 20:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk Back

not sure if you saw my return comment or not. Anyway are you aware of this handy little tag?-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You did it because you are Atama-san! :-) -- — Kbob • Talk • 14:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Hello there. I have a quick question: When nominating an article for re-deletion (this page) how do I ascertain the exact number of times it has been deleted previously? User Ultra-Loser says the above article has been "deleted several times" but I can't find any trace of past discussion. Thank you. Dynablaster (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Go to the page called Special:Logs. In the top of the screen, choose "Deletion log" as the kind of log you want to filter, and add the title of the article you are interested in (in this case you enter "Comparison of BitTorrent sites"). You'll see that it was at AfD once, speedily deleted twice as recreated deleted content (category G4), then restored, and deleted again. -- Atama頭 18:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ta! Dynablaster (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Leveque

Hi there. Stumbled upon this at AIV, so I figured I'd come to you and see what's up. I'll be talking to the user in question, but I'm here to know your side. I've also notified Ronz. Cheers, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 08:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Re : September 2009

About my edit on Mauritius : I'm from the Indian Ocean and I know English is NOT a vernacular language in Mauritius. Most of people are very prophicient but in everyday life they use French and Creole.Mitch1981 (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The article has a source that says so. Don't just make those claims based on your own knowledge, that's against Wikipedia's original research policy. Removing properly-sourced information without seeking consensus or even leaving an edit summary can be considered disruptive. -- Atama頭 22:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't intend to start an edit war, so I'll let it go. But what's the point of an encyclopedia which doesn't care about reality ? England took Mauritius from the French in the early 19th century but they did'nt try to wipe french culture off the place. So when the locals took their independance in the late 1960s, they were still strongly influenced by french culture. They kept English as an official language for merely practical reasons but they speak French and French-based creole in everyday life. Just go and tour the place, so you'll see by yourself. Besides, it's a lovely place. CheersMitch1981 (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's information is based on verifiability, not truth. That is from the verifiability policy and is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. You need to accept that to edit here, because people can't just take your word that it's true. You need to prove it and the only way to do so is by referencing reliable sources. Essentially, your edits were original research based on your personal opinions about Mauritius, based on your own experiences, and conflict with what published experts have said. -- Atama頭 18:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Nederlander Organization

Would you mind taking a look at Nederlander Organization? There was an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nederlander Worldwide Entertainment that resulted in "merge" but no one ever did the merge. I took a stab at it, and think I got it right, but it's my first merge.

In particular, during the merge I discovered almost the entire target article was copied verbatim from the company web site. I deleted the copied text, but it may have been licensed CC, as was the source material for the merged-from article.

You had commented about the copied material during the AfD discussion which is why I'm asking your opinion on this. Thanks! Rees11 (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you did a fine job. You kept the sources which helps satisfy both WP:V and WP:N. The merged article is a stub, but like a bonsai you often have to trim much away to end up with something of quality. -- Atama頭 04:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Good point. I guess if someone really cares about the deleted material they can put it back and we'll fight over it then. Thanks! Rees11 (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:COIN#User:Mcarter13, Artery Foundation and their clients

I thought this was over, as the AfD and PROD both concluded, but two of the other articles have come back, so I have raised a joint AfD here. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Kleefeld & Brown Connection

I am researching the connection between these two contemporary writers and noticed there is concern posted about the objectivity and verifiability of both as they appear on Wiki. Because I have a great deal of background material on these writers, I am not neutral in my opinions and so would not wish to edit on or add to the respective articles myself, in any way, but rather express my analysis on these topics in my own publications, fully attributed. However, I will be watching this wiki UserTalk:Atama page to see how the improvement of the articles progresses. My own position is that I want to be able to rely on Wiki as a reliable source, and not have that mixed with feedback of my own thinking. Thanks.Checkers winston (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet is back

User:Philbox17 is now using the accounts User:PatrioteQc and User:Québécois101. Can you have the admins block these one's too. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yikes

Yikes! - Feels like seeing a bridge out, and coming into town to see the train boarding... and the Engineer swears the bridge can't be out, the map is RIGHT HERE and it shows the bridge. It ain't gonna be pretty. - Sinneed (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC) PS - I am watching so if you want to reply, I'll see it here, and if not, no worries. Just a "Yikes, that's gonna leave a mark!" moment. - Sinneed (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, everyone is watching. Revrant (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply on Revrant's talk page, thanks. That seems the most appropriate thing to do since that's where the discussion is occurring. -- Atama頭 23:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for drawing the dispute to your talk page. :,( - Sinneed (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh no don't worry about it, it's not my talk page that was the problem it was Talk:World of Warcraft. I'm not mad at you or even Revrant, sometimes discussions get heated. I do think the WP:WQA report was appropriate though. -- Atama頭 08:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sungazing

Hi Atama i valued your input on COI pages and i was wondering if i could get your opinion on another matter?

"The article for Sungazing was edited 22 times by User:Skinwalker in a one hour period. During which he/she removed any explanation of the practise itself, ie. when to do the practise and any safety guidelines stated by known sungazers. With this done, the way has been paved for the article to take on his opinions of a practise that he seems to know little about (ie. safety guidelines, the actual process of what to do and when to sungaze etc...) As is seen with the statement "The practice of sungazing is dangerous". this is then followed by criticism of the practise with out any explanation of the process itself.
He/she has taken out entire sections of the process of how to sungaze saying 'wikipedia is not a how to section', yet on the page for Driving, room is given on how to instruct somone to drive, optimising driving performance. The same is true with sungazing, the safety lies in the proper process, with that removed any opinionated view can be propogated. No one drives 90mph out of their drive way and the same goes with sungazing, there are safety guidelines and limits...
Another example of the opinionated editing, User:Skinwalker writes, "it has undergone analysis - staring at the sun is bad for you". i agree that staring at anything is bad for you, but if the practise entailed "staring at the sun" it would be called "sun staring".
It seems this editors opinion comes first and then the rest of the article is to follow.
i would like to note that the criticism section has went untouched.
There is almost nothing left of the original article, and its current state does not allow for any genuine and legitimate information on the process and practise of Sungazing."

(i cut and pasted most of this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Sungazing as i have already sought some help but am unsure if it the right forum)

i was thinking to undo his edits but as i go the references were already deleted leaving big red writing everywhere... so in order to procede i'm guessing i would have to undo all his edits... any advice on how to procede (or how to stop these edits) is most appreciated.

Thanks.

J929 (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi, would you please have the admins shut down yet another sockpuppet account of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Philbox17 this time it is User:Québécois1837. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, would you mind advising the editors User:DGG and User:Frmatt that I am not involved in an edit war. I am trying to stop the recreating sockpuppet from vandalizing the article. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Hi, thanks for the advise and your story, I believe them both. I would appreciate it you took over policing the RRQ article, I will be moving on soon, so the sockpuppet will have his way with the article again. Thanks. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'll keep it on my watchlist. I'm opening up another report for this latest sockpuppet. -- Atama頭 23:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• D'oh, they were already blocked. I need to get better at looking at logs. -- Atama頭 23:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That account was also blocked by Versageek, the checkuser who made the other blocks. Nathan ^T 01:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

76.64.152.111

I don't know if you know this IP user at all, but I noticed that they are considering leaving WP partially because of something I said to them. While I stand by my statement that it was an edit war, I know that this IP was trying to do the right thing in the wrong way. They've stated in a couple places that they are considering leaving, and that would be very disappointing. If you know this user at all and can change their mind, WP would be a better place for having them around. Thanks! Frmatt (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I only know this person through this recent sockpuppet dispute. I hang out at the conflict of interest noticeboard and the IP added a few complaints about an editor and later their socks. I think your 3RR notice was completely appropriate even if it had unforeseen consequences you didn't mean, and I hope you don't blame yourself for it. I'll leave the person another note requesting that they not leave Wikipedia because I agree with you that they've done some good things around here. Thanks for the note. -- Atama頭 23:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiQc

Hello again!

Saw the message you left for this user. Is this a confirmed sock? I saw that the edits they made to the page in my userspace are definitely not NPOV and I'll be reverting them, but will monitor this user's contributions if they're a confirmed sock. Thanks! Frmatt (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be per WP:DUCK. After the last sock is blocked, this person with Qc in their name (short for Quebec I'm sure) is created and arrives at the article talk page immediately taking up the same position as the previous socks. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure it out. -- Atama頭 23:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up that I've created an ANI here. Frmatt (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Prod Talk

I've replied on the prod talk page. BTW, I'm a dude and you can call me "he." :) youngamerican (wtf?) 23:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, dude! :) -- Atama頭 23:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I'm only clarifying because another with whom I've collaborated for a couple of years called me "buckeye babe" (although I must say that I was more offended over being called an Ohioan than a woman). youngamerican (wtf?) 23:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny, my mom was a Buckeye. -- Atama頭 23:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Let me know if you ever need any help on an article about southeastern Ohio. I know a little bit about the region. Cheers. youngamerican (wtf?) 00:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Check your userpage. youngamerican (wtf?) 00:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Youngamerican, I really appreciate it. :) -- Atama頭 05:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

RfA

I changed my vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bob the Wikipedian to supportm, in view of a further explanation he gave. Thought you might like to know. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look myself. -- Atama頭 05:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Alberto R. Games Hernandez

First, thank you for your candor regarding your comments. But, if I came across aggressive, it's was because it's obvious that everyone editing was better at detailing the possible rules failed than being proactive and giving advise on how to improve the article. Clearly, as a new Wikipedia contributor, it's difficult enough learning this "wikilanguage" (not sure if that's what it's called), let alone dealing with seasoned vets in Wikipedia who are more than willing to rip your eye balls and feed them back to you- simply because they can. This abuse is what bothered me most. While I chose to write an article which can could be considered a WP:BIOGRAPHY OR WP:ATHLETE, since a NATIONAL CHAMPION in POST COMMUNIST CUBA, while politically unpopular, never-the-less was significant in the time. One thing my mother taught me was to always attempt to be part of the solution and not the problem. I may have become inadvertently part of the problem on this, but I guarantee you that it's not my nature. I'll try to continue editing articles to gain more experience, but like Robert Frost I will chose the road less traveled and offer solutions rather than Criticism of someones well intentioned article. Again, thank you for your remarks.--Agames (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Most people around here call the wikilanguage "jargon". It helps when experienced editors talk to each other, because it allows you to say something full of meaning with a few words. But with someone unfamiliar with the terms, it is useless. I try to avoid it unless I'm speaking with someone who has demonstrated understanding of it, but some people don't do so.

Before improving an article, it's appropriate for the editor to determine whether the article belongs in Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia does have standards that determine whether or not a subject should be in the encyclopedia. While often it is said that Wikipedia's goal is to contain as much knowledge as it can, there is also a determination made between what contributes to the pool of knowledge and what simply takes up space. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and unlike a paper encyclopedia there isn't much concern about how "full" it is. But at the same time, the more "unimportant" articles there are, the worse the encyclopedia is. Articles on subjects not considered "notable" can in fact harm the encyclopedia by their very presence. While the encyclopedia can never get "full", there are only so many people around to work on it.

We try very hard to make our articles as accurate as possible. Incorrect information is harmful. An article that misleads the reader makes Wikipedia a bad thing. So we have to make certain that articles are backed up by good references that verify what is in the article is correct. To maintain that in every article takes time and effort, and if the encyclopedia has an article about every subject from your favorite pet hamster to the latest flavor of Mountain Dew, then more important articles can't be improved.

In addition, we need reliable sources to not only be certain that we're giving people correct information, but to protect the encyclopedia. If we have an article about a type of medicine that says the medicine is harmful, if the makers of that medicine complain, we can tell them that we didn't make it up, but that a medical journal published the dangers. In that way they can't blame Wikipedia, they have to attack the medical journal.

The claims that you made about your father were not backed up by reliable sources. We aren't saying that they are lies, because we actually aren't concerned with proving that an article is "true". Rather than the truth, we need those sources to so that we can say that we didn't make it up. Those sources couldn't be shown for your father's championship. Because of that, we couldn't keep the article. If those sources aren't around because your father was politically unpopular, and therefore that information was hidden, I'm truly sorry. That's a terrible thing and it's definitely not fair. But that still puts us in a position where we can't keep that information. I hope you understand that this wasn't anything against you or your father, but the general rules that apply to all articles were what led to the article's deletion.

Personally I'm glad you're going to work on other articles, and if you have questions about anything else in Wikipedia please let me know and I'll help you to the best of my abilities. Thank you. -- Atama頭 04:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No, thank you! keep in touch.--Agames (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

You do a lot of Noticeboard stuff, and I was thinking of nominating you for Adminship. Would you agree to go through vetting beforehand, so that I can get feedback about that idea? Irbisgreif (talk) 04:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm honored to be considered, I can't say that I'm uninterested. I've actually been wondering lately about something exactly like the vetting process, because while I feel that I could be a good administrator, I'm sure there are things that I don't know that I don't know. (If that makes sense.) I'd be willing to go through the vetting process, certainly. -- Atama頭 08:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please let me know when your RfA begins as I would be more than happy to lend my strong support. You'd do an excellent job! Frmatt (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Another sock...

Just letting you know because you've had a role in the earlier SPIs...there's a new sock of Philbox17...the SPI is here. Frmatt (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed. It's super obvious too, although they did go with a different way of naming the account. I'll take a look at the SPI, thanks for the notice! -- Atama頭 05:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Vfp15

I took a look at this editors contributions, he/she is editing the RRQ article and related articles heavily. I suspect this person is either another sockpuppet or an RRQ member that lacks a NPOV. I will need help to deal with this editor to avoid 3RR. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this person is either. For one thing, they are an established editor who has been around for years. Also, I can understand some of the edits they have done. I suggest that in this case you try to discuss things with the person, they aren't a single-purpose disruptive account like the Philbox17 sockpuppets. -- Atama頭 00:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me add, you can see here that Vfp15 has actually had conflicts with Philbox. Not only are they not the same person, but they've been in opposition to each other. I doubt that Vfp15 is affiliated with RRQ, much the opposite if anything. -- Atama頭 01:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI

Sorry about that, it was my mistake. I typed in wp:conflict which is not the same as WP:CONFLICT and does not redirect to WP:COI. My mistake, sorry! ReformatMe (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)