User talk:Atama/Archive 6

< Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7 >

All Pages:

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

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Suppose LMAO Rico 17:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That may be my proudest barnstar received, thank you very much. :) -- Atama頭 17:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm still laughin'. I'm so gonna plagiarize you. -- Rico 01:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		This Barnstar is for saving many articles, including the Daniel Breaker article I made, from deletion JDDJS (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and you've done a fantastic job of improving Daniel Breaker since it was previously proposed for deletion. :) -- Atama頭 16:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

SFeraKon

This one took me totally by surprise; I've known about it for decades, but didn't have it on my watchlist since I had nothing to add. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I really thought about the deletion before doing it. I found nothing in news and little we could use in a regular Google search, but Gbooks had a number of hits. The Gbooks hits looked like passing mentions, so I decided to go ahead and delete it, but I could have been wrong. Anyway, if you can expand the article that would be great. -- Atama頭 18:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

My Secret Page

Yes, I know that you can find it that way, I'm just hoping that people will try to find the page without cheating. Anyone who actually cares enough to find it won't just do that, they'll actually look. Not saying you don't care, I know it was by accident. Anyhoo, here you go. :)

		The Secret Subpage Finder Barnstar
		This user has found Hi878's secret hidden sub page! Will you be the next one to find it? Try it here!

Hi878 (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

CPUSH

[1] Was this edit unwise in the current circumstances? Regards, Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 17:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Outing or socking

[2] This account self-identified then later started using a sock. Instead of accusing me of outing, don't you think that you might should be investigating why this account is being duplicitous? Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As Orlady pointed out, the Bill Hufman account stopped editing articles about the same time that Tallmagic was created. Not everything was by-the-book according to WP:SOCK, but there was nothing breaking WP:ILLEGIT, and in fact per WP:SOCK#LEGIT the extra account was being used to preserve his privacy. Now, I very much suggest that you drop this, as you've been warned multiple times about this harrassment from more than one editor. -- Atama頭 05:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Atama, I really appreciate your assistance and consideration. I also appreciate your suggestions. Although I consider Cla68's actions as ill conceived at best and as bordering on evil at worst. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(To Atama) The "real name" account has not stopped editing. It is still as recently as 26 March 2010, attempting to control the content in the Derek Smart article. As has been pointed out already, an attack website on Derek Smart listed an owner by the same name. Something isn't right here and I would appreciate your help in getting to the bottom of this instead of threatening to block the editor that is looking into it. Cla68 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Atama, Cla68 is still continuing his harassment. see [3][4][5] I believe that this person has been warned plenty of times. Yet they still continue. Please let me know if I should instead post these continued attempts at wp:OUTING on the admin noticeboard. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(To TallMagic) If you start a post at ANI, please let me know. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If you do start one, you're required to let Cla86 know (noticeboard rules).

Cla86, I'll start with the COI complaint. Let's put everything else aside here (the outing, sockpuppetry accusations, etc.) and get to the original complaint. If an editor runs an off-wiki page devoted to a particular topic they may not necessarily have a conflict of interest. Let's say that I run a fan web site for the movie Tremors (I don't, if you're wondering). But let's say for the sake of argument that I do. Just because I have a particular interest in the film, and I'm a fan of it, that doesn't give me a COI. The reason is that our conflict of interest concerns are in regards to what connections an editor has to a subject. If I was Kevin Bacon in real life (I swear to you I'm not), I might have too much of a connection to the film to be objective in its edits. If I was just a big fan, though, that interest alone isn't enough to have a COI. It goes the other way as well, if I ran a web site called tremorssucks.com and edited the article, that wouldn't be a COI unless I tried linking to my site as a reference (because I'm directly tied to the site I ran). WP:COI#Close relationships is a good guide for how to judge whether or not a person is too "close" to the subject.

Based on that, I don't think that TallMagic would have a COI here. If TallMagic were to start referencing web sites he was running that exposed diploma mills, that would be a COI and based on how such links were used and how frequently, I might be tempted to warn him about spam and even block if he persisted in linking. In that case, the spam itself is a greater concern than the COI, but the COI certainly would make the matter worse. I don't see any indications of that. A person working on articles that reflect a real-life interest is not only allowed, but expected. Two of the articles I've edited most heavily, World of Warcraft and iPhone, are articles I became involved with because I have played the former and owned the latter, and I have an interest in those topics. I don't feel that gives me a COI, it only gives me an incentive to try to improve and maintain the articles. On the other hand, the company I work for has an article on Wikipedia and I wouldn't go anywhere near it because that would definitely be a conflict of interest. TallMagic would fall under the same category in my eye, and as long as the edits on their own aren't a violation of our other policies and guidelines (WP:NPOV would be one to look out for) then I don't see anything actionable.

Back to the sockpuppetry claims, TallMagic, would you agree to abandon the old account? I've made the suggestion before, but I think that it would be important for you to do so. In fact, I think that it has caused enough drama here that I'd be inclined to block the account to prevent its further use. Continuing to use it from this point on might be considered an attempt to avoid scrutiny and/or deceive people per WP:ILLEGIT. I think if you abandon/retire the account, that would go a long way toward mollifying Cla86's concerns. And you really shouldn't be using that account at all at this point. Would you agree to that? -- Atama頭 23:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Atama, my concern is that Cla68 continues to harass me. If it is necessary for us to placate Cla68 in order for him to be held to the wp:OUTING policy then let's ask him what he requires rather than you trying to broker a deal for him. Cla68, why do you continue to harass me despite being warned multiple times by admins that it is a violation? [6][7][8][9] As well as being asked to please stop multiple times by me? What do you desire in order to stop your harassment? TallMagic (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's put it this way then, I would be a lot more comfortable if you retired the old account. It's skirting along the edges of WP:SOCK as it is, and if you continue to use it, it becomes more difficult to justify it. Cla86 has taken the COI questions away from the noticeboard and is confining themselves to user talk pages at the moment, which I see as a matter of restraint; since the now-closed sockpuppet investigation I don't see any further outing attempts on Wikipedia. Let's not poke the bear at this point, because I think that Cla86 has at least paused the public allegations, if not totally stopped them. If you're asking Cla86 to not ask any more questions about you at all, in regards to your alternate account or your editing, I think that's an unreasonable request. Good faith questions deserve answers. -- Atama頭 00:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Atama, Cla68 is still continuing the harassment. see [10][11][12]. What makes you think this person has stopped? TallMagic (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

TallMagic, those are the same diffs you had in your earlier post here. Please respond to Atama's request so we can move to a resolution. Cla68 (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

TallMagic has initiated an ANI complaint. Cla68 (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• On the topic of COI...advocates with an agenda should be able to edit as long as they don't violate NPOV. I think what usually gets people brought to the COI noticeboard is when they have a close connection, and then violate the NPOV policy. Once they show that their personal feelings are too strong to allow them to edit neutrally on a subject, then I think they need a topic ban. I'm not sure if that's what's needed in this case, however, but I'll be watching it. Cla68 (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Well, in many cases people get taken to the noticeboard when they haven't actually violated NPOV, maybe in most cases. And that's okay, the COI noticeboard isn't necessarily an "action board" where you go to request enforcement of policy, it's more of a place to discuss whether or not a person has a COI, and if so, what should be done (if anything). It's also a place for people who have a COI to get advice to keep them out of trouble. Many COI complaints result in something along the lines of, "yes you have a COI, but keep your nose clean and you'll be fine". I'd say a good 20% or so of complaints are just someone spamming or making obvious WP:ORGNAME violations (or a combo of the two) and result in an instant soft or hard block. What I usually recommend when a person with a COI can't seem to stay within NPOV on a subject, but is still okay as an editor (not being uncivil, or deliberately disruptive, persistently spamming, etc.) that the COI suggestions be enforced (no edits on the main page aside from reverting vandalism or fixing typos, make suggestions on the talk page). That's like a halfway topic ban and usually resolves the problem while still letting them still have some say in an article that they have an interest in. -- Atama頭 23:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

MoveYourWeb

Hello - in the past you removed MoveYourWeb page b/c you were not able to find much references in trusted publications. Now when a year has passed there is lots of news published about the company and I wanted to restore the page providing valid references. I updated the information but the page was immediately nominated to speedy deletion b/c I didn't contact you for permission to restore it.

Can you please review the new updated content and take steps for page activation. Let me know I need to provide any additional information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billystut (talk • contribs) 15:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions Atama!!! Those are very helpful! I've done like you suggested with Apalon --Billystut (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Retiring

This is just getting too creepy for me: [13] The rest of it I can handle but I don't like having my wife and family dragged in. Rees11 (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's really unfortunate to see a good editor go because a newbie comes in with an agenda. Atama, can you take off2riorob's original suggestion on the talk page and pare the article down to a stub? Then we can let other's re-write it? We've got someone essentially writing the article with an agenda, and besides that the intro could just say "...screenwriter..." without the accolades in there. Just an idea. I don't want to go there as the last thing we need around here is an edit war and this guy obviously takes his own article very seriously. The guy's on wikipedia for two weeks and he's already violated a handful of policies.

Thanks. Jim Steele (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Even if I edit the article (which I'm not against doing, there's a lot that can be trimmed) that doesn't preclude an edit war. I can be reverted just as easily as you. In fact, if I were to start editing the article and was reverted, and JAWW123 broke 3RR in doing so, I'd be unable to take administrative action as I would be an involved editor abusing my tools in a dispute with another editor. So, sure, I'd be happy to help out with the article's content, but doing so would prevent me from being able to act as an admin. -- Atama頭 16:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Atama,

Jimsteele999 neglects to mention that **he was banned from Wiki** for this exact type of behavior – being a sock, obsessively editing on certain J. D. Salinger-related pages where he has a COI and when he is shut down by other editors, as he has been numerous times, recruiting meatpuppets to do his work.

He also only told you half the story. Respected Wiki editor Off2riorob made the suggestion re: stub days *before* the article was improved. After it was improved he wrote on the COI board that the article was good and that he could *NOT* see any reason to cut it down as jimsteele9999 was suggesting. Jimsteele9999 only told you part of the story because he has a specific agenda to get certain material cut. Importantly, two respected senior editors rejected the “advertising” claims and off2riorob removed the tags put on by jimsteele9999 and others.

Contrary to what jimsteele9999 has written, I did very little writing on the page in question. Instead, I added 20 citations from reliable major media sources to a page that contained no citations. Several editors and users said the article was much improved as a result.

Jimsteele9999 has a COI on this issue and also one specifically related to J. D. Salinger. He said to an editor on November 26, 2009 that he has a “personal investment in this author’s work” and he has deleted material on Salinger-related pages over 100 times. His Wiki name “Jim Steele” is one of Holden Caulfield’s aliases in The Catcher in the Rye. When I confronted him about this COI, he claimed his name was from a professional athlete. Given his Salinger posting history that is impossible to believe. He also makes reference to “Harold Ober & Associates” or “HOA”, J. D. Salinger’s literary agency, on his user page.

All of this “work” that he is doing is an effort to cut the properly cited material on the Salerno page related to J. D. Salinger – that’s what he did before on his own and that is what he is trying to recruit you to do now. It is very telling that the only two writer pages he has ever had this type of obsession over are J. D. Salinger-related pages and a screenwriter that happens to have a forthcoming documentary and 700 page biography coming out this year about J. D. Salinger.

As for style, format and content, the Salerno page in question is consistent with hundreds of other writer and screenwriter pages. In fact, it is actually conservative in many regards and now has citations for every paragraph which many writer and filmmaker pages do not. Jimsteele9999 cannot cherry-pick only one page. If someone wants to change all of them to a uniform format, so be it. Otherwise this reeks of the Jimsteele9999 behavior that resulted in him being banned. He has written on various user pages that he is “pulling for a Pyrrhic victory” on this issue as if Wiki was a place to win or lose something instead of a community where we all work to make something better. He is now looking to you to give him his “victory”. As further proof of his obsession on this issue he hasn't posted on or edited a *single* other Wiki page since this began.

If you want to support a banned user on Wiki that is your choice, but I would urge you to examine his edit history related to J. D. Salinger and specifically Salinger-related pages like “A Perfect Day for Bananafish” (a Salinger short story) before doing anything that Jimsteele9999 asks. I also urge you to make sure you have all the facts. One of Jimsteele9999’s traits, as recently as yesterday, is to delete chunks of data from his own page and the pages of other users so that only the facts that he wants known are available to read.

Jimsteele9999: FYI, if you approach any other editors regarding the Salerno Wiki page, I will post a similar response as I have here on the page of every editor you approach so that each editor knows the complete story. JAWW123 (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

JAWW123, you're being ridiculous. If Jimsteele9999 were banned from Wikipedia he would be unable to edit anywhere on Wikipedia (see WP:BAN). He was accused of being a sockpuppet of a banned user, but that accusation was proven false. Persisting in false accusations against him is considered a personal attack. I'll wait for the outcome of the sockpuppet investigation, as I'm fairly certain that you're John7512, and if that is confirmed you've violated WP:SOCK on at least two counts (deceiving editors, as you've denied being that person, and using two accounts to edit the same page). -- Atama頭 16:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not John7512 and I hope you will apologize when I am cleared. On a more important note, I find it odd that you did not respond to the fact that JimSteele9999 has been warned multiple times by other editors and users for his relentless posting on Salinger-related pages. Do you feel that JimSteele9999 has a COI based on the info that I and others have provided? JAWW123 (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No. Having an interest in Salinger's works is not a conflict of interest. If Jimsteele9999 were employed by someone who published Salinger's books, or was a relative of Salinger, or ran a Salinger web site and started trying to link to his web site, those would show a clear connection to the subject of the article. Just as, in your case, a clear COI cannot be declared despite what looks to be an almost single-purpose editing behavior, because you deny any actual connection to Salerno and there is no other indication of your COI. Also, you are continuing to make accusations that seem to have no merit, what do you mean by being "warned multiple times by other editors and users"? Do you have evidence of this, or are you just making things up out of some kind of reflex? -- Atama頭 17:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Atama,

Here is one piece of evidence of JimSteele9999's COI.

J. D. Salinger's literary agency for 50 years has been Harold Ober & Associates. On JimSteele9999's user bio page he is saying "Hello" to them. Here is a link to that page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jimsteele9999&diff=prev&oldid=354198560

Now you understand why on November 26, 2009 he wrote "I have a personal investment in this author's work". In the sense of fairness, I think that you should post this on the COI board and understand that he has a very real COI related to all Salinger content including what he deleted from the Salerno page.

JAWW123 (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In other words, yes, you are making things up in regards to warnings against Jim. As to HOA, if he works for them, then a COI claim might be made. Why don't you ask him if he is? If he denies it, of course, you have no way to "prove" that he does, just as nobody can "prove" your COI; such things generally have to be self-declared. Why don't you try to find evidence of actual disruption on Jim's part if you want to make a complaint? You realize that a COI on its own doesn't mean a lot. In fact, I've worked with a number of editors who have conflicts of interest and yet manage to do a great job with the subjects they work on (one editor in particular brought an article up from a stub to nearly Good Article status, for the museum he worked at). I can't help but feel like you're just trying to fling any mud you can at people who disagree with you, and unfortunately none of it seems to stick. -- Atama頭 17:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is Evidence #1 about JimSteele9999 having been warned about attacking contributors who disagree with him and revert material that JimSteele9999 wrongfully deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimsteele9999&diff=prev&oldid=329444260

Here is Evidence #2 where he agrees to back off after ANOTHER warning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jaydec

(see 1/2 way down the page)

Here is Evidence #3:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:A_Perfect_Day_for_Bananafish#opinion. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I have tired of your commentary. Edit the articles, and use the talk page to comment on the article, not on other editors. If you continue to add uncited information to articles, I will remove it. And, if you continue to make disparaging comments about other editors, I will report you to an admin. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, just to be clear, you do not think a user posting over 100 times on Salinger-related pages AND is saying Hello to employees at Salinger's agency on his own user page does not constitute a COI?

That was a warning about 3RR, and a warning about personal attacks, no warnings that he was posting too much on Salinger-related pages. I've made over 100 edits to iPhone, in my attempts to add information to the article, straighten up the prose, and remove problematic material, should I be considered to have a COI? If I thought I did, I wouldn't edit the article (there are a few articles on Wikipedia where I might have a COI, and I avoid them). There's no question that Jimsteele9999 has had problems in the past; he did use multiple accounts in opposition to our policies (those other accounts are now blocked) and has had warnings about some problems he had, but that all occurred when he first started, months ago. Since then he's been a productive editor, and until I see some evidence of recent problematic editing on his part I don't feel inclined to take action against him. Just as with you, if the sockpuppet investigation clears you, and if you give up these attacks against people and don't violate any other policies or guidelines, you're free to edit whatever articles you like as well. I'm willing to cut you some slack as a new editor as I would have done for Jim months ago when he started. -- Atama頭 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

Please review Evidence #3 from RepublicanJacobite (Nov 26 2009) as I think you posted your last reply before I submitted it.

I'm glad that we at least agree that JimSteele9999 has had a number of warnings on Wiki. I would argue that the same issues I and others have taken with his work on the Salerno page in April 2010 were the same exact issues that RepublicanJacobite on Dec 3 2009 had with his editing of Salinger-related pages. The concern is that if he is still doing in April 2010 what he did in Nov and Dec of 2009 he has not learned nor has he taken any of the advice given to him by more experienced editors. The specific issue remains: his wholesale cutting of material from pages and his clear COI related to all things Salinger.

You have done some great work on Wiki, but I honestly believe you are on the wrong side of this argument and ask you to reconsider your position as your user page indicates you are open to doing from time to time.

One other question: how did JimSteele9999 get reinstated after having been busted for having multiple accounts??

That's a good question. The original complaint was that Jim, and his other accounts, were all sockpuppets of a banned user who was known to use sockpuppets. A technical evaluation was done and it was determined that while all of those accounts were related to each other, none were related to the banned user. Those other accounts are now blocked, and I don't see any indication that Jim has used alternate accounts since. It looks like Jim was given another chance because those alternate accounts weren't used for disruption, Jim never denied having other accounts, and he was new and probably didn't know he couldn't do that. I've also looked at Jim's contribution history and he has had interest in much more than Salinger, in particular his earliest edits were related to special education topics. In fact, overall it looks like that has been his biggest focus on Wikipedia, and relatively little of his contributions were related to Salinger or his works. -- Atama頭 20:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I think after reading some of this--particularly what John7512 (or whom I believe is also JAW123 whom is also the subject of the article)--all I'm reminded of what Pope said "words are like leaves and where they most abound, much fruit of sense beneath is rarely found." My original post here was to agree with Reese that JAW123 never cleared up if in fact there is a COI. And he was right. So I think with a thorough sock investigation we can find that we've got someone with three or so accounts focusing exclusively on one page. I, like Atama (whose patience during the exchange above should be a model for all new--or newish--editors) think that JAW123 likely made two accounts without knowing he was violating wikipedia policy. It's a typical rookie mistake, and there's no other person better suited at eyeing those than a rookie himself. Yes, I was justly accused by someone of being a sockpuppet. But not because I came here with an agenda. Just because I was clueless. I'd like to say the same for JAW123 but the clues are in front of him, basically slapping him in the face, and he's yelling at us (primarily me) that he's a patsy. What startles me is his tenacity regarding the personal lives of other editors. That in itself is a major violation of the very policies he seems to be convinced I am breaking. I made the mistake of not requesting CU for this whole affair, and think that would clear this whole thing up fast. I'm taking half of what JAW123 posted about me as personal attack and the other half as someone whose been caught with his hand in the cookie jar and is hysterically wiping crumbs off his face. In terms of any COI with me and the author you mention, you're desperate diversions won't work with me. For your information, not that it matters, but HOA is the initials of my great uncle Harris Ossenburger Adelstein, God rest his poor soul.

Jim Steele (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I do appreciate your kind words, Jim. I do have a couple of things to point out, though. I do sympathize greatly with Rees11, and I very much regret his leaving Wikipedia either temporarily or permanently. He has done some great work related to COI issues and elsewhere and I've respected his opinion on many matters, so I consider it a big loss for Wikipedia that this matter has caused him stress. But to be fair, Rees11 voluntarily linked a web page on his user page that included a great deal of personal information, including photos of his family. Doing that is risky and almost invites an invasion of privacy, and I don't feel that any discussion of his family is as problematic as it would be with an editor who took greater pains to keep his private life separate from Wikipedia.

The other thing I would like to point out, is that while HOA might coincidentally be your great uncle's initials, you clearly were referring to Harold Ober Associates, as seen here. I'm not sure why you'd choose to obscure that at this point. I suppose it's worth asking whether or not you are somehow affiliated with Harold Ober's namesake firm; if you are, it's best to disclose that (as I'd pointed out, that doesn't automatically bring any editing restrictions on your part). You can be deliberately vague about the association if you like, as seen in the example of Rees11 it is often best to not reveal any more personal information on Wikipedia than you have to. -- Atama頭 00:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Atama, thanks for the sharp eye. I think you're going to find that very little of what this guy says is true. The fact that he would try to sell you on a Great Uncle "HOA" may be the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. I welcome any investigation and based on JimSteele9999's history I will be calling for at least two investigations of my own. Thanks for your help in this matter, Atama. Have a good night.

JAWW123 (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, I find it startling that JAWW123 neglects the fact the bulk of my edits on wikipedia concern special education not the author he mentions. Moreover, people post all sorts of things on a user page. I've seen everything from illegal fan fiction, twisted graphics and pictures to strange alter-ego "facts". Unless it is offensive or violates some specific wikipedia policy, there is no reason to justify or alter them. Atama, please feel free to contact Steven Zhang, the admin who cleared up the sockpuppetry fisaco if there are any lingering questions as to my identity. If in fact I did work for a literary agency, wouldn't most of my edits be centered around my clients? Not, for example special education or judaism? It would be different if, say, I was a screenwriter or associated with one and all of my edits centered around these topics. I do not, nor ever have worked for Harold Ober Associates. The place is way to smokey for me. So I once linked to it on my user page...well I also link to homeopathy, and judaism. Guess there must be a COI and I can't edit those pages because I may be a Hasidic Homeopath! The problem I have with JAW1234 is that he is not reading nor understanding our posts. It's like I'm responding to a kid with ADD and everytime I tell him to read the directions he's telling me about his shiny nickel-plated trick bicycle. COI can't be proven by finger pointing and invectives. I have no qualms with you spending your time reminding everybody I once said I have a personal investment in the author you mention. Because it is true. It is none of your damn business what that entails so long as it is not disruptive to the edits of the pages. All of which, I may add, were supported with reliable sources. But if we were to follow your distorted logic...no, I'm not going there!

Atama please excuse the fact I seem to have encouraged a didactic exchange on your userpage that has the penetrating nature of a rubber knife. After this I will wait. And Sleep.

Unlike you JAW123, I have no agenda, no quest to promote someone or something, other than attempting to improve articles. Also yeah, keep combing through my history JAW123 (or John--the similarity in initials is suspect enough while the behavior is a clincher) and keep posting on other people's talk pages trying to stir the pot but it doesn't change the fact you are a sock, pure and simple. Looking at your edit history reveals a lot more about WP:Duck then you may realize. Stop trying to psychoanalyze me via my edit history and/or user page. Stop stalking me, stop stirring the pot because you've been caught and can't admit you've got egg on your shirt as it dribbles down. You're dwindling away those waning hopes of distinction around here. It's quite revealing that you haven't fessed up to the scok issue, too. The only personal attacks have been from you, Sir. You've threatened me legally (without merit) posted inflammatory remarks and have refused to discuss this on your user page (of which I posted in an attempt--in vain--to reason with you). Sir,I've tried to keep this civil and have even assumed good faith, but that's not your MO, apparently, and again the tenacity with which you deny your sockpuppetry and point the finger at me is ghastly. In terms of multiple accounts, did you even read my previous post? When the CU results come through come back and tell me who's lying... Jim Steele (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Atama,

Here is what you now know about JimSteele9999:

1. He did use multiple accounts in opposition to Wiki policy.

2. He has been had multiple warnings for attacks on other editors.

3. He has made false sock puppet allegations against other users.

4. Yesterday he lied to you about Harold Ober & Associates.

When I am cleared of the sock puppet allegation, I hope you will be vigilant about examining some of the other issues I have raised.

JAWW123 (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait for the sockpuppetry report before doing anything about anyone. At this point I don't have any major concerns about either of you. As to the 4 items listed above...

1. I don't care about something that happened months ago, was investigated by an admin with much more experience than me, and was already decided upon. Administrators only act to prevent disruption, not punish for past misbehavior. We don't ignore what a person has done in the past, because looking over a person's history can show a pattern that indicates the potential for future disruption. But if a person has problems, is warned, and stops, then there's no concern. Jim seems to fit that pattern.

2. See #1.

3. So have I. I've even blocked someone in error because I thought they were a sockpuppet. It happens. Unless a person does so routinely, or maliciously, it's not a concern. I've also been on the other end, I've been accused of being a sockpuppet and was even subject of a report (which was thrown out).

4. Yeah, he did. But I asked him flat-out if he was associated with them, and he said no. No evasiveness at all. That's enough to satisfy me. I wish you'd be as direct about the COI questions regarding Salerno, but nobody can force you. -- Atama頭 15:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Atama,

No COI. And I'm not John7512. Not only did Jimsteele9999 lie to you but to demonstrate how he views this as a game, please click here to find the source of both Jim Steele AND OSSENBURGER:

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/the-catcher-in-the-rye/character-list.html

I think jimsteele9999 should apologize for lying to you but also for underestimating your obvious intelligence by using another Salinger character name in a pathetic attempt to throw you off his trail. I suspect (and I'm not alone) that jimsteele9999 may also be using multiple accounts from around his area with various Salinger character names. Jimsteele9999's most recent attacks against me on your page speak for themselves. Separately, user Republicanjacobite could illuminate for you jimsteele's "singular obsession" (his words) of Salinger if asked. For now, I suggest we all take a step back and wait for the sockpuppet investigation.

JAWW123 (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Atama,

I was hoping you could answer a few questions since I'm new here.

1. Are you allowed to go into other people's posts and change and manipulate the wording and then RESAVE that page so that you create a false impression for anyone reviewing the current version of that page? If the answer is "No", how could JimSteele9999 edit John7512's comment on JimSteele9999's user page the way that he did here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimsteele9999&diff=prev&oldid=356061816

This is a pattern for JimSteele9999. He also did this to RepublicanJacobite and myself two days ago.

User WhatamIdoing warned JimSteele9999 about this issue on October 16, 2009.

2. Doesn't JimSteel9999 accusing someone of being a publicist, the subject of the page and all kinds of other things across multiple Wiki pages violate Wiki policy as a personal attack?

3. Does removing chunks of verified and properly cited data constitute vandalism? If "Yes", wouldn't JimSteele9999's deleting of Off2riorob's properly cited and sourced work on the Salerno page constitute vandalism?

4. Respected senior editor Off2riorob has now repeatedly told JimSteele9999 to "move on" from the Salerno page and related issues. He has not. At what point do the warnings become actionable?

I know I'm not John7512 and I'm wondering, when I'm cleared, how do I go about addressing these issues?

JAWW123 (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

1. No, that's called refactoring another editor's comment and isn't allowed except for very specific circumstances, and the diff you provided doesn't fit any legitimate change. It also seems minor, so Jim should just change it back, that's the kind of thing I just give a warning about. I assume he's keeping an eye on this discussion, and I'll let him do that himself, if he doesn't then I'll do it later with a direct warning to not do so again.

2. That's a grey area, it's at least skirting along the edges. See here where personal attacks are defined. Pointing out a person's conflict of interest is not a personal attack, while trying to out them is. Jim's actions are in-between the two, and more or less reciprocated by you (in other words, you're both accusing each other and skirting along the edge of WP:OUTING, yet both of you have some cause to do so with on-wiki info). If this dispute between the two of you isn't settled soon I'm going to try to take this to a wider venue, but for now I'm going to try to see if we can come to some conclusion less drama-prone than bringing something up at WP:ANI.

3. No, not even close. Any good-faith edit is by definition not vandalism. Vandalism is the deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia. Jim sincerely thought that removing such material was appropriate, and in many cases it's fine to remove sourced material (if it isn't relevant to the article, if it's redundant, etc.). In fact, doing what Jim did is encouraged by WP:BOLD.

4. The answer to your question is "never". Off2riorob doesn't have the authority to tell Jim to stop editing a page. Even I don't have that authority, and I was "elected" by the community to enforce Wikipedia's policies. What you are talking about is called a WP:BAN, and there are only two ways in which that comes about. The first is if there is a community discussion, generally in a public location, and a consensus is formed among a reasonable number of people that the editor should be banned from editing that article. In that case, the ban is recorded at WP:ER and the editor is warned that they can no longer edit that article. If they do so, any administrator can block that person for a duration to enforce the ban. The second way that a ban is enacted is by a decision of the Arbitration Committee, and ArbCom won't even consider a case unless evidence is shown that dispute resolution has been attempted in numerous ways without success. Even if ArbCom takes a case, it can take months before a decision is made, it's almost like a court case. -- Atama頭 02:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Atama, thanks for all of your help and patience. Per your advice, I'd like to propose a solution as follows:

1. Per Off2riorob's recommendation, both JimSteele9999 and I will no longer edit the Salerno page.

2. JimSteele9999 and I will refrain from talking about each other or the Salerno page anywhere on Wiki.

3. JimSteele9999 and I will let the sockpuppet investigation he initiated run its course without interfering.

If we can find agreement on these three points then we're done.

JAWW123 (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Jim shouldn't worry about the "wrong" people "taking over" the Salerno article, because it has received plenty of attention now and some well-established editors have been maintaining it. -- Atama頭 05:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Atama, agreed that the article will be in better shape after all this with the attention. And that's the intention, after all, isn't it? It's why I started editing it in the first place, when the matter was brought to my attention, and I read the comment on the talk page. My understanding is that we start there. I think any third party--if they wanted to waste time on this matter--would first notice the innpropriate edit summaries by JAW123. I'm accused of playing "fast and loose" with the rules but I think I've done an O.K. job adhering to them, particularly when things got sticky. Interestingly, I altough I can still assume good faith, I have a hard time accepting JAW123's "I'm new here..." (that's my line!) prelude as he seems privvy to policies like what makes a productive edit summary or what does not. These are basic policies here(though that doesn't mean your's truly has them down pat).

However, I'm not agreeing to stop editing the page JAW123 mentioned. Nor will I follow JAW123's suggestion I stop talking about the article. That's ridiculous. After all, how else do you improve an article? Yes, my edits on the page were sincere. JAW123 in case you haven't noticed there are many "sources" on many pages. Just because they are a "source" doesn't mean they are going to stay. Or should stay. Or should go. Welcome to wikipedia. You can see that on the talk page (where, again, I tried to initiate discussion) off2riorob made the prudent suggestion the article be stubbed back to a cited introduction. So I still plan on excising what needs to be excised and try to follow policy as best as possible as the page improves. As you said above Atama a lot can be trimmed (to say the least). Still, it is much ado about a stub so I may not get around to it.

Then again, it might not be worth it because I see 3RR on the horizon. In terms of trying to out me...it is worth noting JAW123, as you read this, to take note of what was said "trying to point out a COI is not a personal attack, but trying to out someone is." The bulk of your energies have focused on the latter, while mine have been concentrated in the former. I've been guilty of both, certainly, in my life and on this site at one time or another, and have learned JAW123's knack for digging up dirt and misinterpreting personal information as he did with reese11 and am really not worried about it. A COI accusation on it's own in Wikipedia has the bite of a toothless tiger. I was asked if I worked for a specific agency and I answered. I wasn't asked if I was ever affiliated with them, if they worked for me, if my great aunt now living in Tuckahoe once lived near their offices or if I had a drink with one of them last year. Even if I was, it wouldn't change much, because the bulk (not all, don't get excited) of my edits have been constructive (though at times noted for being sloppy and even caustic, but never violated NPOV and were never disruptive) and time is all we got people.

Thus, I'm agreeing to move on (you'll see I haven't touched the page since this started) by stopping this exchange here, though I have a feeling JAW123 will need to get his hands dirtier and make the last word with some strange excerpt of a comment I made once somewhere. Thing is, I don't know him, don't dislike him and even am assuming good faith because God knows that is all we've got here most of the time and it's the lynchpin, as I see it, to this whole operation.

Jim Steele (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Alesia Fieldberg

Hi, I would like to request the undeletion of the Alesia Fieldberg article which you deleted via PROD. --Rob (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the rapid response. Much appreciated. --Rob (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the article, and the talk page, as requested. I'm happy to do so for any article I deleted through proposed deletion (or any other article deleted in that way by anyone). Just a warning, though, the article is still in danger of deletion, because her sole claim to notability is her Miss Canada International win. That contest is one of the minor Canadian pageants, as attested to at Canada at the Big Four pageants. The only other winners of the title who have articles are Leanne Baird and Danielle House, both of whom are also at risk (though Danielle House has a bit more of a claim to notability due to the scandal regarding her arrest and "de-crowning"). -- Atama頭 17:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

GoldenGem

Hi, I'm not necessarily requesting restoration of this article but would like to be sure the 'source code' of the article is not lost. I sort of agree that there was no notability argument; the program is complete freeware but it was getting hard to sustain it anyway. Users would promise they use it for their research and it will appear in published articles but this never took place. I think it is sort of similar to programs like 'Mario Paint Composer' or JW media player, which ended up not being on Wikipedia.

The notability arg in the article mentioned that the public has an interest in freeware applications but I do see that the policy of Wikipedia is not necessarily to support them just out of good nature, ie that the freeness of the application is beneficial. But I do note that the article isn't saved in the Wayback machine, and if the promised research articles ever come out, and I wish to restore the article, I'd like to have a copy of the source. Is there any way to access that?

J Moody —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.50.200 (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is actually. See WP:Userfication. What I would do is undelete the article, then move it to a subpage of your user page. For example, if I moved it to a subpage of my user page, it would be located at User:Atama/GoldenGem. I don't think it would be a good idea to do that for an unregistered account, however. Would it be possible for you to register an account, just so that I could move the article for you? You could then feel free to save a copy of the article's source where you like . Just keep in mind our policy at WP:C#Reusers' rights and obligations regarding how you use that material. If you let me know your new account, I'll restore the article and move it for you. Then just let me know when you don't need that page anymore (after you're done copying it) and I can delete it for you. You can then use your new account, or abandon it, it's up to you. -- Atama頭 15:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have a user page (I am 'createangelos,' I created the article about Weldon Angelos and 924(c) stacking.) However, I noticed that the article is still in Google's Cache so I was able to save the text that way. One (slight) complaint I have is that I have about 300 users, they have never paid me anything but contact me sometimes. So it is the same number of interested people as say a small elementary school. I noticed that the notability search found 'Goldengem.com' as one of the top 200 companies but that is not me. One question is why a person would make a mathematical calculation used by investors available for free to people, and the truth is that probably most of the people who have used it are not good people. Some of them have at times asked me for a lot of support, and always it was that they wanted to get free advice about invsesting, information about finance, about what to do with their investments, but they wanted essentially to rip someone off and get advice for free from someone trustworthy. By deceiving me, that they are interested in the program. That they are trying to use it and have technical questions. I think I had a feeling that Wikipedia would be sort-of the ultimate arbiter of what is trustworthy, but the truth probably is that there is nothing trustworthy anywhere in the world of finance and I have to question my motives for ever getting involved with connecting artificial intelligence with finance and prediction. One thing that sort of was hard was that when something is completely free, people would still attempt to use their 'business' skills to get more from me, to get my time and personal attention. Don't know why I mention all that!

J M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.50.200 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you found what you needed, good luck. And I sympathize, I have around 400 people I take care of at my work (I'm a system admin/tech support), but at least I get paid! Take care. :) -- Atama頭 17:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation of Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy

I had given up completely on the page, as had other editors. I just recently took a look at it again and got your message. Are you still willing to mediate?Hillinpa (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This is why?

This is why this guy didn't want to give up this account, because he wants to continue to advocate content in Smart's BLP under that username. In my opinion, I don't think someone who runs an off-wiki attack site on someone should be openly allowed to mess with the WP article, even if only on the talk page. I'm thinking of asking for clarification from ArbCom under the 2007 decision to see what the current Committee thinks about it. Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

So apparently when I told him "I don't believe you" I was right. All of his posturing about leaving Wikipedia was just that, posturing. -- Atama頭 16:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I read that arbitration as it was ongoing. They didn't propose an article ban on Bill Huffman because there was nothing to remedy, in that he's never edited the article and his edits were considered helpful. That said it was mentioned that per conflict of interest, he shouldn't ever edit the article as that would not need an arbitration ruling to be immediately actionable. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Atama, I'm not sure what's to disbelieve, though I came into this just a bit ago. He said he retired the user, and even if he hasn't you banned him. It appears he does want to continue offering assistance at the Derek Smart article it seems, but I'm not sure I would think that he has no right to do so. As to your interpretation of WP:SOCK, from the beginning of 'Legitimate uses' I would note this statement "Alternate accounts have legitimate uses. For example, long-term contributors using their real names may wish to use a pseudonymous account for contributions they do not want their real name to be associated with".

It seems important for Mr. Huffman to let people who are editing the Derek Smart article know WHO he is so they know where his opinion is coming from. However, that does not require him to let everyone know who he is at all times, especially not when he may be editing in another field that might cause people to want to give retribution. In the 'privacy' section of 'Legitimate uses' it reads "A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area."

Bill Huffman is, from what I have seen, a good editor. An editor that has been cleared of any wrongdoing in this regard. I do not want to dissuade you from watching him closely, as I just read you promise. However, I would like to invite that you are quite likely to find nothing untoward from watching him. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOCK also states that an editor cannot edit the same article with different accounts, yet Bill has done so (see Timothy Paul Baymon). The problem is that he says he's leaving Wikipedia, then says he's only retiring the account, back-and-forth. I bent over backward to help him, and looked the other way when he engaged in blockable behavior, trying to protect his privacy, yet he ultimately chooses to insult me (on Wikipedia and in email). I don't appreciate when I'm lied to and I don't appreciate when someone is being evasive for no apparent reason. Bill lied to me and the Wikipedia community, and all he had to do was either answer a simple question (why does he not restrict himself to one account) or just restrict himself to one account as policy requires. He refused, took a defiant stance, claimed he would leave Wikipedia, then edited again with his original account that he claims he wants to distance himself from, yet continues to use. All Bill had to be was straight with me, and he wasn't. The bridge was burned as far as I'm concerned. -- Atama頭 02:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Your being insulted by him is much different, and I can't speak to that. May I ask his blockable offenses? It should be said as to your interpretations, I again find myself in disagreement. Policy does not seem to require that Wikipedians be restricted to one account. Moreover, the restriction on editing the same page with two accounts does not read as an absolute block, to me: "Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people. Contributions to the same page with clearly linked legitimate alternate accounts is not forbidden" with the bolding there as mine.

My only thought is that he might have considered outing himself as a way of being straight with you as inappropriate, I want to let you know my thinking so that you know why I'm asking questions and weighing in on interpretation in the first place. Well, that and my perception of him is likely different than your own so I felt a desire to advocate for an editor I found personally to be helpful. Another thought though, with you saying that bridge is burned, I've realized there may not be further reason to discuss this as this is not an ongoing action to be involved with. I do hope you find yourself reassured in a review of his edits, though! I'll peek at this now and again just in case I'd said something that made you want to comment. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Columbia1234

Hi. Yesterday you sent a note saying "Please stop trying to use Wikipedia to promote Funk's books by inappropriately inserting them as 'references." I am sorry if the added cites caused offense, but the book by Funk is in fact a 2010 Oxford University Press International Criminal Court-related reference book that is exactly on point, and the citations (including pin-point citations) are accurate. The citations to the book were added not for purpse of "spamming," but rather to rely on this April 2010 release for citations/support in international law-related and victim-related areas in which the previous references either did not exist, or were limited. I would therefore ask that you consider un-deleting the references. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Columbia1234 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

GoldenGem deleted page

Hi, You can see the effects of your work at http://www.goldengem.co.uk I have taken the cached version of the page as a private page as you suggest, and I no longer offer the program as freeware to the public. I hope you are happy with your decision to convert a public resource to a private asset. It is not what I wanted. John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.50.200 (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. I don't recall making any decision along those lines, I deleted an article on request, a deletion request that nobody else objected to, and if asked I can restore the article. Just keep in mind that Wikipedia does not include an article about every possible topic, the basic inclusion criteria for any article can be found in our notability guidelines, and when I reviewed the article it didn't seem to meet those requirements. It seems odd to decide to no longer publish a piece of software as freeware because the Wikipedia article for it was uncontroversially deleted, but of course that is your choice to do so. -- Atama頭 23:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've written free software in the past, I still get fanmail on occasion from people, which is somewhat fun. What I wrote isn't on Wikipedia either, and I doubt it ever would be, it just never received that much attention. -- Atama頭 00:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi,I'm very conflicted about it. I just spent about 10 hours 'rescuing' the wikipedia page and turning it into a business page. I think, it is up to you if you want to restore the article. If so I'll re-convert the program to freeware.

I agree that it is strange to be influenced by that, but it comes down to the question of what sort of world we are living in. If we are living in a sort-of cutthroat world where things that are of interest to a few dozen people get deleted to make space for other things, then fine, and I'll be a businessman. The type of thing you should be deleting, by the way, are things like the people who put a link to a foreign exchange site on any highly page ranked page, on a pretext that it talks about two currencies. I had sort of planned that my site might be a business site, and over the years it slipped into something else, lots of users and lots of fan mail like you say, and me putting a lot of time and effort in. Well, if no one is grateful enough to rescue the article then I would just give up I guess.

It is up to you. If you decide to restore the article I will take down the businessy site and convert the program to free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.50.200 (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

PS I admit that that sounds a bit pathetic: I either want lots of recognition or else some money. In other words, me saying I wouldn't settle for putting in lots of work for just a few dozen people, who would be grateful without compensating me, but if it continues to be a few hundred, then yes the fan mail would be enough. So it is like saying, my time and effort is either worth more than one fan letter a day, or like 20 dollars a day. But if it is just like one fan letter a week it wouldn't be worth it, something like that. I see your point, and you are saying if the fan letters come because users find my site via wikipedia, then it is in some sense illegitimate recognition. Note that I haven't objected to the deletion or asked the article to be restored, just requiring you to take a fair share of the guilt for my decision, OK? Or, let's say an unfair share, OK? 78.150.50.200 (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we do have a conflict of interest guideline. It was created specifically for situations like yours. Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise your product, either to increase sales (which you're not doing because you offer the product for free) or to increase recognition of your product and/or yourself. The vast majority of software, free or not, doesn't merit inclusion as an article. Only articles that have had significant coverage in independent reliable sources are accepted, and this is a standard applied to all articles. Again, I could restore the article, but unless you or another editor can find such sources (like a review in a magazine) then it's doubtful that it will stay around for long. -- Atama頭 15:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Logged in

Hi, I saw this edit, and thought I would mention what I use to avoid that. I have a setting in my monobook.css that changes the color of the "Save page" button to green if I'm logged in - if I'm not logged it, then the button is the default Mediawiki gray/white. It's just an extra visual aid to help recognize when I'm not logged in.

If you're interested, here's the code to add to your monobook.css:

/* Customize "Save page" button to be another color.       */
/* This acts as a visual confirmation that I am logged in. */
/* If logged in, the button is a custom  color;            */
/* if not logged in, then it's the default gray color      */
INPUT#wpSave {
    background-color:#88ff88;
}

It took a bit to get accustomed to it at first ... but now if I don't see the green save button, I know that I've logged out for some reason. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. What's weird is that in 4 years I don't think that's ever happened to me before. Literally in between editing one page and editing another I was suddenly logged out with no kind of message. I'll try your monobook code. -- Atama頭 00:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Great idea. Adapted with rounded corners to match the other buttons here.  7  01:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have requested arbitration remedy. Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject iPhone OS

Promote the project

• Join this project! Add yourself to the list, and add the userbox to your page, to advertise the project to people who happen to pass by.
• Invite people to the project – drop a note on the user talk page of editors working on iPhone OS topics who aren't project members.
• Consider promoting the project via the Wikipedia Signpost WikiProject desk.

Improve the project

• Update the project pages, archive clutter, and make use of the latest automation available
• Consult the WikiProject Guide for ideas
• Come up with new ones

Use the project

• Create a new article. Or check out Wikipedia:WikiProject iPhone OS#Todo and see if these new articles need work such as project tagging or categorising.

• Expand some of the articles (check out Category:Stub-Class iPhone OS articles or some of its subcategories), always respecting Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy. Also, check the Wikipedia: Manual of Style.
• Add references to articles which need referencing improving. Biographies of living persons are a particular priority.
• Assess some of the Unassessed iPhone OS articles, using the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject iPhone OS#Assessment. Update the project banner on the relevant talk page.

• Check the talk page for requests for help.
• Check the to do list at #To do

This was a one-time notice from WikiProject iPhone OS · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Dog Whisperer, etc.

You mentioned possible Dispute Resolution; do you think this applies to this article? I've tried disussions on the DW talk page, to no avail. I've initiated several conversations off the article's discussion page. There are very few eyeballs on the article's discussion page and on the off page conversations about RS, NPOV, COI. It's not going to work for me to try to make my points alone. What would be the best way get more eyes on this, without escalating the tension, etc. I'll take your recommendation. 70.165.67.131 (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding for so long. Dispute resolution should apply to any article where there isn't deliberate disruption occurring, but people just can't agree about what should or shouldn't be in the article. This happens often when you have good faith editors who come from different perspectives and who have different opinions on the best way to improve the article. Sometimes they just can't come up with a compromise, sometimes they don't trust each other, but for whatever reason they need help from someone else to reach a conclusion. That's what the dispute resolution is meant to do, bring in outside help to resolve the problems. There are different steps, such as requesting a third person's opinion if only two people are involved, or making a request for comment where the point(s) being debated are open to the whole community to weigh in and attempt to reach a consensus about what should be in the article. At times mediation can be requested, both informal and formal, where an uninvolved editor tries to help the people in dispute to reach an agreement while not giving an opinion themselves. Finally, if all else has been tried and failed, the issue may end up at the Arbitration Committee, where ArbCom determines if one or more people involved in the article have been misbehaving, and make decisions about sanctions against people (sometimes people are blocked, sometimes they are banned from editing that article in the future). That last step is a very slow one and can end badly for people so it's always best to try to fix the problem before it gets that far. -- Atama頭 21:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Tire choice

Hi there,

I just wanted to send you a note to ask why you deleted my recent entry for the The Tire Choice. I was very careful when I wrote it... very encyclopedic, not promotional at all. I am not trying to promote the company in any way, but I think that an entry is warranted given how prevalent they are in Southern Florida. If this is truly an encyclopedia of all things, then I really think that they belong.

I use Wikipedia to research nearly everything, choosing an automotive care center included. Valvoline is on here, as is Meineke, and many other alternatives (even the Canadian Tire Company). It seems a bit like you are picking on this post simply because you are not familiar with them? Am I missing something?

I am a bit new to the submission process and, as such, would appreciate any assistance in identifying specifically what portion of the content is objectionable so that I can revise it to be compliant.

Thank you in advance for your response! Much appreciated.

Stevenrcross (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation case

Hi Atama: I'm willing to work with you on that case. Do you want to do discuss how we will work on it? Send me an email if you like and we can develop a strategy for it. Sunray (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you saw my message on the MedCom list. I've gone ahead and picked up the Draza Mihailovic case. Do you want to work on it together? Sunray (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Feature Portal Review of Portal:iPhone OS

IPhone OS has been nominated for a featured portal review. Portals are typically reviewed for one week. During this review, editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the portal from featured status. Please leave your comments and help us to return the portal to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, portals may lose its status as featured portals. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. This was a courtesy notice from WikiProject iPhone OS · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

reinstate Fantasy grounds please

I routinely come to wikipedia for a rounded view of items/products like this. It is notable becasue I'm thinking of dropping a fair amount of coin on it--and it might be the pen and paper solution that many of the old school gamers have been looking for.

Thank you.

News from the Draganparis Case

Just lines under your position as to his conduct, user Draganparis has openly threatened us with legal action blatantly violating the legal threats rule [14]. He has also posted such and even bigger threats (even threatening Wikipedia with a scandal!!!) here [15] and here [16]... Do you need any more proof that there is a huge problem with that guy? Please protect us, we have endured this for too long. GK (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Draganparis has retracted those threats, and you can consider those talk pages comments as "hot air" and nothing more. Wikipedia has zero tolerance for such talk, which is why Draganparis was blocked until those threats were retracted, but I can't see any justification for a block now. -- Atama頭 23:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, he has retracted his last threats but these were made in conjunction with the other case and should be viewed as additional harassment along with all his other "notices" and "threats" regarding his conspiracy theories. Please advise. Should we go on with the case as was presented at ANI or should we see what happens? I am afraid that he still has not understood the disruption his (pre-legal-threat)conduct has caused. Would you consider bringing back the case as was before his ban for legal threats (thus for some reason making it look obsolete), should we act in another manner or should we just stay and watch? GK (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My block

I greatly appreciate your understanding and want to thank you for the decision.Draganparis (talk) 05:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I beg a favour, please?

I know this is asking a lot but you could do me a really big favour and block my account for a week please. I have been struggling for months with my PTSD problems and seem to be descending into a destructive spiral again. I just need to make a break for a while. If you can do it, it would be appreciated. Justin talk 00:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Gibraltar or other articles concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioral standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard) or the Arbitration Committee.
• Gibnews (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing the Gibraltar article and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for one year. Should Gibnews return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
• Gibnews is strongly warned that nationally or ethnically offensive comments are prohibited on Wikipedia and that substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the site, will be imposed without further warning in the event of further violations.
• Justin A Kuntz (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing Gibraltar and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for three months. Should Justin A Kuntz return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
• Ecemaml (talk · contribs) is admonished for having, at times, assumed bad faith and edited tendentiously concerning the history and political status of Gibraltar.
• Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary.
• Any editor who is closely associated with a particular source or website relating to the subject of Gibraltar or any other article is reminded to avoid editing that could be seen as an actual or apparent attempt to promote that source or website or to give it undue weight over other sources or website in an article's references or links. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, it may be best in these circumstances to mention the existence of the source or website on the talkpage, and allow the decision whether to include it in the article to made by others.

For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright violation.

Hello,

I am writing this in regard to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pacchala_pathakam.jpg. The image in that particular page is my own. I have used it in my websites and I did not release this image under GNU license. The person who submitted this image (Gangleader1989) reported that this is his/her own work. I am sorry to say that its against copyrights, he cannot claim my work as his work. I am about to release this under GNU and also to the same wiki article. So, I want to transfer the rights from him to me. I tried to post a message on the above said person's talk page, but the user account is deleted. Please advise me in this regard. Here is what I want to do: 1. Remove the Gangleader1989 name as owner for the image. 2. Add my name to it. As its my work. If you want you can look at the official website www.bhadrachalarama.org and I am the webmaster to it. 3. I am good with releasing this image under GNU license.

Advice me in this regard.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srtejaswi (talk • contribs) 18:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Intervantion needed

Hi, There is a article on wikipedia abot Communist Party of India (Marxist). I've been editing this article since 2007. Now a person called Deshbhakta, is trying to put his own POV, by citing certain unreliable sources. Some of the very old editors are against this, and proposed a "Temporary Edit Ban", on the article, but again today, an administrator named "1234r00t", has warned us, to not to stop deshbhakta. We need you to just look at the issue, please read the article(full of slanders, and informal language), and decide whether We should continue edit that article, or JUST LEAVE , wikipedia, because it appears as an undemocratic space to write.

Talk:Communist_Party_of_India_(Marxist)#What_is_actually_going_on_here

Warm Regards.

-Viplovecomm (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

AI@50

Hi, I was very surprised to see AI@50 deleted with nothing on my Talk page. I've been adding references to it as presented papers come online for four years now. The reason was "Nominated for seven days with no objection: Concern was: Non-notable conference)". It is indeed a notable conference celebrating the 50th anniversary of artificial in the presence of several of its founders, with dozens of DARPA funded presenters accessing the past and the future prospects of AI. Importantly, I've found a couple of highly authoritative references to the conference that falsify that reason and if you will kindly restore the article I will add them at once. See my User:Paulscrawl/sandbox#AI.4050 my sandbox for details. Thanks! Paulscrawl (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Gevorg Badalyan

He has played 2 games already. So can you now undelete his page? Thank you By:(talk)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. monosock 03:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediation for Bioidentical Hormone Page

(Moved from user page. PhilKnight (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC))
If you are still interested in mediation, the Bioidentical Hormone page is badly in need of it. Please contact me if you are interested. The page is locked down by user:WLU and reflects a very biased anti-bioidentical view. It is actually an embarassment to wikipedia. UGAcodon (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Not much has changed on the page, no new sources have been proposed (in fact, the prestigious Medical Letter recently produced a new article which was apparently quite scathing). Depending on why you didn't follow-through with the mediation, you may want to skip this one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The return of GoRight?

A few months ago, you commented on the indefinite blocking of User:GoRight following this AN/I discussion. A newly created account, User:TheNeutralityDoctor, has been reported to WP:SPI as a possible sockpuppet of GoRight, based on behavioural evidence. Your views would be welcomed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoRight. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Atama,

I am writing an article about Basse_(bag ball). We played this bag ball game a lot back in Trondheim, Norway around 1980 when I was a teenager. The Basse game older than 1'st World War, my relatives played it when they was kids in Trondheim and Trøndelag county.

See http://www.basse.no/basse-in-english/

I am introducing Basse now in Sweden and to other countries, so it is important to have an Wikipedia article about the game, background, goals, how to play and how to make the Basse.

Could you restore the article?

-)

Best regards, Basse Ambassador Baltazaar, Stockholm, Sweden

Baltazaar99 (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Your User Page

I was sorry to hear you have been having personal difficulties, having been there myself you know you have my sympathies. However, you weren't irresponsible, real life is much more important than wikipedia. Don't be so hard on yourself.

Welcome back. Justin talk 14:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Keithbob has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Yea, welcome back and don't be so hard on your self, there is plenty of other people who can do that for you, ha! Hope your personal stuff got worked out as good as it could. Welcome back!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I really appreciate it. Folks like you remind me why I used to spend time here. :) -- Atama頭 04:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see you're back! Hope everything is going well for you. Oh, I've been around COIN, but things get quite lonely there without you :D. Anyway, good to have you back! Netalarm^talk 03:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been checking out COIN and you're doing an awesome job with it. Back when I started hanging out there, there would be a lot of requests either ignored or without a response for a long time, but you jump on those requests within hours. -- Atama頭 17:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

AI@50

Thanks for the message on my Talk page. No harm done, as I was offline of WP briefly at the time myself -- and I learned a lot in the process of restoring and improving the article to WP Notability standards, a lesson I've applied elsewhere. I also learned more about the WP distinction between Primary and Secondary sources. The result is all to the good. I'll take your word that the oldprodfull template is a good thing, though I think on first sight that the template's terse wording -- "This article was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past" -- could be clearer as to its intent: does this really suffice to, in your words, "let future editors know that the article has already been through the proposed deletion process once and is no longer eligible for deletion without a proper discussion or other reason"? I hope so, though it was not obvious to me: it reads more like an invitation to agree or disagree to deletion and so reprise the issue. If you can see it that way, as a relatively novice editor might, perhaps the oldprodfull template could be expanded to that effect, with some procedural directives and relevant links, to the original PROD and the policy guidelines for continuance. I defer to your experience and good judgment.

BTW, since you liked Kurzweil's other book, The Singularity is Near is certainly worth a skim -- Moore's Law on steroids -- a fascinating perspective, from AI's greatest optimist.

Thanks again, Atama, and welcome back! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Cassandra Clare

Hi there. You commented earlier on my erroneous COI discussion on Cassandra Clare. Another editor, who posted before you did, reverted all the citations I've made today to strengthen the article because he felt the sources were phony, and left some warnings on my talk page.

I've asked him/her for specifics twice, so that I could see which citations weren't working, but he hasn't responded, only reverted everything. Can you help me out? I'm not sure what to do. The most recent version of the page is his reverted one; the previous version is my most up to date, with all my sources included. I know there's a 3 reversion rule, and I don't want to break it by reverting his last change, but I don't see anything wrong with my sources.Any help at all would be much appreciated. Thanks! Infoaddict1 (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Hullaballoo is citing our BLP policy, which is one of the most important sets of Wikipedia "rules" we have. Anything in a biography of a living person that is controversial or otherwise negative that isn't properly sourced can get Wikipedia into huge trouble, and BLP violations traditionally have brought the most negative attention to Wikipedia in the media. Not to mention, you can actually hurt someone in real life if you aren't careful. So just keep that in mind, I'm not saying that you're definitely making a BLP violation but that we have to be extra-super-extremely careful about that info so your info is going to get more scrutiny than info you might add to, say, the cheese dog article. (Mmm, now I'm hungry.) -- Atama頭 00:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove creation protection

Hi Atama, I'm here to ask you to remove the creation protection (WP:SALT) from Yii, Yii Framework and Yii framework (so we can have a main article and redirects) as I think the notability requirement can be satisfied now with the release of a book about the subject [17] (you can find it on Amazon too) in addition to other sources like already existent magazine articles [18]. Thank you. -- ekerazha (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into it, and make a decision later, alternatively if you want a more thorough review from more than just me you can take it to deletion review. Or if I decide to decline and you think I'm wrong (which I might be) you can discuss it there. I'll let you know. :) -- Atama頭 16:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me know :) -- ekerazha (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Atama, is there any news? Thank you. -- ekerazha (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile I signal other printed articles [19] [20] (reputable German journals). -- ekerazha (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, my User:Ekerazha/Yii article draft is ready (there are 2 missing images because I can't add NON-FREE images to a personal page), you can see the sources in the "Bibliography" section. I think those are reliable sources according to the Wikipedia rules, thus they should fully satisfy the notability requirement, however I'm open to complaints. Thank you. ekerazha (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Atama, did you take a look at the draft? -- ekerazha (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks good. I've unprotected all of the articles (only two were actually salted), so feel free to move your page. -- Atama頭 14:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but Yii Framework is still blocked. -- ekerazha (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Weird; I unprotected it, in fact my browser still remembered the edit summary I'd done for the unprotection, I wonder if I hadn't done the final submit button. Either way it's good now. -- Atama頭 16:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Final question: is there a way I can continue to keep the frameworks articles clean, without having to listen things like "you want to delete my framework because you've written the page about another framework"? -- ekerazha (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "clean"? There are always going to be people who invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to insist that their article deserves inclusion because a similar article exists, regardless of the relative notability of the articles. I don't know that there's any way to avoid that kind of conflict, it's a part of Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 16:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Example: Nominate articles for deletion or clean articles like Comparison of web application frameworks from non-notable and/or external linked (without a proper article) items. I already know somebody will say that I want to delete his article because I've a sort of conflict of interests being the main contributor of an article about another framework. -- ekerazha (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is to join and/or ask help from a relevant Wikiproject. Currently the Comparison of web application frameworks article is tagged with the WP:COMP project tag. Wikiprojects exist pretty much to do exactly what you suggest; to improve and create articles on notable subjects within their scope of interest, and remove cruft and other non-notable subjects. For example, I used to be a member of WP:VG/WC and one of the tasks we did was to remove a ton of lousy articles that really didn't belong in Wikipedia but were more suitable for WoWWiki. -- Atama頭 16:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Microformats

You recently !voted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats. This is a courtesy note to let you now that I have now posted, as promised, my view there, and to ask you revisit the debate. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the notice, thank you. -- Atama頭 16:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

John Williams (snooker referee)

Hi, some months ago you deleted this page as an expired prod. Since he refereed at least one world championship final, I expect he sufficiently notable. As such could you please restore the article so I can try to rectify any issues there may be. Thanks. _wjemather^bigissue 00:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Amber Awards

Dear Atama

Not sure if this is the right place for this. I'm not that familiar on my way around WP. I note you've deleted the AMBER awards artcle I created. We're running it for the second year and we do have coverage independent of the organisers (of which I am one). Last year it was covered in the main metropolitan daily newspaper in Sydney - the Sydney Morning Herald (i can't seem to find a link online though) and lots of other independent sources such as Australia's leading online marketing blog mumbrella (which is not associated with the awards).

We're gearing up for our second year so it'd be nice to reinstate and update.

We now have a website too. www.amberawards.com.au

best regards Paul paul.e.mccarthy@acm.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxpaulm (talk • contribs) 00:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Amber Awards

Thanks for your helpful comments on notability re Amber Awards. Still learning about WP - infrequent editor as you can see so this is really helpful.

I note another wikipedian has slated it for deletion so I'll hunt down references to newspaper articles over the weekend. The intent is not promotion - simply to document what is a public and well supported Australian non-profit industry award - to put it on the public record. Would it help to have cc licensed photos of awards from last year?

Should i also change my username to reflect my real identity - which I'm happy to do?

Also not sure whether posting here is best way to communicate or is there email or equivalent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.119.174 (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've found and added a major newspaper citation who ran a story about the winners last year. There was also a story in one of the two print advertising and media monthly magazines which i could chase in over the next week. What's the next step from here? Can I or someone else remove deletion flag now?

Xxpaulm (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Changing your username is entirely up to you. I think "Xxpaulm" is already pretty close, but if your personal preference is to have it match completely, I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed. The place to make the request would be Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. As to the article, there is currently a deletion discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber awards, and you'll have to defend the article's inclusion. Mentioning the coverage you have found will help a lot. You have to convince the deletion nominator and others who participate in the discussion (if there are others) that the article should be kept. I suggest you put the word Keep before your comment to make it clear that you're suggesting that the article be kept. The deletion discussion should run for 7 days before an administrator makes a decision whether to keep or delete the article, so you'll have time to track down more sources, but the sooner you can do so to convince other editors, the better your chances of keeping the article. -- Atama頭 16:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat offtopic, but many thanks for unblocking William M. Connolley (talk · contribs). Not an easy situation, but in my opinion the right thing to do. Your action is much appreciated . . dave souza, talk 18:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm neutral in terms of WMC, I stay away from the whole CC arena when I can help it, and I've defended WMC in the past when I thought it was right to and asked for sanctions when I thought he was in the wrong. I declined one of his unblock requests this time because the info I had indicated that the block was proper, but Jehochman's clarification showed me otherwise. I'm going to go back to WP:COIN, deleting expired prods, and editing pages about Iranian pastries now. :) -- Atama頭 18:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Well it was certainly technically the correct call, and clear sighted. Much ado about nothing that affair. --BozMo talk 18:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Your analysis and comments were thoughtful, constructive, and polite throughout the entire matter. Your initial denial of the unblock request was reasonable, albeit not what I'd have done (but then, "things that are reasonable" and "things I personally agree with" are not identical sets :) Anyhow, regardless of the outcome, I wanted to thank you for your example of level-headed and thoughtful participation in an area where those qualities were in extremely short supply. I don't think you were necessarily "wrong" about anything, but your open-mindedness and willingness to incorporate feedback is admirable. Have a bamiyeh on me. :) MastCell ^Talk 22:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your kind words and especially the bamiyeh (one of these days I want to actually track down one of those things in real life). -- Atama頭 22:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Your userpage says you live in Washington state, which is too bad. If you lived in Warshington D.C., you couldn't walk down the street without finding bamiyeh for sale. MastCell ^Talk 23:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • The next time I'm in downtown Seattle, I might walk around the Public Market area. That's the first place I ever tried baklava. -- Atama頭 23:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
        • According to Yelp Urbanspoon, if you're in Seattle you should try Minoo Bakery. MastCell ^Talk 23:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the tip! :D -- Atama頭 23:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

William L. Summers PROD Expired

Dear Atama:

I was the author of the William L. Summers article, which was deleted by you per PROD expired on August 10, 2010:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_L._Summers

I am writing to request that the article be restored. He is a notable lawyer. For instance, he served as lead counsel for Larry Mahoney in the Carrollton Bus Crash case, which is the worst drunk driving accident in history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrollton_bus_disaster

I could certainly do more with the article to make it better, given the opportunity to do so, and I could better tie him to other Wikipedia articles, such as the one linked above.

I hope that you will restore the article as your user page indicates you will upon request.

Thank You, ATBLawyer ATBLawyer (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

My section on AN/I.

I am seeking help. It appears that my section has become unnecessarily heated, which is something you didn't want by what you posted earlier in the discussion. I've also got people accusing me of continuing my "disruptive" edits, which I'm not. Excepts for a couple of mistakes today, which I corrected in a timely manner (not really disruptive), I've improved, I would say. Now DGG removed my Huggle use for six months. Could you please take a look into it? Because I don't think it seems fair. Thanks! - Donald Duck (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It is piling on a little thick. I don't disagree with the Huggle revocation, I suggested the same earlier. I don't think your rollback should be removed (as you haven't misused it recently from what I've seen) and I don't think a block is needed. -- Atama頭 16:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've commented at WP:AN/I. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam

Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. Your praise (though maybe slightly exaggerated) was touching. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Night Train Ultimate Frisbee Page

You should put the UVA Club Ultimate page back on wikipedia... I don't understand why you deleted it or who you notified.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.229.4.2 (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to be a little more specific. I've deleted a lot of pages, and don't recall any ultimate frisbee articles. I tried to find one, at Night Train Ultimate Frisbee or UVA Club Ultimate but can't find a deleted article. To answer your question as to why it was deleted, most articles I delete are through the prod process, and if this was one of those then the article had a deletion requested and in 7 days nobody objected. My guess is that the article didn't meet our notability requirements, especially if this is a small or local sports club. -- Atama頭 17:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Atama. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Asserting importance

As a question regarding your edit here [21] - just being a journalist (and for a college newspaper) is asserting importance? For a profession as common a journalist (as opposed to say professional boxer or elected state senator) the person would have had to have some other type of accomplishment that they were noted for. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 20:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't take much to assert importance. Remember, importance and notability aren't synonymous, per WP:CSD#A7, importance is a much lower bar to clear than notability. The claim must also be credible, but I don't think it's incredible to believe that the article subject is a journalist. To give some examples:

• Jack Williams is 22 years old and lives in Atlanta. - Doesn't assert importance.
• Jack Williams is the strongest man in the world. - Asserts importance, but isn't credible.
• Jack Williams is a radio personality in Atlanta. - Asserts credible importance, but without references to prove notability is likely to be deleted.

If his station has a tiny audience, or is a college radio station, etc. then it isn't notable but even a weak claim of importance if not unbelievable generally is enough to avoid speedy deletion. -- Atama頭 21:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

sooooo Does this assert notability?

• Jack Williams is 28 years old and is a dentist.

Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 21:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If it goes on to list Jack as a chair of some dentistry advocacy group or something, sure. Being a journalist of a notable paper (The Daily Bruin is pretty notable despite being a student paper) is a plausible claim. It's all fluff, a glorified resume for a college student more than anything, but it does try to assert importance, enough that I think that the CSD doesn't apply. -- Atama頭 21:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

so student journalists are inherently important, but licensed dentists arent? Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 21:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither is inherently important. I think you're missing the point here, all that's needed is a credible claim of importance. Let's give another example; an article talks about someone being on a TV show, the TV show is a notable one. You follow the IMDB link and the person had one small bit part on the show, in a single episode. That's a credible claim of importance, but is very far from meeting notability. Two different standards, and while we have a guideline for one, we have no guideline for the other. So any admin reviewing an A7 has to decide... Is the article trying to claim that someone is important, and is that claim in any way believable? I felt in this case that it was. -- Atama頭 21:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess we just have two different ways of looking at this and I am not going to "get" how you arrived at your conclusion. Thanks for attempting to explain.Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 22:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ross Moody

So the mere assertion that he is a journalist is sufficient to avoid a speedy deletion? Sorry, but that is just ridiculous. – ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is, per WP:CSD#A7. Assertion of importance has a much lower threshold than notability. Please see my response to Active Banana above as soon as I'm done with it. :) -- Atama頭 20:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware that it is a lower threshold than notability; I disagree that a mere assertion as to a profession is sufficient to meet that threshold. – ukexpat (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Being a journalist for a paper that itself is notable enough for its own article is a reasonable claim of importance. Daily Bruin is pretty notable for a student newspaper. I completely agree that the subject himself fails notability, however. I guess the question is, how important does the claim have to be in order to qualify? I can only conclude that it's a subjective call, there's no particular guideline on making that determination. I have no doubt the article will be deleted in a week anyway. -- Atama頭 21:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well we will have to agree to differ on this one. IMHO you are needlessly delaying the inevitable. – ukexpat (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You could be right. It's borderline, I almost deleted it until I looked at the newspaper. If someone protests the PROD I would stand behind an AfD 100% unless someone can find some really good sources for the guy, which I doubt. -- Atama頭 15:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Psssst!

Of course, you may not worry about minor things like this. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I do, thanks for pointing it out. -- Atama頭 19:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Annyong

Just wanted to say thanks for clarifying the Annyong/Hel-loh thing on my RfA. If we had some hot ham water around here I'd make you a bowl... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. I'm not sure exactly what hot ham water is, but I'm sure it's good. -- Atama頭 21:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My userpage.

I keep getting some error right now when trying to submit changes on that specific page, so could you remove the Huggle thing since I currently can't use it? =P It's just a rare error that I get. It's happened once before. - Donald Duck (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Huggle userbox, I assume that's what you meant. If that's not what you meant, let me know, thanks. :) -- Atama頭

It was, so thanks! In my opinion, I don't think the results would have been so devastating if it stayed how it was after this comment. It was actually quiet for quite some time (12:42 P.M. to 3:24 P.M. (PDT), to be exact), but then (no offense) ADCD had to come and, in my opinion, unnecessarily "heat" it. - Donald Duck (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There were a few people going a bit overboard, suggesting an indefinite block, etc. ANI is like that unfortunately, it's like the Jerry Springer Show of Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 23:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I actually do believe that if it had been closed then, I wouldn't have lost my Huggle priviledges temporarily. DGG didn't delete my monobook things for Twinkle, but I'd rather not use it if I shouldn't be. I'd ask you if I could, but I'm not sure if an administrator is supposed to cross another administrator's decision / decisions on said issue / issues. - Donald Duck (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll just say that DGG has been an administrator much longer than me and uses very good judgment, I trust his decisions 95% of the time. I'd definitely defer to him in this case. If you have questions about Twinkle, you can pose them to him. I think the main concern I saw in that thread was that you were possibly going too quickly when reviewing edits and deciding to revert/warn, and revoking Huggle might help you slow down and look more carefully before responding to a particular edit. The same idea might apply to Twinkle. I'll say that I have Twinkle and use it sparingly to make a couple of things easier now and then, and I never feel "rushed" with it. (For better or worse.) -- Atama頭 15:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Twinkle allows (pretty much forces) one to check said edit before reverting. - Donald Duck (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

your comments

Just so you know and for the record, I object to and dispute your portrayal of me and my comments at ANI you made in this diff yesterday as aggressive and stirring up trouble. Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that you object, but I stand by those comments. Your participation in that discussion wasn't helpful in the least, as it came across as sarcastic and uncivil. Your first comment that "The good faith thing to do if you were put on a 1RR restriction would be not to break it" was fine, though it misses the whole point of WP:AGF, but the second comment was clearly an attempt to get a rise out of Olive. I obviously wasn't the only one who thought your characterization of the situation was unfair. I know that Will Beback agreed with you, and while I very much respect Will and have worked well with him I don't consider him uninvolved with TM matters. We can agree to disagree about Olive's motives and her competency. -- Atama頭 15:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Will may not have been uninvolved but he is a fair and experienced editor and he was correct, if you are under an edit restriction and then two weeks later you break it and claim you don't know what a revert is when you have been editing for three years is indefensible. I was on a ONE revert restriction for five weeks, the first thing you should do is go and make sure you know what is a revert and read it and read it again. I never made more than a single revert in one day and was never in that time left a warning. I did not want or request any action against the user just that the point is clear that they had a duty of care to understand their restriction. My comments were only designed to reflect that honest point, that is my good honest faith, your fluffy comments and then your accusations against me leaving the offender as if innocent were in bad judgment and excessive. Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Olive didn't ask what a revert was, she was asking about a questionable situation about whether or not a particular edit was a revert. As I've said before, even Doc James was confused about what is and isn't a revert. The revert that Olive was confused about is debatable; she wasn't neither removing another editor's addition to an article, nor was she restoring the article back to a previous state, the way she moved the text was making the article look totally new. I still classify that as a revert, though, because she was undoing Doc's attempt to restore the info to the lead. You can't expect people to be perfect, I myself had to give it some thought before I classified that edit as a revert. I will wholeheartedly agree with you that a person under 1RR does have to be careful, and Olive should have been able to get the feeling that the back-and-forth between herself and Doc at least wasn't following the spirit of her agreement to restrict her edit warring. I believe that she felt she was compromising, as she indicated as much in her edit summaries during that exchange, so I do think she's making the effort. I apologize if I was putting too much bad faith on you, especially as I was accusing you of doing the same to Olive, that was a bit hypocritical of me. -- Atama頭 17:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

David Appletree letter

(With regard to discussion happening here)

You're one of the few, honest, and objective people on my case right now. There's so much context to this which is being avoided and it seems FT2 is lying. It's annoying. I honestly came back with the best of intentions. I accepted mentorship offers from 3 different people. I was then getting steamrolled. Random WP editors were DEMANDING that I censor material on my website which is critical of WP. I said I would be open to making changes, if specific editors mentioned wrote me about any specific concerns, but that I could not just "bulk censor" my site. Anyway as I was defending myself on the ANI board, I was suddenly---out of nowhere---BLOCKED by Scott Mac, who I had called out on his inappropriate comment just a few hours earlier. I felt that his BLOCK was a punitive "revenge" measure for me calling him out. Then FT2 comes from nowhere, AFTER the block, and says I can get out of it if I agree to a highly restrictive mentoring program. However, again, I had already agreed to 3 other mentors and I was highly annoyed by the block!

Well, despite my honest and good intentions, I lost all hope.

I'm very sorry about my reaction, but between the steamrolling, unfair demands to censor material on my website, Scott's inappropriate remark, the punitive block that came from nowhere and the taunt that I could get myself out of it if I agreed to a highly restrictive mentoring program (despite the fact that I had already accepted 3 other offers to be mentored), I lost it.

Thanks for hearing me out and thanks for being objective and fair about the situation. I understand you're probably risking a lot by not going along with the mob. I wish more people had that type of courage.

David —Preceding unsigned comment added by IHadHonestIntentions (talk • contribs) 17:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not waving a pitchfork around, but I did endorse your ban, so I'm not sure if I'd be considered a member of the mob or not. Your actions have rubbed a number of people the wrong way, and the action that tried to falsely paint an administrator as an anti-semite by attributing their signature to something you wrote is really hard to get past. There are also the allegations, supported by our checkusers, that you previously edited as another person who was banned from Wikipedia. Whether your intentions were honest or not, you've burned some bridges by your actions and you'd have to work very hard to regain the community's trust to allow you to contribute here again. I'm not sure if you'd consider it worth it at this point, but if you do, I'd suggest stopping the tirade against Wikipedia as a first step. We do have a process (not an official one, but one that is often accepted) that you can review at WP:SO which might give you a path to regain that trust, but it takes a lot of time and some effort from you. -- Atama頭 17:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Per reverting

Hi Atama.. In the seemingly unending saga of how to understand editwarring and reverting, I wanted to ask this question about reverting, and pertaining to this ANI question [22]

Edits by Jmh649: [23]

Transcendental Meditation is used to refer to both a spiritual movementand specifically to the form of mantra meditation practiced by this movement. They were introduced in India in 1955 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1917–2008).The meditation practice involves the use of a sound or mantra and is practiced for 15–20 minutes twice per day, while sitting comfortably with closed eyes

My edits:[24]

The Transcendental Meditation or TM technique is a form of mantra meditation. The technique was developed and introduced by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, (1917-2008), in India, in 1955, and is practiced for 20 minutes twice a day while sitting comfortably with the eyes closed.. Transcendental Meditation may also refer to Transcendental Meditation movement.

Original version :

The Transcendental Meditation or TM technique is a form of mantra meditation introduced in India in 1955 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1917–2008).[4] It involves the use of a sound or mantra and is practiced for 15–20 minutes twice per day, while sitting comfortably with closed eyes.

I was deliberately attempting to not revert while both using the content added by Jmh649 and holding on to the original material. Per WP:3RR: "consider working to improve on the other editor's text, or discussing it with them, rather than simply undoing their changes". My edits don't seem to be reversion and or a violation. I realized that anyone editing is always changing someone else's content, so if this edit of mine was considered a revert, in actuality, no one could edit with out creating 1RR for themselves. This seems like a small issue right now, but wondered anyway if you would look at this and see what you think. Many thanks.(olive (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

Both of the diffs for yourself and Doc are the same thing when I click on the links, so I'm not entirely certain what examples you want to use. If you're saying that the lead was initally at the "original version", then Doc changed it to his version, then you changed it to your version... No, I'd say not. It's borderline, because the version you changed it to is closer to the original version but you did essentially incorporate the change that Doc wanted, which was to include the movement. Your edit did act to de-emphasize the movement and try to make it appear as an afterthought, while Doc's edit made it prominent by mentioning it first and the technique second. If I were you, I'd still treat it as a revert to avoid conflict. If I were being asked to enforce a sanction against you for violating 1RR I'd decline. -- Atama頭 22:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at this. I think I understand what you're saying but I'd say also much of what constitutes a reversion is somewhat open to interpretation. I appreciate your interpretation in my case.:o). As an aside, I never edit to make something appear to be something else. That paragraph being discussed here had been stable for quite awhile. The article has been about the "technique" while content about the "movement" had been split off into another complete article. So the change I made was to the stable version while adding mention of the technique per Doc's edit with out making it the focus of the article. The issue is contentious enough that I've requested formal mediation to help us work through it. Its unfortunate that I appeared to be doing something less than straightforward. That's never my intention. Thanks again for your comment and time.(olive (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

I understand. Some reverts are obvious, some aren't, and some edits look like they might be reverts but probably aren't. It's not black and white which is one reason why WP:AN3 isn't always easy. If you look here, you'll see that there are three ways to respond to a change to an article; accepting the change, improving the change, or reverting the change. I think that your edit falls in-between the latter two responses. I'm glad that mediation is being sought, whether formal or informal, and wish you luck with that. -- Atama頭 23:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Justin Bieber.

Hi, Atama! This edit is totally inappropriate and should most likely be erased from Wikipedia completely. - Donald Duck (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision text hidden per WP:RD2: Purely degrading material. ---Taelus (Talk) 22:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Taelus beat me to it right as I was doing the same revdelete. -- Atama頭 22:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry :), but I saw the article title as the section name here in my watchlist, and knowning that it is a frequent target for such vandalism I swooped in! Also gave the offending user an only warning, just in case they do turn around after considering the weight of what they did. ---Taelus (Talk) 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, no need to be sorry at all. Actually I'm new to revdeletes myself and was making sure I wasn't screwing it up as it would have been my first one, I'm glad to see you did exactly what I was about to do, so I was actually doing it right. I agree with the only warning, that kind of language on a BLP is not acceptable. -- Atama頭 22:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually think he's a good singer, so I don't see what's to dislike about him. I've got a friend in real life who dislikes him kind of -- he thinks he looks 10 and sounds like a girl, which I don't think he does. Anyway, on an unrelated note, for some reason the link to my August 2010 archive on my talk page is red, but I know I created it this morning. I saw it after I saved the created page, so I'm not sure why the link's red. It's also red here. - Donald Duck (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I fixed that for you. You'd spelled it "Auguts", which sounds like some sort of abdominal injury. Red links are blue now! -- Atama頭 00:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

How the hell did I not see that? =/ - Donald Duck (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Atama. You have new messages at NerdyScienceDude's talk page.
Message added 02:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~NerdyScienceDude 02:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

East India Company

Thanks, As you the first & only one to understand the problem in New Article added in East India Company as following In 2005 Return of “East India Company”, by The First Indian - Mr. Harsh Jain Since 1600's,

As we dont know how to add or edit the article in Wikipedia. Our staff have tried several times to add the article but article got deleted again & again, and we were called unshameless etc. We requested several times that we only like to provide correct information to Wikipedia ( as it is worlds No 1 encyclopedia ), that Mr HV Jain is first person to incorporate the Company since 1600's, for this we faced so much problem. Kindly guide us and help us in solving our problem. It will be highly appreciated if you kindly add the arcticle in East India Company Page.

Details of ARTICLE to be Added in East India Company is as under, please help us in adding the article

In 2005 Return of “East India Company”, by The First Indian - Mr. Harsh Jain Since 1600's In 2005, Mr Harsh Jain, an Indian businessman born 25 January in New Delhi and based in Ghaziabad – India, England, Africa, Middle East & Mauritius, incorporated the East India Company UK Limited in England & Wales. Mr. Jain says that the Company is his precious asset. www.eastindiacompanyuk.co.uk Harsh Jain is one of the youngest entrepreneurs. In 2005 he formed the company East India Company UK limited in London, England, as he always wanted to work under the name of this company; he always says that it is his treasure to own this glorious name. This reflects the Glorious days of Raj. In 2000 he joined the family business after completing his education. His Interpersonal Skills, Self Confidence, adaptable to different cultures & work environments are the key Strengths of Mr. Jain. In 2002 he has worked hard to promote his Stone Mining and Iron & Steel Business in International Market. EIC 2005 - News First Indian Mr. HV Jain Mr. Jain is Emissary for many Countries Today at the age of 31 and being an NRI, he has travelled to various parts of the Globe and gathered knowledge & experience about their culture and economy. He is in constant touch with the State Heads to understand the needs of dynamic changing economies and demands. Today he is working actively with the Organizations in India, United Kingdom, Middle East, Mauritius, Eastern Europe and in Central African Continent.

FRSA, theRSA.org, United Kingdom. Member, Royal Over-Seas League, United Kingdom. Director, Indo-British Trade Council, East Midlands, United Kingdom.

Companies under Directorship of Mr. Harsh Jain . East India Company UK Limited, United Kingdom . Jain Rolling Mills, India. Indira Overseas, India. Island General Trading Company LLC, United Arab Emirates. Indira Overseas Limited, Mauritius. Cameroon Ispat Sarl, Cameroon . Ritz Boulevard plc, United Kingdom. Emirates Petroleum plc, United Kingdom. Sindbad the Trader plc, United Kingdom. UAE Contracting Limited, United Kingdom. State Trading Corporation Limited, United Kingdom. Mittal Ispat plc, United Kingdom. EIC 2005 - Incorporation EIC talk - East India Company Limited

As we posted note to you just few minutes ago, But forget to sign the post, East India Co (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel silly.

Usually when I don't change my status to offline is because I fall asleep before I usually do. However, this time I simply forgot. D= - Donald Duck (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A plea

Hi,

I hope this doesn't catch you at a stressful time after your recent troubles but if I might ask a favour. Could you please keep an eye on discussions at Talk:Timeline of the history of Gibraltar and let me know if I begin to step out of line.

As an aside I find it very difficult that Richard is imposing himself as mediator given the arbcom case. So I would appreciate you helping me keep my cool so to speak. Justin talk 15:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have it watchlisted. I think you're doing fine so far, it looks like Cremallera has tried to break down the dispute to a list of bullet points, which is something I try to do as well in disputes. I think it's worth going over the list to see if you agree that it is accurate and try to address the points individually. If things get out of line from anyone I'll try to intervene. -- Atama頭 17:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and the advice is helpful. Justin talk 19:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

See [25] I believe Cremallera has breached 3RR. All points made are also sourced, yet he is asserting they are not. Justin talk 21:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Cremarella has only had one revert by our rules at that article in the past 24 hours, see WP:3RR where it states, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." I intend to comment at that talk page regarding the dispute with a suggestion but unfortunately a couple of the references used in your proposed text are being blocked by the proxy server my workplace uses and I have to wait until I get home. -- Atama頭 21:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries I was going to quit and sleep on it. By the way it isn't my proposed text, the text was originally proposed by Cremallera on the talk page some time ago. He took advantage of my topic ban to remove elements of it. I feel it is important to note that a concensus had been agreed previously. Justin talk 21:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There was a prior consensus and therefore nobody should fault you for trying to implement the changes, however, consensus can change and it clearly has changed now since there is a dispute. Keep in mind that it has been nearly 9 months since there was active discussion on that talk page, so it shouldn't be a big shock if opinions have changed since then. -- Atama頭 21:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, neutral and inciteful as always. Would you ever consider mentoring me to tame my more reactionary tendencies? Regards, Justin talk 10:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed a shortened text capturing what I believe are the salient points, I would appreciate your input. Regards, Justin talk 14:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadly accusations of nationalism have started to rear their head. I've tried to focus solely on content and have been arguing on that basis but there have been several bad faith accusations. Do you think it would be appropriate to ask arbcom to issue a warning under the restrictions from the arbcom case? Justin talk 17:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I've been trying to follow the discussion but the wall of text has been getting difficult to get through. Not to mention that as an outsider some of the allegations about Spain/Gibraltar are hard to follow (what makes me impartial really is my ignorance). Aribtration enforcement is the place to ask for someone to issue warnings or sanctions. Any administrator can enforce the existing restrictions as set down by the last ArbCom ruling (that's why they're called "discretionary" sanctions) but I'm reluctant to put on my admin hat because I feel like at that point I'm crossing a line from adviser to enforcer. -- Atama頭 18:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, I am looking over the discussion and seeing if anything needs to be done, so don't worry about going to AE for help unless you're feeling really desperate for a very quick resolution. -- Atama頭 18:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking over it again, the first time I see "nationalist" brought up was from Richard. I don't think he meant it as an accusation, but merely an observation that discussion of "Spain did this but Gibraltar did that" could lead to the kind of unproductive discussion that has been an issue in the past. It was a little distressing to have Cremallera throw up his hands and give up when he did when there wasn't even any serious bickering going on, but I do understand pulling out before things got heated. I've read enough now I think that I'll make a suggestion on the talk page about what direction to go in. -- Atama頭 18:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've taken on board what you said and I have tried to be objective. I've made a real effort to avoid being sucked into tit for tat exchanges by focusing on content. Thanks for keeping things on an even keel. I completely understand your reluctance to put your admin hat on and please don't think I was asking for that. I value having someone I can ask for objective advice and would never want to put you into that position. Thanks. Justin talk 20:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

EMasonAssoc page for Platinum Grammy Nominated producer Young Yonny

EMasonAssoc page for Young Yonny:

Wanted to contact you in regards to the page for Young Yonny that was deleted at first due to lack of references. Young Yonny is a notable producer, he is grammy nominated and the producer of Trey Songz Feat. Fabolous Say Ahh single. I would like to edit the page with reference so that it can go live.

Thank you

A page with this title has previously been deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

   * 17:45, 20 March 2010 Atama (talk | contribs) deleted "Young Yonny" ‎ (WP:PROD: Nominated for seven days with no objection: Concern was: Non-notable producer, no references. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V.)

EMasonAssoc--EMasonAssoc (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Amber Awards

Dear Atama

I note the Amber Awards article I created has been deleted which I accept and we will as one commentator suggested simply wait until it gains momentum over the coming years to meet notability standards. I wonder whether you could help me with one last suggestion - that was to redirect the Amber Awards page to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Interactive_Media_Association page. The Ambers are sister awards to the long running (now in 17th year) national interactive media Awards of the peak digital body for Australia and there's a brief mention of them in this broader context - which probably suits their current emerging status (now in 2nd year). I don't know how to do this but would really appreciate your help with this. Xxpaulm (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thurop Van Orman

If no histmerge's needed, then deletion is ok. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Right on, I've taken care of that. -- Atama頭 17:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Identity

In case it comes up, and you would like to know my identity so that I can prove that I'm not who User:HFarmer says I am and that I have no COI -- since you're an independent third party, I wouldn't mind providing you proof of who I am. I.e., a phone call, scan of my driver's license, scan of my social security card, scan of my passport, etc (I could even have my ISP give you the name and address associated with my IP address), as well as a full verifiable work and family history, proof of no COI, and why it's important for me to remain anonymous. I just don't want to disclose any personal info to HFarmer or her allies, due to their history of trying to hunt down critics in real life. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to disclose your information to prove your case but it's not necessary. I don't need to know who you are, I only need to know that you don't want your identity public and that you haven't taken any actions to reveal your information on Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 19:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to add, my suggestion is to not respond one way or the other in regards to the accuracy of Hfarmer's "research". If you are who you are indentified as, you don't want them to take an acknowledgment as encouragement to continue to pry into your personal information, and if you aren't that person, denying it might give them reason to look at alternate theories about your identity. Just don't comment on it and let it be uncertain. -- Atama頭 19:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I will simply not acknowledge her when she does that. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do

What should I do with an IP editor who refuses to compromise? Who posted information here attacking me? Am I just supposed to take their activities and not respond?

I appreciated your warning but really what should I do with things like this? Can they post information about me in violation of numerous policies? --Hfarmer (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll notice that revision is deleted as well. You've chosen to go public with your identity, to the extent that you've posted a picture of yourself, your academic history, and a link to your off-wiki biography. Your decision for self-disclosure has the unfortunate side effect that people can learn things about you from simple Google searches or other searches of information. I usually recommend that people refrain from posting personal information for that very reason, even when I ask them to disclose personal connections to clear up COI concerns; they can do so without revealing too much about themselves. By posting information about another editor, you've forced that same state upon them without their decision. I chose to delete the revisions placed by the anonymous editor, not because it was a violation of WP:OUTING (it technically isn't since you've outed yourself) but it was close enough to outing; and also (more importantly) that their reaction to the outing was potentially an unintentional reveal of their own personal information. Overall I just wanted to wipe the slate clean there.

I've looked over Talk:Autogynephilia and I understand that a prolonged exchange between yourself and the other editor could lead you to such levels of frustration that you wanted to see who you were dealing with, and when you felt you had discovered who they were you wanted to expose them. I hope you realize that was wrong, and if you have the urge to take such measures in the future that you choose not to. -- Atama頭 21:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam

Hello Atama, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3.
I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Church Demographics

Hello,

I was wondering if you could reconsider the deletion of "Church Demographics", which you deleted on September 2. You wondered if "church demographics" was even a definition, and if it should just stay under the general term "demographics".

It definitely is different from general demographics! Church demographics exist to assist churches in church planting, church growth, and helps them identify, especially in older mainline denominations, the neighborhood around them, that may have changed in the years since the church was originally established there.

Could you reconsider this? Thanks!

Chuck Salter (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll restore it, any article I delete through a standard PROD is something I'll restore on request, but in this case I feel strongly that the article doesn't belong and I'll be nominating it for deletion after it is restored. You'll have a chance to argue for its inclusion at that time. When the nomination is complete, I'll provide you with a link to the discussion so that you can participate, thank you. -- Atama頭 20:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Marcos Manoles

With some hesitation I am requesting re-instatement of the above. While out of sympathy for the subject's marked intolerance, his importance in the contemporary Greek mentality seems to me uncontestable. This has been achieved by long-term free distribution of the journals (indicated as sources) and by many articles/obituaries in parish magazines----Clive Sweeting

COIN header

I've left a new message about a proposed new header on the project talk page. If you can, please take a look. Thanks! Netalarm^talk 22:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Full testing is up at User:Netalarm/Sandbox. I think it's pretty much done. Netalarm^talk 01:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried it and I like it. It's very easy to use. I'd say go ahead and put it in. If someone objects to it we'll probably know soon enough, but nobody has spoken up about it yet. -- Atama頭 16:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and kind regards

Dear Atama, Wished to thank you for the support vote, but most for the comments that you had given. Each word mattered (believe me). Best and regards, Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 19:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You're most welcome, and congratulations, I was following the discussion and had hoped you'd make it. I'm glad you've made it to the corps. You'll be a full-fledged admin once you get your first sockpuppet vandal stalker, so keep an eye out! -- Atama頭 20:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Will do that :) See you and regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Xyz231

I do think that this[26] IP is a "precursor" to the account(s). Thoughts? Doc9871 (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's very likely. Just as a matter of curiosity, that IP geolocates to Geneva, Switzerland. -- Atama頭 23:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Weird: my geolocate must be off, as I'm getting Toulouse, France[27]... Doc9871 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The one I use is Geobytes, I was turned onto it by other folks at Wikipedia who use it pretty often. I put my own private IP address into both tools, Geobytes said LA, while IP2Location said San Francisco. (Not sure which one is correct since I'm behind a proxy server here at work.) -- Atama頭 00:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's just great (sigh). Hundreds of miles away in both cases. As a non-admin with no "clue" (esp. the mysterious CU, which I'm in awe of), sometimes I'll look at the editing similarities deeply before performing a geolocate (and sometimes just the opposite); but I'm generally trusting the ability to accurately locate IPs less all the time, with cell phones and IP encryption and whatever else is around the corner. Digging into diffs can be better at identifying the problems: good, old-fashioned detective work is... fun. Question: since the IP ceased editing (assuming it's the same user, which I do), is this a case of "abusing multiple accounts"? Or simply the evolution of IP->Bad name->Registered user? I'm truly not sure if it meets the definition: any insight? Thanks for your help, Atama :> Doc9871 (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There are no rules against editing under an IP. That's one of those "rights" that is vigorously defended on Wikipedia, as part of the "anyone can edit" goal. Even once you have a registered account there isn't any rule saying you can't edit under an IP, and it's not uncommon to see edits at some place like ANI where someone edits as an IP that you can be sure has a registered account but wants to remain anonymous (usually while saying something controversial). It also makes things difficult when you appeal to WP:SPI; if you have a registered user and one or more IPs editing an article in a similar manner and you want a Checkuser to determine if they're the same person to prove that they're trying to weasel their way around the three revert rule, they won't do that. The reason being that acknowledging a connection between an IP and an account is a violation of privacy. Only in rare cases will they do it. In such a case, and also in the case of Xyz231, we have to go by behavioral similarities to determine that they're the same person. But yes, it's essentially an evolution of IP -> Bad name -> Registered user. -- Atama頭 15:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Even though I've got the {{Template:UserMandatorySignin}} userbox on my page, and that I was recently accused of "hounding" the IP(s) that I'm certain you're hinting at (at AN/I, right? ;>): I do fully respect and understand the "IP factor" and its considerable importance. Still learning, of course, esp. about the privacy thing! It's when IPs are abused that gets me "rankled", of course only because it's harder to combat vandals, trolls and their socks when they know the IP tricks. Thanks again, Atama :> Doc9871 (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Pop culture is like a box of chocolates

Sorry to open old wounds, but it could have been worse...I could have started humming the intro to Tom's Diner. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That's just evil. "Duh-duh-duh-duh"... Argh. -- Atama頭 00:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Gniniv's Retirement

Thank you so much for the encouraging message. Sometimes it seems like I can't make any headway against the tide. I am probably going to rejoin wikipedia as a new user, but User:Gniniv is permanently retired. I will take your advice when I do rejoin and look at another area of Wikipedia...--Gniniv (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		Thanks for the encouragement! Gniniv (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I am glad to hear it. Wikipedia allows people to abandon an account and start anew per WP:CLEANSTART. I wish you luck, whether you come back here or decide to spend your time elsewhere. -- Atama頭 15:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop threatening and be polite

It has been noticed that you have joined Codf1977 in threatening me, which the Codf1977 has been doing quite sometime. I have already reported him to Admin for his distortion of article and use of language against me. Please stop accusing me of vandalism unless you introspect what I have been doing. Humaliwalay (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See WP:DTTR, Humaliwalay. Especially when using "custom", poorly-spelled warning template "creations". Being polite is great, of course. Assume good faith... Doc9871 (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Atama, related to the above, I've just blocked Humaliwalay for 24 hours. They don't appear to have taken on board the advice or warnings given by Codf1977 or you. Since you're an involved admin I'd welcome your advice, changes to block length, etc. TFOWR 08:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's fair. It's unfortunate that this short block doesn't seem to have gotten through to Humaliwalay because they are just calling the block unjust and accusing you of bias, but we'll see. -- Atama頭 17:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention

I would say more but I do try to be WP:Civil Bellagio99 (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I'm sorry this has been going on for so long, for years now. I hope that this is the end of it but we'll have to see. -- Atama頭 20:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Longevity of longevity

Due to misdirection arising from my confusing signature, I finally discovered and replied to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths. :D Many thanks. Will notify Ryoung122 and based on what he said before it's up to him how to proceed. JJB 23:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, if you two want to have a mediation about it I can reopen the case. -- Atama頭 23:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's on! JJB 18:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help so far, but I must warn you this will be a challenge to even the greatest informal mediator, not to mention yourself, which would be redundant. I believe edit warring has resumed and action should be expedited. JJB 19:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

friendly ping while you're in, but I'll be out for a bit. Looking forward to progress tonight. JJB 21:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm still involved, and had some text prepared but the volume of info on that mediation page has got me scrambling to keep up, so I need to take some time to rewrite what I was going to say. -- Atama頭 23:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, bating my breath. JJB 00:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

AZ8196

See my comment at the bottom of the SPI page. Let me know if you have a problem with any of it before we archive this. Thanks! T. Canens (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, good ideas. Thanks. -- Atama頭 17:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Goldline International CoI Claim

A brand new editor, Chickeecheeze, with no other edits except to this article, suddenly appeared on Goldline International. As with the previous, now dormant editor I had flagged for review, this one edits only to accentuate the positive and minimize the negative. I believe that a PR Firm is editing this article on behalf of Goldline, and has learned and adapted by not using an obvious username for their next single-article editor after the first was found-out. I know I must always AGF, but editors with single-minded opinions and single-interests rarely appear sequentially, quickly, on barely trafficked articles. Abe Froman (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes one of the problems that arises in COI discussions is when an editor won't be open about the COI. I've seen more than a few cases where the behavior of the editor suggested a COI, yet they refused to clarify whether or not they were affiliated with the subject. There's no way to compel a person to answer such questions, since any disclosure of personal information is voluntary, and pushing too hard or getting too specific with questions can be considered outing or some other form of harassment. So you just have to let it go if they won't cooperate. There's nothing preventing you from asking Chickeecheeze whether or not they are affiliated with Goldline directly or has them as a client, but if they deny it or refuse to answer there's little you can do. Generally, the COI is incidental in any case, we only use COI determinations to judge whether or not an editor's actions warrant extra scrutiny or to guide us in a proper response to disruption. When an editor is violating WP:NPOV like some of these editors are (or are getting close to doing), its best to focus on what is wrong with their edits rather than what their affiliations might be. We don't ever block people for violating the COI guideline, but we do block people for continually inserting POV or spamming or violating copyrights. If you notice a great deal of similarity between the nature of their edits or peculiarities in communication, or anything else significant that suggests that multiple accounts are used by the same person, a sockpuppet investigation can be opened as well. -- Atama頭 21:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hello, in my defense, I have never gone back and started using an old user account. I understood that on wiki you can leave at any time and rejoin at any time, and if you would like to rejoin wiki than you do not have to use your old user account. You can simply create a new one. I cannot believe that after the message Beyond My Ken sent to me, and after his report to the administrators that I'm some ridiculous sockpuppet, I can get accused of bad behavior. Look at my old Aj81964444 talk page and you will see that this was nothing more than a simple misunderstanding. I tried to be civil but Beyond my Ken felt otherwise. I removed myself from that account because I was so upset with Ken's message that I decided to be done with wiki. However, I had what you might call a change of heart and decided to rejoin but with a different user name a little more revealing. I am not mad at you and I appreciate what you have done but this situation has stirred me. Thank you and you're too generous, my contributions are small and may be okay but there is just so much work to do it seems. It's not that I don't have faith in the wiki society but there are alot and alot of fascinating events in history that tend to be overlooked. I merely like to shed some light on the forgotten. What I hope for the most for on wiki is to be left alone when it comes to these situations, I honestly do try and avoid confrontation on wiki which keeps me from editing alot of things but that's alright, as a said, history is never ending and never uninteresting, well at least that would be my opinion.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is totally a volunteer gig, and you can certainly come and go as you please. But hopping from account to account is frowned upon. It makes it very difficult to keep track of an editor's history. If you want to change your name, it's usually best to do so at WP:CHU (I did that once, I used to edit as "Atamasama" which was way too long for my liking). If you want to change accounts, there are ways to do so, seen at WP:CLEANSTART. As I said before to you, you haven't been disruptive, and I don't think you've done anything malicious, you just didn't understand the rules. If you do decide to change things again, please either request a different username (that preserves your editing history) or follow the Clean Start instructions. Thanks and I hope you enjoy helping improve the encyclopedia (even small fixes are helpful). -- Atama頭 16:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		We really need all the help we can get at SPI. Thanks so much for helping out! T. Canens (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, might I suggest User:Timotheus Canens/massblock.js, User:Timotheus Canens/spihelper.js and User:Timotheus Canens/massedit.js? You might find these useful :) </spam> T. Canens (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the barnstar. I've noticed that SPI has been getting backlogged a few times so thought I'd help out a bit, and considering I've created enough SPI reports myself it would only be fair to give back. I'll try out those scripts also, thanks agian. -- Atama頭 18:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

SPI case

I have an analysis of the SPI case in response to your question (it runs long but hopefully is easy to follow). I wanted to spell out the results of my investigating. There are differences between the accounts, but also some similarities. Even if there's no connection between the accounts, the unsourced and unexplained fact changes raise some verifiability worries themselves. The seriousness of the issue with the confirmed socks elevates my concern. Thank you for taking the time to look into this. I think most shy away from the complex and long-running SPI cases like this. Shadowjams (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I glanced over it earlier, I'll give it another look later. Just to reiterate, even if the accounts are unrelated, the actions of Miguelg are still troubling to me. I also saw your post at ANI and plan to add to that as well. Thank you for getting back to me. -- Atama頭 18:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Please Restore Night Train (UVA Ultimate Team)

You recently deleted my college ultimate Frisbee team's Wikipedia page - Having just assumed the role of team vice president this year, I would like to update it and keep it as a record book and informal recruiting tool (our team website does link to it) - If there's anything else I need to do to request/help restore the site, please let me know

Thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itoner90 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll restore it, someone had asked for it to be restored earlier but they didn't give me the name of the actual article, and I've deleted so many there is no way I am going to remember the exact name of some article I deleted 5 months ago. :)

On the other hand, I doubt it meets our requirements for notability. I might bring the article to articles for deletion to discuss whether it should be formally deleted. Also, you can't use it as a recruiting tool or record book, Wikipedia is not a free web hosting site. The article can only contain material appropriate for an encyclopedia; factual, verifiable information. If you want a recruiting tool or a record book, keep that information at your team website. If the article is kept, it may be appropriate to link to your team web site from the article, however.

Finally, as the team's vice president, you have a conflict of interest in regards to the article. You aren't forbidden from editing the article, or other articles related to your team, but it is discouraged and if your edits are seen as disruptive you might face sanctions. In particular, try to avoid promoting your team, or trying to improve your team's image, and also be sure not to copy material from any other location (like a school web site or your team's web site). Thanks! -- Atama頭 18:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's business but

While snooping through contribution histories to find out what other Wikipedians are like, I further snoopily peeked at an outing and redaction case you handled this week. I noticed that redacting not only the edit history (which was done) but also the text itself of an edit on 12:18, 1 December 2008, by 173.32.49.208, might need further attention. If I'm mistaken of course just undo this comment! JJB 07:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I did miss it, but that stuff is subtle enough that I don't think it's a problem, also the other person in the conversation neither objected to anything the IP said nor denied it, and none of the stuff posted was an accusation, so I think it's harmless enough. I do appreciate you pointing it out however. -- Atama頭 23:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

COIN follow up

Hi Atama,

It has been some time since I turned to COIN for guidance and since we discussed changes to article Kresimir Chris Kunej and its COI tag. You kind of unoficially mediated the discussion on the talk page (I am very grateful for that). I am fully aware you are very busy and deal with many things, I am just curious how long the opportunity for editors to indicate issues with the article needs to last, and if and when the COI tag can be taken off. All issues indicated thus far seem to have been resolved to an extent, yet an editor still believes tag should remain while I do not. Thank you in advance for your reply. Turqoise127 18:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you must have taken a long and deserved break. I wish to thank you for your truly even-handed and unbiased mediation of the COI tag issue above. While you were gone, another editor who frequents COIN decided to disregard your attempts at fairness, gutted the article (some felt inappropriately) and nominated for AfD. The article was deleted. I am no longer asking you for any help, or advice, I simply felt that you ought to know that maybe there are those who do not respect you or your opinions much within the project. Thank you again.Turqoise127 04:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Simplified English

Hi. I'm just wondering if you could give me some really brief feedback on whether I handled/explained things well, at Simplified English today, and what I could have done better. Edits are: [28], and [29]. Much thanks. (reply here, or at the article's talk). -- Quiddity (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Some advice please

Hi there,

I've been trying to follow your advice of focusing on content rather than the editors and to be honest it has been doing me a lot of good. I find that I'm able to concentrate much better on considering the thrust of argument.

I was annoyed somewhat that Imalbornoz has recommenced his habit of pasting large walls of text from sources to shut down debate. However, I took a minute and actually had a look at some of the sources and then investigated them all thoroughly. I've just spent about 4 hrs going through them and I turned up something interesting. Imalbornoz has been misrepresenting what the source actually says, in some cases quite outrageously so. For example he claims that the Spanish Government calls Gibraltar a colony. Well I had a look at that source and it says no such thing, it refers to Gibraltar as a British Overseas Territory. Not only that but it refers to the self-government of Gibraltar but he claims it calls Gibraltar non self-governing.

Now I'm aware that misrepresenting sources is a serious matter on wikipedia but now I'm in quandary as to how to proceed. I don't as a rule seek admin intervention but in this case I feel I have to. Now I'm not asking you to put your admin hat on but rather give me advice as to how best to take this further. Is this something I should take to Arbitration Enforcement or should I proceed to AN/I? What concerns me is that the arbcom case will be raked up to muddy the waters and the matter won't be investigated properly, or I'll get caught in the backlash. I really am unsure what to do. Regards. Justin talk 21:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Atama, I'm sorry that this issue has come to disturb you again. I would have commented with Justin before in his user page, but he explicitly banned me there about one year ago (and later vandalised my talk page to make it clear).

It's difficult to explain an editor's behaviour (even obsession) in a brief comment, so I'll just give some examples:

• He has entered again the Gibraltar article, warring with other editors [30][31][32].
• He falsely accuses me of "outrageously" (Justin dixit) misinterpreting sources making them say that (e.g.) the Spanish Government says Gibraltar is a "colony" and "non self-governing" when he has found out that they don't. Actually, you can check he is falsely accusing me:

• The source in Spanish which I proposed and which Justin -supposedly- has analysed (the report by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Spain explaining its official position on Gibraltar) shows the G of Spain calling Gibraltar a "colony" in pages 7, 9, 15 (for example) or the Parliament of Spain talking about "the colonial situation" of Gibraltar in page 37.
• You can see in page 14 that the GoS says "Gibraltar is a non self-governing territory ("no autónomo" in Spanish) undergoing the process of decolonisation".

• When I create a new article about a totally different subject (the inventor of epidural anesthesia)... he even comes by and accuses me of using partisan sources!
• The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick has even taken a wikibreak after (again) yet another confrontation with Justin.

I don't know if Justin is obsessed with Gibraltar, with myself & other users, or both. Anyway, I think someone should tell him to stop that behavior or he might be applied discretionary sanctions, as the ArbCom established: "Should Justin A Kuntz return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so."

Please, Atama, tell him something for his own good and for the good of other editors. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Apalon

Dear Atama, You were very kind in the past with taking time to explain that I should create an article about Apalon instead of MoveYourWeb. Apalon has received more press lately and thus the article becomes more notable. Some other editor moved the article from Apalon to Apalon (company) page replacing it with a reference to some village in Burma. In addition there is a suggestion to move article from Apalon to MoveYourWeb which doesn't make much sense because it's Apalon is notable not MoveYourWeb. Can you please take a look at those pages and help sorting it out.--Billystut (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)