User talk:Atama/Archive 4

archives and CoI
I notice you were involved in a recent discussion about archives at the WP:CoI policy. I was wondering if you could please have a look at a couple of the questions I've asked about this that were raised to me by people in the industry: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest Sincerely, Witty Lama 16:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's funny, because I was going to post a reply, then saw Smallbones had a good answer already, then saw you had more questions and considered whether or not to jump in. Now that you've somehow read my mind and asked me I'll respond. :) --  At am a  頭 16:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Prod-2
I noticed you recently added a Prod-2 to a separate company of the U.S. military, citing not enough sources to satisfy WP:CORP. You may be interested in looking at 57th Signal Company (United States) as well. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 21:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice! --  At am a  頭 21:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've started another discussion; you may wish to comment at Articles for deletion/101st Chemical Company (United States). Buckshot06(prof) 20:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Please I don't agree completely with your analysis Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. It's a conflict of interest because if a sockpuppet insert a content which is correct I don't see why the sockpuppet should be blocked (which is a correct action) but all contributions rollbacked also if they are a "neutral" and correct content like interwiki link. User:Retaggio has re-inserted the same content because has judged the actions of Director exaggerated. The user Direktor seems to see phantoms everywhere and seems to have taken a position where every contributions of every phantom is dangerous and should be rollbacked without any analysis. We are working for the quality of Wikipedia and not for personal battles. The action of Direktor seems to have more and more an interest external to the interests of Wikipedia (please see his contributions). Thank you for your support. --Ilario (talk) 09:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't a conflict of interest. It's standard to revert the actions of a sockpuppet of a banned and/or blocked editor. Direktor also stated that if you or anyone else reverted him and reinserted the interwiki links then he wouldn't protest. So what is the problem? Did Direktor go against his word and revert back after Retaggio made the changes? I don't see any merit in your complaints. Please see WP:BAN, where it says, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban." What Direktor did was completely in-line with policy at the English Wikipedia, and frankly I don't care if it would be called vandalism at the Italian Wikipedia, it's not vandalism here. I suggest that you drop the matter. Thank you. --  At am a  頭 21:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely I drop the matter adding something to your conclusion taken from your link: "This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." The interwiki is an helpful link and what Direktor done is not "completely" in line with english policies. A policy should be read entirely and not by sentence. --Ilario (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely correct. They don't have to be deleted. What Direktor did wasn't necessary. But it was certainly allowed. And there was no reason to report him on it. If you or anyone else thinks that the edits were helpful you can revert to put them back, which is what Retaggio did, and Direktor let it be. So nobody did anything wrong, except for the sockpuppet who shouldn't have been editing in the first place. Thanks! --  At am a  頭 02:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

TV Guide's List of the 50 Worst TV Shows of All Time
Boy, I do really hate template messages. I did checked that AFD but from reading it at first I didn't thought this article was included but only the greatest all of all time article. Garion96 (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for templating you but I'm trying to get through all the proposed deletion articles that will expire today. I had to dig through the edit history of the article to find the AfD notice myself so I don't blame you for missing it. --  At am a  頭 19:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought I'm restoring the prod tag, it was added to the AfD improperly as an afterthought and nobody even commented on it. If anything, that just confirms that the deletion would be uncontroversial. --  At am a  頭 19:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for re adding the prod tag, the article is now deleted. Saves me some work in making an AFD nomination. Garion96 (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Quick question
What's the tag you use if something's been copied from some other site? Please respond on my talk page. Thanks, Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Agnieszka Lukasiak
Hi.

Thanks for letting me know about the removal of the proposed deletion of Agnieszka Lukasiak. Apart from the brief mention in the source that you added, do you think that more coverage exists? I couldn't find any, but perhaps it is in other languages. Specifically, do you think that the subject meets the requirements, ie significant coverage in reliable, independent sources?  Chzz  ►  11:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going by WP:CREATIVE, under the 4th criteria (specifically, her work has won significant critical attention). Aside from the link I already provided showing that she won the award for one documentary, another one was featured at the 2002 International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam in 2002, The Nameless War. Forgotten was also featured at the International Women's Film Festival. I don't think she's incredibly notable and I don't think she meets the general notability requirements, but she does seem to meet the more specific inclusion criteria as a filmmaker because of her body of work. If you disagree, go ahead and bring up an AfD, I'd probably argue a "weak keep" but I'm not passionate about the article being kept. Thanks! --  At am a  頭 16:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi; thanks for getting back to me, and the explanation. I agree that it is a bit borderline on notability, but WP:GNG supercedes the various specific guides (as you prob know), so I'll put it to AfD - maybe someone will be able to find something.


 * No problems with leaving me the notice, I don't mind at all - I'd much rather know about it. I only refactored it because I've PRODded about 100 articles (in reviewing Category:Unreviewed new articles), and of course several were de-PRODded, so I put them all into one section on my talk. Absolutely no problem at all. Thanks again,  Chzz  ►  21:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, GNG doesn't supersede anything. Remember, these are inclusion criteria, not exclusion criteria. The whole point of having more specific notability requirements such as WP:ATHLETE or WP:NB is not to give additional hurdles for an article to pass in order for it to be considered notable, but to provide alternative ways of showing notability aside from WP:N. See what it says right at the top of WP:BIO, where it states, "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards." Then again, it also says "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" which I assume keeps inclusionists from using the guideline as a bludgeon in deletion I definitely have no complaints about bringing it to AfD, I welcome other opinions on whether or not she merits inclusion and I'm far from an expert on the notability of filmmakers, but she seems superficially notable to me. Thank you for the notice regarding the AfD (I don't have the article on my watchlist). --  At am a  頭  21:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Harris
It's a reference to the alias Plaxico tried to use after the gun incident; I just added it for the lulz. Mike R (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Lorenzo (singer-writer) (from WP:COIN)
Just letting you know, User:Lorenzo (cantautore) and User:Lorenzo Cappiello have created hoax articles on Lorenzo Cappiello already, with the former being blocked as a sock of the latter. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks. I AGF'd on this guy until TheLetterM pointed out that his user page is in clear English, and that the claims he made about being a singer signed to Warner Bros were provably false. I'm not surprised that this ended this way. --  At am a  頭 20:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just asked Jéské Couriano to block per WP:DUCK as an obvious sock of Cappiello. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your advice. I'll expand on my concerns on Talk:Charles A. Morgan, III, and give User:CAMorgan3rd a week or two before I make any changes to the article.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

FICS Page flag
Atama-san, there is also a flag on the page that DigitalC re-wrote for the International Federation of Sports Chiropractic  (FICS), which says that the page may not meet "notablity guidelines" and could be deleted. The page already went though and passed AfD, as I understand, and I respectfully ask that this flag at least be amended to something more appropriate. Again, as I do have a COI here, I ask that another editor review this matter. Domo. Drsjpdc (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Doo itashimashite. :) I'll look at it, a quick go-over shows at least limited notability established but I'll see if it can be improved. The big thing that helps is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the organization. --  At am a  頭 23:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, the page has not passed an AfD. It failed AfD and then a new article was written. However a speedy deletion nomination following that was turned down. DigitalC (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I wondered about that, I had heard that the article was deleted (from a WP:COIN notice) and was surprised at first to see that it was still around. That clears that up! --  At am a  頭 17:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hai, domo....Wakarimashita...Sorry, I thought the new one had gone through AfD... regardless, the sources again raise the issue of what is "reliable"...  as one can see from the discussion page, one editor thinks that even an Australian University's article is not reliable, presumably, though I think he did not articulate that, because they have a department of Chiropractic ...  and Chiropractic  journals, and publications  not acceptable, when similar medical medical publications are accepted all the time for medical articles. This is the double standard which which I have a problem. I guess the crux of the issue, is when does the "notability" flag come off? And by whom? Drsjpdc (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, school newspapers rarely meet the standards placed at WP:RS. The notability flag can be removed if the article can be shown to meet the requirements I mentioned above. I'm working on that as I have time. Nobody is yet arguing for its deletion, though, so I wouldn't worry about it for now. --  At am a  頭 19:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a school newspaper, it was the University itself - a highly regarded University at that. If you have the time, your eyes would be appreciated over there though. DigitalC (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Drsjpdc, you have repeatedly raised an issue in regards to a double standard about Chiropractic journals not being acceptable. I have yet to see this occur, especially if the journal actually has a high academic standard (not JVSR for example). I haven't seen a double standard. In regards to Dynamic Chiropractic meeting WP:RS, consensus has previously shown it to be reliable, but consensus can change. I doubt it will in this case, but Bongo is certainly within his rights to raise the issue of reliability. The notability tag comes off when there is consensus that the article has met WP:N. So far there is only the input of myself and Bongo, and a suspicious account that has no other edits. There is no rush, as there is no deadline to meet. DigitalC (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

User:UkFaith
ArbCom is about to suspend the indefinite block (see their talk page for conditions). User:John Vandenberg tells me that you are prepared to mentor the above user. If this remains so, could you please confirm your acceptance at User talk:UkFaith? Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 12:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops
Sorry about removing your comment when I posted. I have no clue how that happened and didn't realize until I saw your edit summary on my watchlist. cheers. - Spaceman  Spiff  01:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello!
Ya like goats, Atama? Icewedge (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't dislike them, I would say that I don't really have an opinion. I do like feta though. --  At am a  頭 04:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I happen to like goats a lot.

Ya like to party, Atama?? Icewedge (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will not party with a goat. I will not party on a boat. (Well, actually I have been at a couple of great parties on boats, but no goats in sight.) --  At am a  頭 16:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please rank the following items in terms of importance: Nails, Henry II of Castile, C++, Roy Sullivan, Oklahoma, -0. Icewedge (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks like it would be a rough RfA question. Nails would be most important because they hold my house together. C++ would be next, because as prominent a programming language as it is, I don't doubt that Wikipedia or portions of the Wiki software were written with it; without it there might not be a Wikipedia and I wouldn't be posting this. -0 is probably next in importance, because I'm sure that C++ uses it now and again. Roy Sullivan would be next, because I can only imagine that someone bearing that much misfortune had to be drawing trouble away from others (like a human lightning rod). Of slightly less importance is Henry II, who as an usurping king had brought misfortune to others. Of least importance is Oklahoma, because, well, it's Oklahoma. --  At am a  頭 21:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you know... I didn't! Icewedge (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC) ( some text yanked from Template:Did you know, gotta remain GFDL compliant =\ )
 * ... that according to Hindu mythology, Balipratipada commemorates the victory of the god Vishnu in his dwarf incarnation Vamana, defeating demon king Bali, and pushing him to the nether world?
 * I wasn't aware. I haven't studied Hinduism much beyond the Ramayana. I'm something of a fan of Hanuman (who tried to eat the sun because he thought it was a mango). --  At am a  頭 22:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ya like mangos, Atama? Icewedge (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Mango Madness is my favorite flavor of Snapple! --  At am a  頭 23:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ya listen to The Killers ever, Atama? Icewedge (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I like some of their songs. Somebody Told Me was probably the first one I heard on the radio, and I liked that. I don't care for Mr. Brightside, for some reason that song is annoying to me, but When You Were Young is good (I first heard that song when I played Guitar Hero III). --  At am a  頭 16:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What would you say is your 2nd favorite movie currently? Icewedge (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a tough one. My favorite movie is Dark City, aside from that I'm not sure that I have a second favorite. I tend to judge films based on rewatchability, if I enjoyed something the first time I saw it but not on subsequent viewings I don't consider it a "favorite". Maybe Office Space? That's one I've watched many times and never got tired of. --  At am a  頭 16:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you say that you are well described by the phrase "patriotic hero of the proletariat"? Icewedge (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not a hero. Not even a sandwich. --  At am a  頭 00:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well met, Atama. Well met indeed. See ya around :) Icewedge (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Later, Wedgie! --  At am a  頭 02:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why head?
Why do you have "head" in Chinese next to your username in your signature? Netalarm talk  05:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion at ANI
If you're willing to get involved at Outlaw motorcycle club, I would not only welcome that but happily step away from the whole thing to reduce potential friction. I have complete faith in you to ensure that it's a balanced result. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks DC, would you mind if I ask your advice on one thing or another on your talk page? You've been involved in the discussion in that article for awhile and might have some insights that I'd miss. I won't bother you unless I have to though. --  At am a  頭 16:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll offer whatever insight I can. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In regard to your list of disputes, note that the article isn't Motorcycle club but Outlaw motorcycle club. The terms "club" and "gang" are only used interchangeably in the specific context of "outlaw" or "1%er" clubs. This article was split off from Motorcycle club quite recently. No points for guessing who was responsible for that. I think your fourth point could be better worded - I believe even Dbratland admits that the alternate use of the term outlaw is a minority view, so the article as it reads now (in large part to Dbratland's editing) is biased toward that minority definition. I'll jump in at the article talk page if someone says something about me that can't be ignored, but otherwise I'll just watch and post here if required. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Recently, Dbratland had asked what would trump WP:NPOV. I think the answer to that is WP:UNDUE. I do understand your point and it will be brought up. Thanks! --  At am a  頭 17:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Splitting the articles was the result of two separate informal requests for comment: Talk:Motorcycle_club andTalk:Motorcycle_club.  My proposed revisions were put on workpages and were looked at by members of the motorcycling project and others.  The change had consensus, and nobody had a problem with saying "outlaw does not necessarily mean criminal" right at the top.   had been wanting to split them for a long time but was vetoed by a pro-MC editor.  Perceptions vary.


 * I don't want to have to go on defending myself on article talk pages. Why not create an RFC about me?  These editors could go to town listing all the proof they have that I'm such a supposedly biased editor, and then I would be free to defend myself.  Is it a technical problem?  If HooperBandP and Delicious carbuncle need help writng an RFC, help can be found.--Dbratland (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, for Atama's sake, let's not drag this onto their talk page as well. I'm staying away from both the article and talk page so that my presence isn't an issue. I will comment here if I feel something may have been missed or misunderstood, but that doesn't mean you need to follow with a comment of your own. My comment did not attack you or misrepresent your actions. You are welcome to post your comments on my talk page, but please let's leave Atama's user talk page out of this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Got it. You just go right ahead and run around attacking me anyplace you like and don't worry. --Dbratland (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 18:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Help with FICS Japanese reference
Atama-san: when the World Congress of Chiropractic was in Tokyo in 1997, (June 6,7,8) the Minister of Health of Japan opened the proceedings (yes I was there too), and both the WFC and the International Federation of Sports Chiropractic were co-sponsors of the congress, which was held under the aegis of the WHO for the first time.... this HAD to be in the Japanese papers at the time.... but I admit to illiteracy in Japanese. can you help me find something in the Tokyo papers? Dozo? Drsjpdc (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately my knowledge of Japanese is very limited. The language is particularly difficult to read and write, and being able to read a newspaper article written in Japanese is far beyond my abilities. The best I could come up with as a reference was this, which is at a new site that has editorial oversight but isn't written by journalists, I'm not sure if it counts as a reliable source. I tried! --  At am a  頭 02:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Appreciate your attempt... thought you were fluent. Good try, I as able to use that as a reference for the Congress  in Tokyo anyway...  I did find three GOOD THIRD party  major media references, and added them:  Mexico City's El Excelsior; North Jersey's Bergen Record, and caracas' El Universal...  don't you think the  silly "notability" flag can now come off"?

Д-р СДжП,ДС 23:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I claim level 2 competency in my userboxes, which means I have more than a basic understanding but far from a fluent level (which would probably be level 4, 5, or of course "N" (native)). Anyway, yeah with those sources I'll remove the tag so that nobody will claim that it was removed by someone with a conflict of interest. Also I'll go through the older sources and flesh them out a bit so that there are more than just links in the References section. --  At am a  頭 23:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * i des YO! domo arigato gozaimashita!

Д-р СДжП,ДС 03:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your work over at the FICS page. It has certainly improved the article. DigitalC (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! --  At am a  頭 19:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wave strategy
I notice that you requested this page's deletion by WP:PROD, and the page was duly deleted. This is to notify you that the article has been requested for restoration at WP:DRV today and was duly restored. You may wish to list it at WP:AFD. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have done so. :) --  At am a  頭 16:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: sockpuppet report
7Oceans is just trying to retaliate for his/her own sockpuppet report. Note how I wasn't even mentioned in the evidence section. Anyways surprise surprise, we're all cleared. -Reconsider the static (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Elijah White
I've removed the db tag, since speedy isn't really appropriate for User space except for ads. I have, however, nowiki'ed the categories, as those don't belong in user space. You may want to take this to MfD, though. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sheesh, I knew that and just spaced on it. Consider me chastised. I do think there's a bigger problem with the editor anyway, and brought it up with WP:ANI. --  At am a  頭 23:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I sent MaC Renegade to afd, since he isn't listening about speedy deletes. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI Nipples
I really don't want to know what the barnstar would look like, but thanks for the laughs! DMacks (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning on Edit War
Good afternoon, Atama. For the last years I have been contributing with the articles about Brazilian history, as you can see on my profile and on my discussion page. However, I decided to help and improve the section about Brazilian history in the article about Brazil. The older text was full os mistakes or was sourced only with website information. I simply replaced it with a much improved text sourced with the works of the most renowned Brazilian (Sérgio Buarque de Holanda, José Murilo de Carvalho, Pedro Calmon, Heitor Lyra, Hélio Vianna, etc...) and British (Charles R. Boxer and Roderick J. Barman) historians. I have not finished yet, as I have worked only on the section about colonial and imperial Brazil (there still the republican era to write) and I am being accused by the user Opinoso of being a monarchist and of being biased. It is unbelievable that book sources about the subject is not good enough and a website is! And I took great care to use many different authors (as you can see on the bibliography). What can I do about it? Thank you very much, - --Lecen (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a note, I left the same warning on Opinoso's talk page, so I'm not taking either person's side in the issue. I see from the talk page of the article that there has been quite a dispute between the two of you. The discussion did not lead to a resolution, on the contrary it led to an edit war which is not the proper way to handle things. WP:DR shows how disputes should be handled. My suggestion to you two is to seek a third party's opinion. WP:3O shows how to request a third opinion, and I would hope that an outside view may allow you two to come to a compromise. --  At am a  頭 15:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI - Leatherstocking indefinitely blocked
Technical evidence has come forwards indicating that Leatherstocking is a sockpuppet of the Lyndon LaRouche organization sockpuppet farm. I have indefinitely blocked him. More info on ANI and LS's talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ugh, months of mediation for nothing. I appreciate the notice. --  At am a  頭 22:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Gee, two barnstars at once!


 * Thanks Will. I appreciate it. I can't say that I regret doing the mediation, I suppose anything you do with the best intentions is worth doing. And I include you in that as well, your patience during the whole process was commendable. --  At am a  頭 05:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar of Clue
I saw your posts at AN/I about Brazil. Barn-stars seem to be going out of style, so I'm bringing them back with you! :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Yeah, I know, not the most correct barnstar, but I like the way it looks.
 * Thank you. :) --  At am a  頭 05:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI
You are mentioned a few posts later. You might want to take a peek at the prior posts as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.225.36 (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh I avoid that site if I can help it. But I guess if I'm mentioned there I've "made it". For what that's worth. Not that I can say they're wrong about me being gullible though. --  At am a  頭 05:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hai Dozo
Atama-san, you have not always agreed with me, but I have to say, you have always been objective and eminently fair in your analyses, I have to admit. Perhaps you would weigh in on a matter that is causing a lot of trouble for me now.

Perhaps the first article in undertook to write was an article about my father (I soon was advised about the COI issue). He held a process patent for sustained release medication delivery and we always assumed that thus, he was the  first to invent this.

During his fight to get compensated for his patent, he was attacked by "big pharma" and by people he thought were friends. One of them he always avowed planted a guy in his factory who was subsequently caught by the FDA enforcement people, counterfeiting some name brand medications. Because it was my dad's facility, he took the heat. At one point the prosecutors offered him probation in lieu of jail if he took a plea. He fired his lawyer, and went back before the Judge, where the Prosecutors suddenly forgot their promise, and dad tried to withdraw the plea. The Judge disallowed it and he spent one year in federal prison for this, all to spare his family more aggravation. He was a good man, and a good father. He made another successful business in another field after the rubble of this part of his life.

I NEVER dreamed that all of that would be brought out 40+ years later, and compared to Jeffrey Dahmer in an AfD to keep an article that I would prefer to let die.

The Standards for Bios say that for a criminal to be "notable" the crime has to not only be "major" (this clearly was NOT), but the individual must have been "notable" for something else too.

Although I did advocate hard for his notability based on the patent, at the last moment, I saw that they found another patent (which I am sure he never knew about) that did in fact use a very similar process to accomplish what dad's patent did.

Thus, he was in fact not first in the patent, and thus not "notable" there; thus the "crime" cannot itself be used to keep this article now in : []

I would appreciate your input.

Domo,

Д-р СДжП,ДС 15:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, Atama, I saw you were following Articles for deletion/Howard Press (3rd nomination) some, and I would suggest that this AfD is totally screwy. These are the exact kinds of articles that the policies Otterathome wields so well are meant to address.  There really is no sourcing for most of this stuff, aside from the two small NY times articles which wouldn't create notability for those criminal events, and those adding the criminal/litigation stuff appear to be just as "involved" in some way as the article creator.  I think we got into trouble in this article when people were interpreting the patents without any other sources to vouch for what some thought was evidence of notability due to existence of patents/applications, etc.  As you know I'm a pretty fervent inclusionist much of the time, but when the system is abused, we can't ignore it, in my opinion.--Milowent (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would argue for deletion myself. I agree with people who say it's a mess. But I'm staying away from the discussion to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Drsjpdc didn't specifically ask me to go to the article to ask for deletion, but if I did that someone might see his message above as canvassing. But I'll think about it, maybe it would be best if I did anyway. --  At am a  頭 19:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think its fair to disclose whatever you think needs to be disclosed, and then add your opinion if you'd like. The AfD is getting too long to attract many new voices at this point.--Milowent (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Domo. I think that as usual, you did this the right way, and found the courage to voice your opinion. As you apparently noted, I left it entirely up to you. I did NOT ask you to vote a certain way. You COULD have voted against me. I just felt you would see what was right and do what you did. I shall try to emulate your style in the future. Д-р СДжП,ДС 19:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

EnergyToday has Sunrise Powerlink question
Atama, thank you for your note. I'm a bit confused as to where to respond to you, so I hope this is the right place and venue. I noticed that the San Diego Gas & Electric page is very outdated. The Sunrise Powerlink is a very large and controversial infrastructure project and is the company's largest and most important to ratepayers. Omitting any mention of Sunrise Powerlink does a disservice to readers who wish to know more about San Diego gas & Electric. Is there any way the content I added can be replaced and/or modified to bring it up to Wikipeda standards? Thank you very much, Energytoday (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Atama, thanks for your prompt response! I agree we don't want the information to sound promotional, just up-to-date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Energytoday (talk • contribs) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

NAC note
I noticed that at ANI you had said that "Per WP:NAC, it was fine." with regards to the Simspons AFD closure. In fact, NAC lists SNOW closures as inappropriate. Just FYI (I didn't know this either till I looked). Cheers. Abecedare (talk)
 * You're right. WP:SK says that an "early closure" per WP:SNOW is allowed (though discouraged) but I would assume that non-admin closures would be exempt from that allowance, so I went ahead and struck out my arguments on ANI. Thanks for the correction. :) --  At am a  頭 00:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw your correction at ANI, but honestly it was not my intention to induce you to do that. Personally, I am not in favor of arguments like,
 * A: This closure was wrong because sub-caluse 1 of section 2 of WP:NAC says so.
 * B: NAC is not a policy. Its just an essay.
 * C: So is Snow ...
 * D: blah blah
 * so I was not trying go down that path myself. I much prefer discussions that are based on the spirit and logic that motivated the policies and guidelines in the first place. For example, if say Japan is nominated for AFD, I don't care if an IP closes it without a single!vote being cast (I know one can say that's due to WP:IAR, but IAR can be deleted and that logic would still hold!).
 * In this case, given that the AFD was open for only 11 hours, <10 people had commented on this popular topic (inlcuding 2 who favored deletion, no policy based argument had been made for keeping, nor any attempts made to source the article or establish its notability (through independent sources), and given that "episodes and characters" are a hot-button issue on wikipedia, a SNOW close even by an admin would have been unjustified IMO. Just my 2c. FWIW, my preference is to find 1-2 more independent sources to show that the topic is notable, and then to retain this article. Abecedare (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand. My original point was that it was a bad idea. I've seen numerous AfDs where a half a dozen people "vote" one way, then someone comes along and posts some really excellent argument and/or discovery and are followed by a dozen who agree (including a few of the original people changing their minds). I only argued that technically it wasn't against policy. There are a lot of things that a person shouldn't do that aren't against policy. :) --  At am a  頭 02:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Overuse of WP:Point
WP:POINT requires disruption to the encyclopedia. Filing a sockpuppet request against a sockpuppet when the prior request was closed without conclusion does not appear to be pointy, and in any case, you should WP:AGF that my motive is what I said it was - to get PennySeven removed from the recall request for not being a user in good standing. If I were to prove my point experimentally as opposed to making it via process, I would start removing all of the stuff that PennySeven put in articles about cost accounting - a topic I know nothing about, in an attempt to edit war and get PennySeven blocked so that he would no longer be in good standing and would be removed from the request. Certainly, you can tell the difference. The overuse of WP:POINT to mean "disagress with me about how to approach disagreemens," is really beneath. I request that you retract. Hipocrite (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasting time with a useless sockpuppet report that you know very well isn't going to resolve anything is what I would consider to be disruptive. I don't see good faith in your actions, so I won't assume it. Saying that you would choose a different disruptive behavior if you truly wished to make a point isn't very compelling. As WP:POINT states, "Discussion is the preferred means for articulating problems with policies or the way they are implemented." If you don't like the way the older SPI was concluded you should discuss matters with the administrator who closed the report. What you have done fits in perfectly with the examples given in the guideline, it could even be added as another example.
 * If someone closes a sockpuppet investigation with a conclusion you disagree with...
 * do discuss the matter with the administrator who closed the report.
 * do not open another report immediately afterward with no additional evidence to get a different result.
 * In addition, I stated that you were being "pointy" which means that you were at the least on the verge of violating WP:POINT. I stand by what I've said. --  At am a  頭 21:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On another note, I have looked at PennySeven's recent contributions and I do agree that this is a troublesome user. I just don't agree with making another sockpuppet report. --  At am a  頭 21:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wash my hands of it, and you. When P7 scalps a good admin, it's on your head. Period. Hipocrite (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really have anyone I would call a "friend" on Wikipedia (for whatever reason) but Sarek of Vulcan is at least someone I have a great deal of respect for, and I certainly despise what PennySeven is trying to do at Administrator review/SarekOfVulcan. That has a lot to do with my opinion that this is a troublesome user. If you wanted to bring up a complaint at ANI or elsewhere I'd support you. --  At am a  頭 21:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

reverted your edit
Hey, I have reverted your edit at Aryan Khan (Afghan actor) because he is not the son of Shahrukh Khan or Guri Khan. Aryan Khan is another actor from Afghanistan. (Ketabtoon (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Thank you for that, I had the two confused. :) --  At am a  頭 22:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a problem. It happens when you have so many biographies from all over the world. (Ketabtoon (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Ray Joseph Cormier
Thank you for your participation in the Afd discussion of the subject. According to Wikipedia article traffic statistics, 128 Wikipedians viewed the article since the Afd tag but only 7 offered a comment and vote.

This in no way can be considered ¨canvassing¨ but since Wikipedia holds independent, reliable sources in such high regard as the basis for any article, I have to set the record straight. Without exercising any critical thought, you based your comment on someone else´s false impressions.

You might not be a Canadian, but The Vancouver Sun, The Edmonton Journal, The Calgary Herald, The Ottawa Citizen, Le Droit, Le Soliel, The Kansas City Times, Maclean´s Magazine and others not listed, ARE NOT as KillerChihuahua says, ¨His sources are small newspapers¨, but the major dailies in Canada´s major Cities spread over several years from coast to coast, including The Whitehorse Star in the Yukon.

Just to accept ¨If you take a look, the "news" seems to be mostly Caused a fuss at the local courthouse and got arrested for Disorderly Conduct kind of thing.¨ as a reflection of the reality, and basing your conclusion on that, is unworthy of a serious Wikipedian. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it should be based on fact, not emotion. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Nehara Pieris
Hello, Atama … FYI, the AfD tag has been removed from twice in the past 24 hours, once by, and once by a WP:SPA anon from Sri Lanka (the most recent of several from the 124.43.xxx.xxx range) … it looks like Articles for deletion/Nehara Pieris will have to be relisted to get more feedback, but I thought that as the nom, I should notify you in case you missed the changes on your Watchlist (I have got to get a life! :-) … Happy Editing! &mdash;  16:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) --  At am a  頭 06:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Westbang
The PC World review is a copy of the MacWorld review so I removed it. Joe Chill (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, I should have looked closer at it. That stands to reason because both magazines have the same publisher. --  At am a  頭 21:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Help in various tasks
Hey there! Thank you for responding at WP:COI/N. I have registered 2.5 years ago to Wikipedia, but I had a Wikibreak of over one year. It made me to forget alot of things. I am Very familiar with reverting vandalism, and fairly familiar with CSD, but still I have alot to learn again (like COI). I was wondering that you seem like very experienced user, so is it okay to ask you if I have questions. I need to learn everything again as I just recently came back.  Ilyushka88   talk  21:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ask me anything you wish, and don't worry about asking too much. I don't mind at all. And welcome back! --  At am a  頭 21:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! happy editing.  Ilyushka88   talk  21:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies
Sorry I did not get back to you on the RFA where you requested more input prior to you posting. To be more specific it is a general feeling of community involvement, the editor does not do the community oriented things such as editing talk pages RFAs and the like that I would like to see from an admin. RP459 (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Cold Stone
Atama, I wanted to thank you for reading the Cold Stone Creamery page and writing some neutral responses to the back-and-forth between editor Jeremy and myself. However, I really must protest his actions. He came to that page and made major edits, some of them listing incorrect information, with no citations. When I pointed this out, rather than correct the information or apologize, he defended the rights of editors to edit pages whenever they saw fit - but he went and changed his incorrect information with more incorrect information, and changed the citation, which was incorrect as well. When I pointed this out, he lectured me on wiki etiquette and threatened that if I didn't stop my thread he would call in the admins on me. I have every right to debate a point in the discussion page of an article, and I was doing no editing of the main article myself, at all. I am not going to back down from a threat when I know another editor is wrong.

Well, he obviously "reported" me. He posted something on my personal page about being in the admin file now and that I am "required to respond" I clicked on the link but I just see a list of people and things and I am not one of them. It seems at least three editors showed up on the Cold Stone page to "moderate" but no one has said I have done anything wrong. Now, do i have a bad report somewhere because of this? I looked at his page and he seems to be a well decorated wiki editor, but I don't think that gives anyone carte blanche in denouncing other editors on a whim and running to wiki moderators and filling reports on innocent people like myself. What is the penalty for threatening another editor with calling in moderators and then the moderators finding nothing wrong with your actions?

I want a guarantee from someone that there isn't a negative report on me out there in the wiki administrative area.

I would like someone to review what he posted on my personal page, that combined with what he wrote on the Cold Stone page, it is clearly intimidation and is nothing short of, "don't question me or argue with me or I will report you. I don't have to answer to you, and you have to be nice to me or you get reported."

Thanks again. Akuvar (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Jam hot
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation in Gibraltar
Hi Atama, I'm back and ready to take part in the process. Best regards and sorry for the delay --Ecemaml (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Iwaterpolo
Hi, can you help me and look at this edit. Most of it is incredibly nice, a new distribution is added to Wikipedia. But then there is the link to and plug for SOCR. I'm just not sure what to say. PDBailey (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the SOCR reference, since he has provided a different reference for the information already given. I've also cleaned up a couple of other things in the article. --  At am a  頭 18:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Victor I. Petrik
An article that you have been involved in editing, Victor I. Petrik, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kinoq (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Your expertise is required here
Hi there Atama, I created a page about Dr Zhongjun Cao and it has attracted the deletion tag almost immediatly. Dr Zhongjun Cao was a victim of a Curry bashing murder in Melbourne Australia last year. The attack attracted worldwide media attention plus condemnation. There is also a continuing saga where the family of Dr Zhongjun Cao are conducting a petition at what they obviously see as the leniency of the sentencings. This in no way influences my .... hmm, enthusiasm for having this article here. I actually only discovered the petition part when expanding the article as it's still in it's infancy if you like. Could you please pop over and have a look and feel free to comment on it and see what you think. Thanks (Jimmy Heat (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

Clarification on citations with possible COI
Regarding this revision, I did include several citations, one of which I had contributed to. You removed this citation arguing "Author has a self proclaimed COI [with this publication]". According to the COI self-citation guidelines, self-citation is allowed, as long as it is appropriate and not excessive. Could you please clarify your reasoning? You are absolutely correct that there were 2 citations for the specific fact that was referenced. I was certainly not trying to promote my work, but gave what I thought was an appropriate broad NPOV citation. If eliminating self-citations is a standard Wikipedia policy, this is certainly fine. Thanks. Iwaterpolo (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I very much appreciate the information you're adding to Wikipedia. It's helpful and I would hate for it to stop, and I would argue against anyone who would want to prevent you from continuing to improve the encyclopedia. But the volume of citations you have done to SOCR could be considered "excessive". In cases where it's not explicitly necessary (in that you can reference something other than SOCR, as you've done in the negative multinomial distribution article) I suggest that you not do so, or at least that you suggest it on the talk page of the article first. --  At am a  頭 20:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention, thank you for declaring your affiliation when you created the article. That will go a long way toward helping people assume that your edits are done in good faith (I believe that they are). --  At am a  頭 20:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Jwesley78

 * Thank you. I appreciate your skillful assistance.  (The cursing was a response to Jwesley's repeated uncivil attacks; everyone has their breaking point.) I hope User:Jwesley78 will be respecting this.  I've never really understood the Japanese non-confrontational dispute method, but I think, looking at your edits here, on Jwesley78's talk page, etc., I've just witnessed it in action, and expect it to see it work.  Thank you for that as well.  --98.248.113.11 (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'm actually not Japanese, I just studied it for a number of years in high school. My dispute method is something I've learned on Wikipedia from reading policies and making mistakes. Thank you for your kind words. --  At am a  頭 21:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not being "uncivil". I'd like somebody to be specific about where I went wrong.  The only thing I know I've done wrong is state "vandalism" in the comments of my edits on the IP's talk page. Other than that I've tried to be friendly. Here is the state I left the user's talk page in. Here is the state I left the Groupon talk page.  Where on these pages was I uncivil?  Jwesley 78 21:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We actually have a civility policy, WP:CIVIL, that tries to show what is meant by uncivil behavior. Often when people say "uncivil" on Wikipedia, that doesn't mean raging like a maniac (which a lack of civility often equates to in the "real world"), it just means violating what is laid out in that policy and similar behavior. Uncivil behavior can include inappropriate edit summaries (specifically mentioned in the policy) and reverting somebody who is blanking their user talk page, see WP:WARNING where it states that "repeatedly restoring warnings does nothing but antagonize users". You've said on the IP's talk page that "any non-constructive edit" can be considered vandalism, but that's absolutely untrue. Reading WP:VAN, it is strongly stated that the edits must be deliberately disruptive, and says, "Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism." The policy tries to make it very clear that the edits that the IP were making were not vandalism.


 * You've made mistakes, and that's okay. I screw up all the time myself on Wikipedia. Everyone is allowed to make mistakes now and again. While you have a legitimate dispute with the IP in regards to content at the Groupon article, labeling the edits as vandalism and even going so far as to report to the vandalism noticeboard was wrong to do. If I was the one who had done that, I would apologize and move on, which is what I suggest you do as well. --  At am a  頭 21:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Atama, four times (123 and 4) he has added a "Final Warning" to my talk page. I would call that uncivil, if for no other reason that violating the 3 revert rule.  Jwesley 78 21:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And for an IP, he sure knows his way around a Wikipedia AFD discussion!  Jwesley 78 22:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, I wasn't aware of that. That's certainly not good. Technically, that's enough to get a person blocked. Just a note to you, Jwesley78, even tendentious repeated additions of warnings aren't vandalism but they're certainly bad. Again, you should both just walk away here, or somebody is going to get blocked eventually. :( And as to knowing their way around AfDs, the funny thing about IP editors is that you never know how much experience they have. The IP could have been editing for many years, there's no way to trace it. There's no reason to assume anything nefarious about that. --  At am a  頭 22:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I added a final warning ONCE, and immediately changed it to be non-final. Much later, I added a second (non-template) final warning. But I should not have given him a taste of his own medicine. I followed you to AFD, by the way. And no, I'm not new here. I've opened up an ANI, as J won't walk away or stop the abuse. --98.248.113.11 (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. --  At am a  頭 23:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi there. Just for my curiosity, I read a few months back that you thought about running for admin. Are you still thinking about that? Regards  So Why  18:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was. I've been a proposed deletion patroller for awhile now and I think I have enough experience that if I was given adminship I could start helping clear out expired prods. I worry about my main article space contributions, I am not great at expanding articles. I've tried getting both iPhone and World of Warcraft to GA and haven't succeeded yet. But if nominated I'd run, certainly. --  At am a  頭 20:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI I would support that nomination...  RP459 (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, yes, content work is usually sought at AFD although I know from my experience that it's not vital. When I ran for admin, I had not a single article credit and only started some writing after several months on the "job". You could try DYK to show that you know how to write articles but it's, as I said, not vital imho. Your approach to speedy and proposed deletion shows that you are aware that content improvement is preferable to deletion and should be done whenever possible. Also, you have more than 2000 deleted contributions, probably almost all of them in the article main space(?). Also, you have an interest and experience in both dispute resolution and WP:COI/N (a place that needs more admins iirc). I would offer to review you and to nominate you if I find nothing concerning. Regards  So Why  20:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done a lot of work with proposed deletions (adding prod-2 tags to show support, double-checking their eligibility, adding more justification to deletion) and generally those articles get deleted. I also edited many World of Warcraft-related articles when I was a new editor that were later deleted (rightfully so, though it was painful at the time to see them go). Thank you for your offer and I would very much welcome a review and a nomination if you feel it is merited. (Oh, and I have been wanting to bluelink Yokohama Foreign General Cemetery and submit it for DYK but I haven't gotten to that yet.) --  At am a  頭 21:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

 SoWhy would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then [ contact SoWhy] to accept or decline the nomination. A page for your nomination at Requests for adminship/Atama. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. Go for it whenever you feel ready and if you have any questions, just ask. Regards  So Why  21:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (Intervention from talk page stalker) - Go for it! I too was very hesitant, having only ever started 3 articles, and never having improved anything above sourced stub level; but having declared it up front, so far (touch wood) no one has opposed me because of lack of article work. I think the RfA community has got less demanding in this respect. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

iPod Touch images discussion
In case you're interested, I'm having a friendly discussion with User:Seraphimblade about File:Ipod Touch 1st Generation.JPG and File:IPod Touch 2.0.png. They claim fair use on the grounds that a photograph or rendering without the icons would not convey enough information to serve its purpose, and have been nominated for deletion. I think that the renderings IPod Touch 1G.svg are 2G are as good as we're going to get. Personally, I'm starting to favor deletion, but I wanted for everyone to get a chance to weigh in first. Bear in mind that it will probably set a precedent for what we can do at iPhone, and good luck with your RfA! HereToHelp (talk to me) 05:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I would thank you...
Noticing your RfA reminded me of our interaction at Talk:World of Warcraft, and the thought occured to me that I should thank you for your kind words towards me! We do need more friendship amongst editors after all, and the discussions with all editors ended happily at the end of the discussion. Best of luck with your RfA! --Taelus (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Mitchell Muncy
I wikified the Mitchell Muncy article that you created as part of WP:NEWT and added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Gib
Hi, Atama. I think we are losing some focus in the capture of Gibraltar discussion in the Gibraltar main article. In part, it is surely my fault, as I thought we had an agreement on what to put in the History of Gibraltar article and edited it - which unfortunately has fired up a new line of discussion. I think it would be very nice if you could come by and tried to make some neutral recap or something. Thank you very much indeed for your time. I think we really need a mediator to cool things down and help all of us focus on content and sources. --Imalbornoz (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I think that we'll be able to reach a consensus in the History main article much more easily than in the Gibraltar article, as we don't have the constraint of space there, and almost all (maybe even all) facts are more or less accepted by all parts (it's more an issue with which terms to use). Thanks a lot for your effort (I think it is very much needed), I guess we are not an easy gang to mediate with. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

COI
So, from this edit and other policies I can infer that I can add articles about myself, family members, close friends, companies that I work for, not state the COI and as long as I appear largely productive, that is all fine. Don't you think the policy should say that more explicitly, that COI is really a minor offense and is really adds nothing over other Wikipedia policies? I think that would be much more helpful for other editors when looking at COI edits and trying to figure out what to do. Answer: just keep the articles in good shape and don't worry about it. PDBailey (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:COI is not a policy. It is a set of guidelines designed to help identify editors who may have a conflict of interest and has suggestions on how an editor with a conflict of interest may participate in an article when other editors object to the edits they've made. As the guideline says, "If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias." If an editor with a COI causes no disruption, there's little reason to insist that they stop editing an article. While assisting people at the COI noticeboard, I've seen a few cases where editors not only were productive at articles that presented a conflict of interest, but they improved articles from stubs to GAs. --  At am a  頭 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add, that an editor who edits disruptively with an undisclosed COI can get a lot of negative attention drawn to them. When such an editor is "found out", other editors lose good faith and I usually see their disruptions dealt with more harshly. It's not that a COI doesn't matter, but it's only when that COI is coupled with disruption that it becomes a problem. --  At am a  頭 17:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. I guess that is clear from statements like, "If you contribute to Wikipedia on behalf of clients, you owe it to both them and the encyclopedia to make very sure you understand the standards for content here, and do not insert promotional material." PDBailey (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember using edit summaries
I'd hate to oppose your RFA for that PS: If you forget them, turn on the "warn me if I forget the summary" feature in your preferences :-) Regards  So  Why  16:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's called bumping the Enter key while trying to type. I hope having a bad keyboard doesn't hurt me! (The keyboard I have is the kind with an enter key that's twice as tall as a normal one.) --  At am a  頭 16:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I did change my preferences to stop that, I should have done that a long time ago because that's not the first time I goofed up like that. Thanks for the tip! --  At am a  頭 16:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We learn every day, my padawan.
 * Glad I could remind you of something. I know the situation you describe, the preferences option and the qSig user script both saved me countless times when I accidentally was about to save a page. :-) Regards  So Why  17:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NEWT
Hi Atama,

Like other editors I'm somewhat unhappy with the current WP:NEWT project, though I can see that it's based on good intentions. Further I believe you participated in WP:NEWT in a spirit of good faith and as such I do not believe that participation should prevent the Wikipedia from being denied the excellent Administrator that you undoubtedly would make. As such I will not be joining those who are changing their !votes at your RfA. Crafty (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Loosely in regards to NEWT, can I ask if you intend to fix the BLP, Mitchell Muncy, you created as a test? Its a bit disturbing to me that you chose to intentionally write a poor article about a living person.  I understand the importance of treating new users and their article attempts with respect, but playing around with BLPs seems a poor experiment. Anyways, I didn't want to stubbify it further if you intended to fix the issue.  Thanks and happy editing! Shell   babelfish 20:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do intend to fix it up. It the first BLP I created (and I think the second article that I created from scratch, rather than expanding an existing stub). I redlinked it some time ago in the Banned Books Week article that uses Muncy as a reference and had planned for awhile to turn it blue. I'll try to clean it up somewhat today if I can, thanks. --  At am a  頭 20:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Awesome - thanks! Shell  babelfish 21:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I wanted to express my admiration for you in regards to WP:NEWT - it was a refreshingly original idea, and creative thinking about ways to diagnose probable problems at Wikipedia, particularly ones that draw out more hard data and good anecdotes, are definitely to be commended. It seems this particular project went off the rails because of particular problems that were unforseen - it is hard for experienced editors to simulate decent contributions by inexperienced ones, so as a result some participants erred on the side of disruption. Also, a dynamic evolved where editors competed to embarass new page patrollers, which was very unfortunate. But I want to encourage you to keep trying - we should be WP:BOLD in working to improve Wikipedia, and the type of creative spark that creates things like WP:NEWT is rare and should not be allowed to fail. Best, Ray  Talk 06:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ray, I appreciate that. If someone were to ask me what my worst fault was as a Wikipedian, I'd say that I'm not bold enough. As I get more experience, though, I've been trying to improve that. --  At am a  頭 08:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
Or maybe that should be condolences. :) In any case, I'm glad the NEWT thing did not sink your RFA.  I believe that you had good intentions going in, and I don't think it was a major lapse in judgment.  Gigs (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's not official yet but barring some disaster in the next half hour or so I think it will pass. I appreciate your note about NEWT, after the comments of others and much thought I personally think that NEWT was a mistake with good intentions (both the project, and my involvement in the project). The one good thing about NEWT is that I think I really did feel what it was like for a bold new editor to have his efforts undone and I have more empathy for them (I was very much not bold as a newbie and my mistakes were minor and didn't draw much attention). NEWT also has increased my interest in NPP, and I think I might take a hand at it (keeping in mind what I learned from NEWT). But I've turned my attention away from NEWT itself (which seems to have died now anyway). Again, thanks for your kind words. --  At am a  頭 22:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats! あたまごいいですよ！　 7  23:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Doomo arigatoo, Nana-san. :) I appreciate it. --  At am a  頭 23:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Mazel Tov!
On your appointment as an Administrator! May you always Protect the Wrong Version. Crafty (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll do my best. :) Thanks Crafty! --  At am a  頭 00:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yatta! Impressive RFA, I'm glad it turned out the way it did, and I hope you'll have time to keep up your participation at RFA too, we need you! - Dank (push to talk) 00:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I will, thanks. :) --  At am a  頭 00:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Congaratulations. :)- Sinneed  01:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome RFA, Congratz! RP459 (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! Well deserved. Good fortune going ahead, and may your finger never slip over the deletion button at the main page or the sandbox. Ray Talk 02:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sinn and RP and Ray! --  At am a  頭 06:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on passing the RFA and welcome to SWAT?. I am very sorry to see that the NEWT thing had this impact but I think you will find it comforting though that no one could find any reason to oppose you apart from this minor involvement which I think shows that your contributions are otherwise excellent. So have fun with your new buttons and if you have any questions at all on adminship, do not hesitate to ask me at any time. Regards  So Why  10:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the shirt, and everything else! (And why is there a bullseye on the back of it?) --  At am a  頭 10:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * *whisper* "Damn, he noticed, what we do, what we do?!" Err...that's nothing to worry about. It's just the official adminship logo for the back of shirts! Can't have that ol' mop on everything! "phew! That was close..." Regards  So Why  11:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. Four days in, I find having a mop has changed my view of things much more than I expected - and it is even harder to retain some semblance of a life IRL! JohnCD (talk) 11:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, I wish you the best of luck and experiences as you move forward. --Taelus (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit late, but well done! Ged UK  08:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you all, I appreciate your support, and I promise to use the tools with care (I'll try not to hit my thumb with a hammer). --  At am a  頭 15:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed this; I would have galdly supported! -- Avi (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from me too! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate the support from both of you, thank you. :) --  At am a  頭 20:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar
Would you mind dropping by the Gibraltar page, where the compromise text from Friday is now being ignored, a new text being proposed and three Spanish editors standing around congratulating one another and ignoring everyone else. Justin talk 21:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been reading it and trying to figure out how to jump in. I'll comment shortly. :) --  At am a  頭 21:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

You might also care to look at History of Gibraltar and the tendentious edits going on there, such as changing the start of the 2nd World War from 1939 to 1940, and removing sources claiming they don't support the edit but not explaining why. You may also care to note my comment on Encemaml's talk page that I'm not going to get into a conflict with him anymore. The edits today seem to me to be deliberately disruptive to get a rise. Justin talk 22:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you RtS. :) --  At am a  頭 16:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Request
Is there anything you can do to intervene with Ecemaml?

Yesterday he was changing the date of the start of WW2. Today he is adding goat herders as notable people from Gibraltar. In both cases edit warring to keep them. Justin talk 00:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm supposed to stay impartial as a mediator. If it has gotten to the point where an editor is being disruptive then mediation might have to be stopped. I've watchlisted the History article and I'll take a look to see if Ecemaml has been violating the 3RR rule. --  At am a  頭 00:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK thats not a problem, I really wasn't asking you to take sides, I guess I didn't express myself too well. More of a request to remind all editors that in agreeing to mediation we agreed not to disrupt the article.
 * Today its the Gibraltar article and now Cremallera has just reverted, I wouldn't care but now they're edit warring to kept text riddled with English and Grammar errors. I really do think this is now getting disruptive and they're starting to ignore what is being said on the talk page.  No strike that, they are ignoring the talk page.
 * Would you mind awfully asking a neutral admin to look at the last couple of days activities? For now I'm going to take a 2 day wikibreak as I kinda feel they're deliberately trying to wind me up and I do have a temper.  Justin talk 00:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a bad idea, taking a break. I'll try to see that things don't blow up in the next couple of days because of anything anyone does. --  At am a  頭 00:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, can I beg a favour, with your new found admin powers I'd be grateful if you'd lock my talk and user pages till Friday eve. Regards, Justin talk 00:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm hesitant to fully-protect either one. For a talk page, it's very rare to do more than semi-protection and only when there's evidence of heavy vandalism. I see a few messages from Ecemaml that you've removed from your talk page recently but with you being away I don't know that there will be a reason for him to leave you more messages until you return (they seem to be in response to things you've said and done recently). I see no messages on your talk page from new or anonymous editors, and nothing approaching vandalism. Your user page hasn't been edited by anyone but yourself for over a year, and that was only to add or fix barnstars (which I assume you didn't object to). As a new admin I'm hesitant to be bold with the tools, and WP:PP suggests being careful about protecting user talk pages. --  At am a  頭 01:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Regards, Justin talk 08:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Advice
Hi Atama, I'm not coming here to ask you to watch any fellow editor. I don't wish to write a complain here, even if I see above many statements that I consider as slanderous (for example, the malicious statement about me trying to change the start of the WWII... it's pretty obvious that in a chronology of the history of Gibraltar where nothing happened until 1940 it can be used as starting point for the description of a period... misleading? well it could be, but I've always argued my editions explaining why I consider that 1940 is a better starting point than 1939 for describing the events happened in the town during the WWII; what is really annoying is that any edition is twisted just to pretend I'm an unfair editor). Sorry, finally I complained ;-)

Well, what I wanted to know is how the issue with the list of notable people from Gibraltar. Unlike the issue you're mediating in (in which I think that different interpretations of the same issues could be used and therefore a conflict arises and sort of middle point is needed) I'm totally convinced of the fairness of my editions. I think that I've provided solid arguments in the talk page. As I've explained, we don't have different articles for the town of Gibraltar and for the political entity that currently is established in the town, so there is no reason to amputate the former periods of the history to have a list of notable people from Gibraltar (I mean, I would list Osceola as a notable person from Florida, but I wouldn't pretend he's an American subject —well, in fact I don't know if he was considered an American subject). I'm not asking your direct involvement, but some advice on how to handle this specific item. Should I ask for an RFC? Or issue a POV warning?

On the other hand, I would ask your involvement in two issues. I consider the blocking as unfair, as it keeps an edition that has been heavily questioned in the talk page? I think that a NPOV is absolutely needed. On the other hand, I'd like to ask to all the involved people (including me, of course, I'm not been possibly a saint) their adherence to WP:NPA. In my personal case, it's really annoying to put up with constant mentions to my nationality, my alleged collusion with a Government, my editions being ridiculous, having orchestrated a disruptive campaign against I don't yet whom, my bad faith, me using sockpuppets, being followed around to articles such as Spain (you can see the history)...

Well, I don't mean to bore you more (especially considering my far from perfect English) :-) Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC) PS: should I ask for a check user verification on myself? It's pretty sad to prove my "innocence" but it seems the only way to prove I'm not sockpuppeting...


 * Hi Atama, thank you for your advice (and don't worry about the late response; this summer I was for two months at hospital... I couldn't be very active in wikipedia, that is, I perfectly understand that there's a real life out there, especially considering that long week-ends are not that usual in the States :-)). On the other hand, I'd like to ask you to have a look at the discussion currently going on in the ANI board with regard to the Gibraltar articles). Of course not related to the content issue but to what I've listed as a persistent series of personal attacks (see the unindented section here). One of your fellow administrators has dismissed the whole issue and has asked to ask for third party opinions. I see it sensible with regard to the content issue (in that case, IMHO a very silly issue... would it be a controversial edition to add afro-american guys to a list of notable guys born in Alabama?), but not with the sort of personal attacks I think I undergo again and again. What should I do? Should I behave in the same way? As I've said many times, describing one edition as POV is something unavoidable. However, persistently accusing someone of bad faith, of disruptive edition, of vandalism, persistent mistreatment of my editions or misquotation of them, does not seem to me a fair way of behaving. I don't intend that Justin, Gibnews and me became close friends. It's not possibly possible, but I can't understand how "constructive edition" is requested when the other parties are not respected at all (obviously my POV; you, as third-party has your own). I found especially upsetting the constant invention of editions I've never done (such as that stupid story about the beginning of the WWII, something that in spite of having been explained again and again, is maliciously used whenever is needed to damage my reputation as editor). Have you got any advice with regard to this (and sorry for my awful English)? Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Peacemaker
Thanks very much Atama. You may want to retract now though, as I seem to have restoked some of the fires. :) Oops. Ah well, wasn't peacemaker used as a name for a missile? :0 ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you certainly tried and I commend you for it. I still stand by the barnstar even if you're "interjecting yourself" too much. --  At am a  頭 21:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Very kind of you. It turns out the Peacemaker is a bomber and the Peacekeeper is the missile (nuclear). Go figure. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

California Burrito Co.
Your solution sounds fine to me. Thanks for the explanation. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Finding Past Deleted Pages
Atama, Is there a way I can retrieve (if only for my own review) pages that have been deleted? Thanks, DTPCucurbita (I don't have a user page set up yet) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DTPCucurbita (talk • contribs) 01:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The ability to review deleted content is reserved for administrators. There is a page where you can request that an article be userfied, and a list of administrators who will help you with that process. I could even do it for you, though I haven't done it before (it would be an interesting learning experience for me). --  At am a  頭 01:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Back on November 21 your Personality Disorder history notes were 'Dewikifying "fixed fantasy"; deleted article'. I will would be grateful if you userfy the "Fixed Fantasy" page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DTPCucurbita (talk • contribs) 03:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That article was deleted through the proposed deletion process. That process will delete an article with a tag that has held for 7 days with no objections. If anyone objects to the deletion of the article before those 7 days are over then the proposed deletion is invalid (proposed deletions must be uncontroversial and uncontested). If anyone wants the article restored after it is deleted, it can be restored on request. Did you want me to just restore the article back the way it was? I'd be happy to do so if that's what you'd like. --  At am a  頭 03:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be great if you would restore the article (and the link to it on Personality Disorder). Google Scholar has references to "Fixed Fantasy" on pep-web.org but I have to get a subscription to see if the article can be appropriately supported.  Many thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DTPCucurbita (talk • contribs) 05:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard
You speedied two of the pages, but their AfD is still open. You might want to close that.  Them From  Space  23:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, you posted this a few seconds before I did so. :p --  At am a  頭 23:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI action
Hello Atama, I see you commented recently on ANI and took action regarding another report there. Perhaps you could have a look at, regarding recent behavior by and ? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar Again
Sorry to do this but I am getting fed up with every disagreement being turned into a personal attack based on a bad faith resumption. If this doesn't stop I will be withdrawing from the informal mediation. Justin talk 13:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we had an edit conflict as I did not read your (Atama) wrapup before posting mine; however we seem to be saying much the same thing. --Gibnews (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that's the case, your message was posted 3 minutes after mine. But I'm glad you did so, it ties in perfectly. I asked people to just go with the compromised text, and you spelled out the text itself, that's great. :) --  At am a  頭 18:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Plaxico
Hey, I didn't mean to give you a hard time about the Plaxico essay. I see where you're coming from; I guess it was mostly the WP:PLAXICO redirect that got me a bit uncomfortable, like maybe we were overdoing it. Anyhow, just wanted to apologize if my comment came across as harsh - I know you do good work here. Happy editing. :) MastCell Talk 00:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, I don't think you said anything offensive or even incorrect. But I appreciate your note anyway. :) --  At am a  頭

Great News!!!
Unable to resist bacon's temptations, rogue editors have kicked off the Bacon Challenge 2010 before the New Year even starts! This is a fun and collegial event and all are welcome. There are many non-pork articles for editors who enjoy some sizzle, but object to or don't like messing with pig products. This year's event also includes a Bacon WikiCup 2010 for those who may want to keep score and enjoy engaging in friendly competition. Given the critical importance of this subject matter, I know you will want to participate, so remember to sign up today and get started A.S.A.P.

Hi Atama. I was hoping to forestall this craziness until the new year, but several editors have pushed it forward ahead of time. On the off chance you have a desire to participate, I thought I'd drop this notice by. ALL ARE WELCOME!!! The more the merrier. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Not about bacon
...but if you're able to move on at Alford plea? Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Hi Atama, unfortunatelly the real life knocked on my wikipedian door and I have to take a compulsory wikibreak (my wife is pregnant and had a severe backache, so I had to take care of the whole family... it seems that she's better now). I'm back now and try to restart the discussion in Gibraltar. Thank you for your understanding. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't explained well. I do have one child and waiting for the second ;-) --Ecemaml (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar's Mediation
Hi Atama, this is Cremallera. I've left a notice in EyeSerene's (the Admin who protected Gibraltar-related articles) user page asking him to speak with you regarding the current debate held in Gibraltar's talk page. I do think that we've reached an impasse and communication is faltering. A third opinion could be helpful, in my opinion. Moreover, the protection of the articles is bound to the outcome of mediation, so I thought it was appropriate. Thanks for your time. Cremallera (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there! EyeSerene answered my notice here. Let me just state that I appreciate your effort as a mediator. It has to be a complex task. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just try to use common sense and some dispute resolution skills I've learned from this site. --  At am a  頭 22:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hows that going, Atama? Please, remember to lift the protection in the History of Gibraltar's article as well. Both Gibraltar-related articles were blocked on equal grounds and with identical time horizons. ありがとうございました!!! Cremallera (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * D'oh, thanks for the reminder. And I'll remember to remove the protection template also (last time the appropriately-named DumbBOT did it for me). --  At am a  頭 18:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I am a little "mad cow-witted" lately, so I can't precisely complain. Hasta la vista! Cremallera (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor request for help.
Hello newish-admin-person. :) Hope your new tools and work are going well.

I have an admin-thing. I think. Talk:Human Rights Foundation has an archive Talk:Human Rights Foundation /Archive 1. Note the space before the slash in the archive name. If I understand correctly, the archive will be sort-of lost in user space, as the archive of a talk page of a user name Human Rights Foundation and that it needs to be moved. I don't think I can do that, as a mere mortal and I know I can't tell for sure if it is in fact wrong.

NP if you don't have time or interest, I don't think this is a disastrous problem, but I thought of "What admin have I not plagued recently?" and you came to mind. :) Either way, all the best, and thanks for doing the admin thing.  -  Sinneed  19:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MOVE all you need is an autoconfirmed account, so you can do it yourself. But no big deal, I can do it. The only time you need an admin to move a page is if the page you are moving to already exists, in which case that page must be deleted before you can move to it. I've done the move so all should be well now. Now, what I also did was delete the misspelled archive talk page after fixing everything that linked to it, which you couldn't have done, so I guess it was best that I did it anyway. :) -  At am a  頭 21:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Moves I have done, but I twitch every time. Spooky things, article moves.  Thank you! :) -  Sinneed  21:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't done many, and I hope I didn't screw this one up (I don't think I did, I checked that it had a history and everything). --  At am a  頭 21:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked it and it looked correct to me. History appears intact, the link from the actual talk page works.  Thanks again.-  Sinneed  21:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Provocation on Gibraltar
How long has it been unprotected? See. Justin talk 22:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam


RFC in Gibraltar
Hi Atama, how does the process work? Are you asking for comments or any of the involved people may ask for them? Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

signature
Hi Atama, I wasn't aware there has to be a link to the user page. Can you please show me how to add a link to the signature? Dr. Loosmark 21:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just like you would do a normal link. You could for example use Dr. Loosmark  which would result in  Dr. Loosmark . Regards  So  Why  21:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Dr. Loosmark  22:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Novelos
Hi Atama - re: the whole Novelos thing, the AFD seems to be attracting a number of SPAs from a dial-up provider located (ironically) close to the subject company's offices. It's one thing if they are just simply trying to vote-stack or COI-vote or commit vote fraud by dialing up multiple times - but when I see their last IP edit removing a number of our delete !votes here it really starts to worry me. I almost didn't notice that until I realized that my comment was gone. I've reverted, and warned the re-factoring editor, and tagged the SPA edits, but I am just wondering if anything else needs to be done? I recall (perhaps only on RFAs or such) that we sometimes put a header at the top of a page making sure that people aren't replying to canvassing or something similar. Is there anything we should add to this page to make it known that we have already received the "keep" comments of people who are likely affiliated with the company and we won't accept any more? Thanks  7  03:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's already passed the 7 day mark so hopefully an uninvolved admin will close it soon. However, if you happen to know if there is a template for that warning box at the top that I was mentioning (says something like "if you were told to come here to vote then dont") could you please let me know.  Thanks.   7  05:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh - Not a ballot - thanks. 7  07:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about the SPAs, in fact, they only emphasize the problem with the article. It's nominated for deletion with the added complaint that it's part of a promotional campaign, and then IPs appear saying that it shouldn't be deleted. Every established editor has asked for it to be deleted. It's about as clear-cut a deletion result as you'll ever see. --  At am a  頭 07:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  7  07:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks
MrKIA11 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mediation on History of terrorism
You were willing to mediate this case see Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-21/History of terrorism please reopen the mediation case as the same editors are still involved in the same slow revert war. If you are willing to do so (and have reopened the case), or mediate a new case, please indicate your consent at Talk:History of terrorism. If not let me know and I'll open a new case. -- PBS (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Apple Inc./iOS task force
-- NerdyScienceDude :)  (click here to talk to me) 00:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy Report
A summary of the community's comments on our WP:Edit warring policy will be featured in the Policy Report in next Monday's Signpost, and you're invited to participate. Monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Conduct policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009, and it may help to look at previous policy surveys at WT:SOCK, WT:CIVILITY or WT:U. There's a little more information at WT:Edit warring. I'm not watchlisting here, so if you have questions, feel free to ask there or at my talk page. Thanks for your time. - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar again
Hi Atama, sorry to bother you again with this issue. I'm facing a problem (again) with regard to edit warring. It's related to History of Gibraltar. I've argued that a specific section of the article is biased (I explain why I think so in here). Gibnews, which obviously thinks that the current version is neutral, keeps on removing the POV tag I've introduced in the disputed section. I'd like to know what I should do. I've issued a complain in the WP:AN3, but I don't know whether, provided that there is no actual 3RR, it's better to directly talk to an admin (you're right now the only one I've talked to) or if the alert was the proper procedure. Best regards and, again, sorry to bother again --Ecemaml (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Gib removed the tag twice. You've actually had the same number of reverts, so I think that reporting him to AN3 wasn't wise. Since the both of you are guilty of perpetuating the edit war, if any action is taken it would be to block the both of you. Frankly, while you are correct that an edit war is ongoing I wouldn't expect an administrator to take action. My suggestion to you is to discuss why you feel the POV tag belongs, and do so at Talk:History of Gibraltar where the POV tag is already being discussed by other editors. Honestly, that POV tag doesn't belong in the section anyway because it's an article tag, not a section tag, and tags like that which aren't accompanied by discussion aren't helpful. Those tags are supposed to warn the reader that there are concerns about the material, but if you don't outline what those concerns are the tags are meaningless.


 * Basically, what I'm saying is:
 * You are both just as guilty in the edit war.
 * That specific tag shouldn't be used.
 * Your concerns should be brought up on the talk page, not the article.
 * I'll probably chime in too at that talk page, so don't worry about anyone "ganging up" on you. That's not a guarantee that I'll agree with you, though. :) --  At am a  頭 22:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I almost forgot! Before reporting Gib to the 3RR noticeboard, you should have warned him that he was engaged in an edit war, and waited for his next revert, then if he made another revert you should have also notified him that he was being reported. That's a requirement as noted at WP:AN3. Assuming you had 1 revert in 24 hours and he had 6 of them, your complaint may have been dismissed just on those grounds. Just keep this in mind if you want to report someone for engaging in an edit war again. --  At am a  頭 22:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, you've been very helpful (believe or not)! Although you're right in most of your reprimands, there's ony point I don't agree with you. I didn't posted in the section you mention since, as I described in my "complain", the issue was being discussed in another section. I can't see any reason to move the discussion. But again, thank you for you advice. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I did see that you had mentioned something a day ago in the "Endless paragraph" section, but it wasn't clear. I'd suggest something along the lines of, "I have placed the POV tag in this section because of..." and then explain exactly what you object to. I mostly see you objecting to Gibnews removing the tag, not explaining your insertion of it. But regardless, there's a section specifically discussing the POV tag while you were replacing it, and you should have engaged the other editors there rather than continuing to insert it. I'm just trying to give you advice, because as I said before you are putting yourself in danger of a block just as much as Gib is when you do that. At least Gib tried to justify himself on the talk page (while also almost calling you a vandal, which I reprimanded him for). --  At am a  頭 22:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "you should have engaged the other editors there rather than continuing to insert it". Yes, you're right, provided that I'd know that such a section existed. Mind that I opened a section on the issue with the title "Unsupported and POV edit on the closure of the fence", so I thought it was evident and self-explanaitory. Anyway, thanks again --Ecemaml (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, as you've been so kind (possibly too kind :-)) to spend some minutes of your time, I'll ask another question related to WP:BRD. I've also taken part in another outbreak of edit warring (very stupid, I'm afraid) in Demographics of Gibraltar with regard to some statistics. Well, Justin claims that I can't add such information on the grounds of WP:BRD. However, such a "standard" only works with my editions, not with Justin's (as happens in the History of Gibraltar issue I'm mentioning, where the disputed statement was introduced by Justin some days ago). --Ecemaml (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Justin being a hypocrite, telling you to stop reverting people as he's reverting you? Of course he is. That's part of the problem with edit wars, unless you have one person working against a number of other editors to oppose consensus, you generally have more than one person at fault. I've commented on that article's talk page. --  At am a  頭 23:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all I don't claim you can't add things based on BRD. Nor is it a double standard.  When my edit was reverted, I went straight to the talk page to initiate a discussion, its a lone paragraph above Ecemaml's POV rant.  I then ignored his POV rant, assuming it was a language confusion and explained it further, then after receiving no further objection or comment put it back in the article.  So I'm mystified why today it is blown up again as POV issue?
 * BRD is a cycle to avoid edit wars, rather rather reverting the point is to take the issue to talk to discuss a proposed change to achieve a consensus about whether to add it.
 * So just to make the point, I followed the BRD cycle, Ecemaml does not, so I do not consider that in any way to be hypocritical. I also told him repeatedly to use the talk page to avoid edit wars, so reverting changes which IMHO don't improve the article is reasonable.  I only make changes or reverts where I disagree with the change and always leave an edit summary to explain why.  I don't make a habit of changing edits that are constructive simply because of who makes them and consider the fuss made any time I object to a change as an attempt to bully me into leaving the articles.  So I do not consider I'm being hypocritical and that I consider a personal attack.  Justin talk 23:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To ask someone to not revert, while making a revert, I don't see how that's not hypocritical. I'm sorry if you see it as a personal attack, but it's not meant to be one, your behavior is hypocritical. Now, was Ecemaml being hypocritical for reporting Gibnews at the edit war noticeboard when he was in that edit war himself? That was also hypocritical. I don't mean it as a personal indictment, but to say that it's not enough to ask people not to engage in an edit war, you should do so yourself.


 * The generally accepted procedure, as you've correctly pointed out, is to be bold, and if someone reverts you, don't revert back, but engage in discussion. The question is, if you revert someone, and they revert back their changes anyway, do you revert again? No, you shouldn't, because by doing so you're turning it into an edit war. I've been in that situation myself, and I'll just leave the changes in while the edit is being discussed, because I don't like to do that myself.


 * Ecemaml has acknowledged that what he did was wrong. He said what he had done was "very stupid" (which I don't totally agree with, it was just a mistake). I will say that you're better at trying to use the talk page rather than reverting, and I do commend you for that. --  At am a  頭 23:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * With an inexperienced editor I would agree with you, however, when we're talking about an experienced editor who should know better and who'll ignore attempts to initiate a discussion in talk to simply revert. What are we left with if you don't agree with a change and they won't discuss it.  Or worse insist they're right and you're wrong.  So no I'm not being hypocritical, I find it difficult to see articles on my watchlist changed for the poorer (yes that is subjective) by an editor who isn't prepared to discuss his changes.
 * And with respect I've seen Ecemaml agree his behaviour was wrong and then come back and do it all again. Try looking at his block log for instance.  Justin talk 23:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If Ecemaml violates 3RR after all this, I'll block him myself. As to your other question, if an editor won't discuss a change, you involve dispute resolution (a third opinion can often help if it's just you and one other person). If they won't respond to anything you try, that's generally when administrators get involved. --  At am a  頭 00:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that has also been tried and dismissed as a content dispute. Regards, Justin talk 00:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

talkback
--It&#39;s my Junior year in High School! (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Chris

Confronting views
Hi, Atama. I am aware that we are probably swamping you with work lately (I swear I'll let you enjoy Christmas Eve). Sorry about that, but could you keep a watchful eye at the Self-governing colony article, please? Here's the history, and here's the talk page. A slight intervention from time to time could help in preventing Justin or myself indulging in uncivil behaviour.

Thanks in advance. Cremallera (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Congrats
Hey Atama, congratulations on your Admin status and thanks for participating in the recent discussion on the ANI noticeboard. Your calm and fair approach to each situation is really appreciated. All the Best!-- — Kbob • Talk  • 13:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate it. The one thing I've learned after becoming an admin is that it really isn't a big deal. I've blocked a couple of people, and I'm now deleting proposed deletions instead of just supporting them, but other than that nothing is different. --  At am a  頭 23:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi Atama. In reply to your point about CSD tagging I tried hanging around at the top of the new pages list. I can sometimes get to csd tag an article but usually by the time I have read through the article and pressed the buttons for a csd tag I find someone else has already tagged for exactly the same thing. I've had this many times in the past. I just don't see the point in trying to increase my speed at csd tagging to a level where I don't think I can give the article proper consideration. So it looks like my csd tagging will continue to add up at a slow rate, as and when I find appropriate articles. I will always try to do the best I can. Polargeo (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In my RfA, I was sure to mention that I planned on working in areas that I had a lot of experience in (proposed deletions being the main one, since I had dealt with over 1,000 of them before I was an admin). Other areas where I have less experience, I said I might ease into them after having the mop for awhile. If you'd taken that approach with CSDs (or decide now that you'll do that) I would have gone to a weak support. I'd even switch now if that's what you decided to do, but I don't think that would have a dramatic impact on your RfA. --  At am a  頭 22:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

For info
I've started an RFC as the first stage in dispute resolution on Gibraltar based articles. I've asked for outside and independent reviews of the NPOV aspects of the articles, together with a review of the talk pages. See Talk:Self-governing_colony Regards. Justin talk 21:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD
Hi Atama, you had some previous involvement with this article, and the discussion could do with an extra pair of eyes: Articles for deletion/Kevin R. D. Shepherd. Best, -- JN 466  17:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

National Rural Letter Carriers' Association
Good afternoon, Atama-

Would you kindly take a look at this article, which I've tagged for COI as the main contributor has disclosed he's an official of said union. I've periodically trimmed some of the more obvious slant to restore a semblance of NPOV, but it still relies mainly on self-published cites and remains problematic. Having your input here would be helpful and appreciated. Thanks,  JGHowes   talk  20:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

History of Terrorism
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner but I edit rarely nowadays and just generally revert haberstr vandalism to history of terrorism. In this case would mediation be appropriate? as haberstr action have been recognised as vandalism but the article is such low priority I am the only who keeps an eye on it. If you do feel mediation would be the best choice feel free to leave me a message and we can take a look at the process next time I'm on. Sherzo (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Seasons greetings, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Justin talk 23:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Justin, a Merry Christmas to you too, and I hope that your New Year is a happy one. :) --  At am a  頭 23:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

More iPhone criticism
No, there isn't another persistent nut hell-bent on getting a criticism section. I agree with our rationale about article structure, but I couldn't help noticing that both iPod and Macintosh (a FA!) have such sections. That bothers me. Does this mean that those articles should be brought into line, or is it just a different approach that works better (or is already established) in some places? There have been several people polting asking with iPhone has not crit section, and I think that we should have a clear, consistent answer. Happy Holidays, HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Both articles have tags associated with each section (even the FA Macintosh article). That's the basic problem with such sections, they tend to draw controversy and complaints like dungheaps draw flies. My personal opinion, based off of my interpretation of WP:STRUCTURE, is that criticism sections are necessary evils at times; a dumping ground for certain pieces of information that should be integrated throughout the rest of the article. I think that certain articles, like films, TV shows, or even products could have a Reception section to show how the subject was "rated". That's not appropriate for an article about a line of technology like the iPhone because such items tend to have a constant stream of commentary rather than a single spate of reception at its release. --  At am a  頭 00:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense. I'm going to try to improve the Mac's section, to see if anything fits into the gigantic history section. Also, what do you think iPhone needs to be considered for GA? It's been nominated twice and marginally failed both times. HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly I don't have a lot of faith in the last evaluator for GA. Some of his comments made no sense, and when challenged he brushed them off (this is just what I remember, I haven't dug up the evaluation for awhile). Another problem is that it seems like the GA nominations have coincided with major releases, when the article was being flooded with new editors destabilizing the content and introducing all sorts of problems, kind of like having a home inspector show up to your house right after a party.


 * Recently, WP:TECH evaluated the article and gave it a "C" rating in quality (the only project to currently declare that it failed a "B"), with the comment that the "referencing and citation criteria are not met". The criteria states the requirement that, "It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited." I'm honestly not sure how it fails in this case, if anything it is over-referenced (nearly 200 citations) and you might ask the Wikiproject or Airplaneman specifically how it failed that criterion. Maybe that will give a little insight into what needs to be fixed (maybe it actually does have too many references?). --  At am a  頭 01:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that I look at it, most of the Macintosh criticisms can be added to the hardware or software sections, and tagged with fact. I'll make an inquiry to WP:TECH. And, seeing how June seems to be iPhone month, getting GA status in the next few months seems prudent; I'll let you know when I want to make a go of it. Thanks for your input. HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So over at Macintosh I noticed that some dates included the day (23 December, 2009) while others were less specific (December 2009; late 2009). Do you any opinion on this, how precise the dates should be? HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If a specific date is known and applicable it should be used (especially if sourced). If a date range is to be specified and the range spans more than one month I'd recommend not using specific dates. Other than that, I don't know that it matters a lot. I looked over WP:DATE but it seems that anything more specific than "December 2009" isn't required. --  At am a  頭 01:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Kripalu

 * I'd very much like continued discussion re alleged COI on relevant notice board. Please don't, however, post on my talk page, unless in your view, narrowly appropriate.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks
  My RFA →→→  <div style=" border: outset 1px DimGray; background-color: DimGray; padding: 2px 2px 2px 2px; "> <div style=" border: inset 2px white; background-color: #f5f5f5; padding: 10px; color: black; "> Dear Atama, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which failed with a final result of (40/19/12).

Thank you for your participation in my RfA which I withdrew after concerns of my knowledge of policy. Special thanks are owed to Coffee, who defended me throughout and whom I cannot thank enough for the nomination; to 2over0 for being supportive and helpful; to A Stop at Willoughby for the thorough, thoughtful and articulate support rationale; to IP69.226.103.13 for maintaining composure and for a pleasant interaction on my talk page and, last but not least, to Juliancolton who was good enough to close the RfA at my request and, frankly, because an editor whom I respect so much found the time to support me! If the need for more admins at the main page is still apparent in a few months, I may try again. Thank you all for a relatively drama-free RfA and for providing me with much material from which to learn from my mistakes. You're all welcome to drop by my talk page any time. God save the Queen Wiki! <font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">HJMitchell  <font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">You rang?   20:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User Vandalism, how to report
Atama, I found you to be a responsive and level-headed mediator during a recent incident and I would like to ask for your help. I frequently defend a deceased person's biography page from a user that has an extreme personal bias against the subject. The subject's son has requested for mediation, protection, etc. in the past with little or no effect (the amount of archived discussion a person must read through to appreciate the scope of the personal bias is daunting). Since we have had little luck with previous mediators, I decided to make a point of one edit to the page, the editor repeatedly changes the deceased's business website to "personal website." In the discussion page over the last few days, I have asked the editor not to make the change, that the website clearly states it is a 501c3 corporation with a board of directors, that he/she must provide a source, other than personal opinion or reasoning, to make the change. The editor refers me to an argument in the archives that, again, is just personal opinion. As I said, I used this as a line-drawn-in-the-sand and warned that making the change against wiki sources, and without providing sources, based on personal opinion, is knowingly making a change when he/she knows it is incorrect and that I would report it as vandalism. I have just visited the wikipedia: vandalism page and reported the user, but I do not think I did it right. The wiki article in question is Tom Van Flandern. Perhaps you can tell me what to do. Thanks Akuvar (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)