User talk:Atama/Archive 9

De-facto challenged PROD
Hi. :) To modify Template:ProdContested a bit: The article Ii (IRC client), which you seconded for WP:PROD, has been restored. If you do not feel the current article resolves your concerns, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Articles for deletion.

(Another editor has created a new version of the article which is very similar to the old. I restored the history to alleviate some copyright concerns.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification, I appreciate it. :) --  At am a  頭 21:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

COI of user
Please see the additional information added to a COI case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_41#User:snowded

I realize that it's an archived report, which is not the proper way to express these concerns newly. But I hope you can tell from the information shared there what's going on and will take appropriate action or advise me on how to do so.

The rule violations in the article are frequent and absurd, and it's a big problem for Editors trying to express the subject matter with NPOV and truthfully.--Encyclotadd (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have defended Snowded in the past, as I would for any editor who acknowledges a conflict of interest, operates within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and contributes positively to the project. However, I will take your complaint seriously and try to look into it further when I have an opportunity to. I'm somewhat inactive at Wikipedia but still help out with specific issues now and then and don't mind taking this on. --  At am a  頭 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If he was straight forward about his competition then I would feel very differently. But that's not the case. He describes his company as primarily a software business. But in fact he doesn't make a dime from the software, he makes his money selling seminars about a methodology "conflated" (to use his own term appearing off Wikipedia) with neuro-linguistic programming. His methodology is thought to be identical. There's good reason why he says they're considered the same. His methodology incorporates things like story telling (narrative), metaphor and pattern recognition. Those ideas are so close to NLP concepts that one may wonder if there is any difference at all. Compare his story telling to NLP's nested loops ("loop" means "story"), his metaphors to NLP metaphors, and his pattern recognition with NLP's approach to embedding indirect suggestions, and you will find the overlap he is describing with the word "conflated" is substantial. The problem doesn't stop there. He financial interests lead him to edit mischievously. I wish you could feel my frustration when he substitutes the Skeptic Dictionary definition for the Oxford English Dictionary definition. There is a notice board complaint already. Worse he repeatedly removes anchoring from the article. I don't know if you have studied psychology. But if you have, imagine trying to make sense out of cognitive behavioral therapy without mentioning classical conditioning and Pavlov's famous example. It's exactly the same thing-- one cannot be understood without the other. One way Snowded obfuscates is by refusing to reference anyone who is licensed to practice NLP. That obfuscates because it excludes EVERYONE knowledgeable! Seminars are the only way to learn communication models. You can become skilled at tonality, posture and ryhthm from books alone, communication techniques have to be practiced with others. Virtually all NLP seminars give certification to all participants. So Snowded auto-reverts any references to anyone who hast studied the model! Most people inside and outside of the world of education consider Ed Cox to be a fairly important man. After all, his Sylvan Learning Center educated two million children. Because Ed Cox attended some seminars and received a certificate, Snowded will not allow his ideas into the article. These are ideas appearing on the website of a peer reviewed journal.

There are also a variety of connections between Snowded and the 2006 banned accounts. Simple Google searches reveal that banned HeadleyDown is the name of a town in which a Snowden home has existed for decades, a stone's through from where he was born. Banned Brighton is a university he was invited to speak at, in which banned B110 appears to have been a classroom in which he spoke. The entire Hong Kong Skeptic Club on Wikipedia was banned and he is both an adjunct professor at Hong Kong University and a Skeptic club participant. Snowded advocates for precisely the same sources and POV as HeadleyDown. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to connect these dots.

The conflict of interest has creating a lot of contentiousness and problems in this article, and I hope now can be the time for that to be stopped.--Encyclotadd (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want any evidence as to my actual place of birth, where my family have owned property or my connections with a Hong Kong University let me know. There is a veritable spew of accusations added to the Archive, copied from an NLP web site which appears to be the co-ordinating point for a series of SPA accounts that have emerged over the last year or so.  Encyclotadd being one of the latest (Links available).   Encyclotadd also has two warnings from an experienced amin for constantly making this accusation in multiple locations.  An RfA brought some more experienced editors to the NLP page and they have all told Encyclotadd that the OED definition (I am accused of removing it as evidence of CoI)  cannot be included, and this has been confirmed by the Clerk at the dispute case which Encyclotadd also raised.  In that summary Encyclotadd was also reminded to read various policies relating to personal attacks etc.  By the way, I acknowledge that I work in a field which has a small overlap with one of the application areas of NLP.  I don't know of any actual conflict of interest, other than that I have expertise in some of the fields. Again if you want any information from me feel free to ask.  I harbour some hope (I am an eternal optimists) that if you did take a look at this it might finally put an end to a constant chain of accusations by an editor whose emotional commitment to NLP can't be challenged, but whose willingness to work in Wikipedia rules is becoming increasingly problematic. --Snowded  TALK  06:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not necessary for you to provide them because the Hong Kong University connection is made on your Wikipedia biography page. It's a very big question mark for me that an estate is named after your family in the town of Headley Down, and that you are an adjunct professor at Hong Kong University who associates himself with the Skpeptic Society, since Headley Down and the socks were Hong Kong University Skeptics.  That's huge coincidence. You advocate for the same POV and references as Headley Down.  Snowded, Enough is enough already.--Encyclotadd (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I've looked into this matter enough that I can respond to the points made at this talk page and the COIN archive.

First, of all, you've insisted that Snowded's business is conflated with NLP. Even if it was, that wouldn't matter. I think you may have glossed over what I already stated in the COIN archive 2 years ago, which still applies today. We don't discriminate against subject matter experts. A real estate agent is allowed to edit articles related to real estate and that's not a COI. Even if his business was involved in NLP, in an adversarial manner or otherwise, we wouldn't discourage him from editing the article. What we would discourage is any edits that would directly promote his business, or possibly harm a direct competitor. I see no evidence of that, and have never seen evidence of that. I think Snowded has been pretty conscientious about not stepping over that line.

Let's put it another way. Let's say I run a farm that sells green apples. I edit an article about red apples, and remove some opinion a person wrote that said that red apples are the tastiest and healthiest apples around. I counter with information from the FDA that discusses the health benefits of various types of apples to show there is no difference. Should I be dissuaded from doing so because it is feared that I don't want people buying red apples anywhere in the world? No, that's taking COI too far.

Let's say, though, that my neighbor Bob has another farm and he grows and sells red apples. He's in direct competition with me. Bob's web site is added as an external link to the article. Technically I could argue that the link adds no value to the article, and could even be considered spam, but if I were to delete that link myself that would be very dodgy per our COI guideline and would at least raise eyebrows, and I'd be better served asking someone else to do it.

I hope that helps explain the difference. COI concerns are raised when a person has a very close connection to what they are editing about. But we don't take it to be so broad as to automatically exclude someone from editing about an entire field because it is related to their personal or professional interests. It's often counter-productive to do that.

Secondly, you said that Snowded "tried to cover up his admission of conflation". He removed a comment from his own user talk page, which is allowed. So I don't consider that suspicious, I'm sure that Snowded has been around long enough to know that deleting a comment off of his talk page doesn't effectively cover up anything.

You've made a lot of comments about material he has added or removed from article space. I'm not interested in weighing in on content issues, especially with such controversial subject matter. Even if I wanted to get involved, I have no more authority than you do in such matters. If you feel those edits are incorrect, get support from other editors involved with the article.

The last issue isn't really COI related at all, but it's something else that is very important to me, and that's the accusation of sockpuppetry. It is suspicious enough for me to look into further. It's difficult, however, because HeadleyDown hasn't edited in nearly 6 years. I have a lot of experience in dealing with sockpuppets and can sometimes sniff things out based on behavioral evidence. All I can go by is my gut, and looking through the edits by HeadleyDown and a random sampling of sockpuppets, it doesn't feel the same. HD was pretty consistent in the way he left edit summaries (or failed to) and Snowded was different from the very start. He also signed his posts differently, used subtly different language... It just doesn't seem like the same person. The other thing that makes it very unlikely in my eyes is that both Snowded and HeadleyDown edited a variety of topics, yet the only overlap between the two is NLP. There are literally no other articles that the two share in common. Considering the large number of contributions from both accounts that's fairly remarkable.

So one of two things has occurred. Either they are different people, or HeadleyDown took a break of a couple of months after the last sockpuppet ceased activity and returned in such a way that he changed his problematic behavior completely and stayed out of trouble, making over 20,000 edits to the encyclopedia without being blocked once, and even disclosed exactly who he was and what he did for a living, staying productive over the next 6 years. If you could prove without a shadow of a doubt that they were the same person, and brought that matter to a noticeboard, I doubt anyone would bat an eyelash. As it is, I'm personally of the opinion that they aren't the same person.

Please know that I'm not brushing this off flippantly, I spent a great deal of time looking into your concerns, and took an especially long time looking at the sockpuppet accusation. And at this time I think that you have not breached any policies in making these requests, I think you were justified in asking me, so I'm not going to give you any warnings about harassment. But I just don't think that Snowded has done anything actionable. I will, however, caution you about pursuing this too strongly, and some of these accusations could backfire. For example, you're making some of the same accusations as ANJPL, see this page for example, who was himself a sockpuppet of Irvine22 and held the same opinion of NLP and Snowded that you do. I'm not making an accusation, but others might for the same reason you're accusing Snowded. So I'm telling you just one person to another, not in my capacity as an admin, but please try not to be so insistent on having sanctions brought against Snowded. --  At am a  頭 19:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful response.
 * I realize Snowded has made friends in this community, and that his behavior outside the NLP article may be substantially better. That should not color your view of what's been transpiring in this context.
 * The connection between Snowded and Headley does not have to be determined by a "feeling." The connection can be made factually and circumstantially.
 * Headley Down is a neighborhood containing an estate named for the Snowden's, a short drive from Harrow, another banned account, both of which are a short drive from where David Snowden was born. Here are the banned accounts near Snowden's birthplace on Google Maps:  http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Harrow,+UK&daddr=Headley+Down,+UK+to:Ongar,+Essex,&hl=en&sll=51.640577,-0.049761&sspn=0.346019,0.95993&geocode=FY8OEwMdFcj6_yn5ByWgWBF2SDHZW-KZiU_XJA%3BFar4CwMdZMnz_ykFTaJ_pDN0SDFh9aLwN7ea-Q%3BFWb7FAMd69gDACltBN7bSJbYRzGToaIwtwXk3A&vpsrc=0&mra=ls&t=h&z=9  I can pinpoint for you that B110, a third banned account, is a classroom Snowden was using at the time.  Snowden and banned Headley Down are both Skeptics affiliated with Hong Kong University.  Snowden and Headley Down both advocate for the identical references in the fourth paragraph in the article lede.
 * Snowden's behavior elsewhere on Wikipedia may have improved since he revealed his true identity in 2006. But his behavior in the NLP article absolutely has to be stopped.
 * He describes NLP seminars as indoctrination and torture to prospective attendees of his own seminars, then he replaces the Oxford English Dictionary definition with the Skeptic definition in the lede. He is the solitary reason you have had six years of contentiousness about the article.  I have no doubt that if you ban him from the article more meat/socks of his will reappear.  But at least the administration can have a clear idea of who is responsible.--Encyclotadd (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not a "friend" of Snowded, I may have interacted with him a few times over the years I've been on Wikipedia, usually where his conduct was being questioned and I determined it was based on someone with an opposing POV who was trying to paint him in a negative light in order to be able to get their own POV established. Which seems to be the case again. I don't like being accused of siding with someone I barely know because he's a "friend". I'm used to attacks (I'm an admin after all) so I'm not offended but it's not helpful to mischaracterize my actions in such a way. Your tendency to attack people who disagree with you does not bode well for you. By the way, it seems that the result of the discussion a the DRN was that Snowded was justified in his actions about the OED definition's exclusion from the lead. --  At am a  頭 22:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for insinuating friendship. That was an incorrect thing for me to have suggested. My strong feeling about the edits being made to the article reflects substantial study - the obfuscation has unfortunately taken place (except in 2006) without this community even realizing it. But in order for this community to realize it the whole group would need do a lot of reading. It's a little like realizing someone is obfuscating molecular biology to English students. Tricky thing to do, and yet the obfuscation is taking place nonetheless. That's why the obvious Headley Down, B110 (basement 110), and Harrow banned accounts are tempting to bring up. But this isn't the place for me to bring that up and I appreciate that you have done your best to make sense out of what's going on here and appreciate your weighing in, though you did not arrive at the conclusion that I was hoping you would.--Encyclotadd (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it's not the kind of issue that one administrator can help with. You may be correct about Snowded's improper editing, but nothing he's doing from what I can tell is actionable. He's not violating any policies or even guidelines. The best you can hope for is to try to sway other editors to your side. I gather that you're hoping for a quick resolution to what you see as a problem by either getting Snowded blocked, or banning him from contributing at the article. But I don't see either happening. I think your only recourse is to compromise with him as best as you can, and to try to sway other editors to your point of view with a proper appeal to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I know that you're relatively new to the site so that can be difficult, but proper knowledge of procedures will come with time. --  At am a  頭 00:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time Atama. I really appreciate it.
 * It probably puzzles the administration that an article about a psychological and communication model can become nearly "the most contentious" on Wikipedia. There is no important public policy on the line, as there is with abortion.  There are no souls that will or won't be saved by people studying "hypnotic" language patterns or considering a psychological model some feel are suggested by them.
 * It's true that some people believe they have been helped by hypnosis (such as with smoking cessation or phobias) and will speak up to try and help others. Obviously people with competing financial interests will speak up as well.
 * But that shouldn't lead to the amount of contention this community has been experiencing. Something else is obviously going on.
 * This has been a tremendous learning experience for me about Wikipedia. I hope in the future my efforts can contribute to a better community and encyclopedic website.  Thanks again for your time.--Encyclotadd (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:COOPERATION
Hi Atama, good to see you around. Just wondered if you'd seen this project and a related facebook group where the PR industry want to work with us and edit to the book. I thought you might like to join in with the discussions. SmartSE (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've found myself with a little breathing space in my personal and professional life and decided to hang around Wikipedia for awhile, and that project looks very interesting to me. I'll check it out! --  At am a  頭 18:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Your ANI Closure - Determination?
Inre your closure of my ANI petition, I assume you are aware that I was seeking a determination as to the WP propriety of the arbitrary removal (twice) of my "POV Section Dispute" tag. That is decidedly NOT a "content" dispute but rather a WP dispute resolution "process" dispute. While those in opposition did, indeed, attempt to raise issues of "content", that was neither my desire nor at my behest. While it's your prerogative to close the ANI as you see fit, I believe I am entitled to some determination as to the specifics of my ANI petition. Is my placement of a "POV Section Dispute" tag legitimate per WP:POLICY or is it not? Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's what Template:NPOV says:
 * Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute in an article.
 * The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor.
 * The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.
 * This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.


 * I think that the only point in contention is that last one. When people said that the tag didn't belong, I think they felt it was because that last point wasn't being followed. Another thing mentioned in the template documentation, "Removing this tag may be tendentious—just like placing it on the article may be tendentious—but it is not an act of vandalism." At this point I don't think that either you or the people who wanted to remove the tag have engaged in any activity that requires sanctions. And that also means that I don't think your placing the tag initially was meant in anything but good faith.


 * However. You did go a bit overboard a bit, I think, in the ANI thread. in particular seemed a bit hyperbolic, and I can easily imagine that kind of talk rubbing people the wrong way. Bringing up "genocide" seems intentionally incendiary, along with excessive use of CAPITALIZATION (with underlines no less). The template documentation mentions that NPOV complaints should be based on what is found in sources, so requests for such shouldn't be dismissed as "wikilawyering bunk". And honestly, the whole thing seemed like grandstanding, a la WP:SPIDERMAN. Not trying to be overly critical, but just some advice, try not to get into that mode. It's like tossing gasoline around. --  At am a  頭  09:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the courtesy of your considered and cogent reply. While your observations might serve to inspire numerous points of discussion, I'll not impose them on either your talk space or your patience and will suppress (not without some difficulty) my inclination to do so...save for what I perceive to be the most salient and pressing issue. I will try to be as brief as possible.


 * I do not institute an ANI petition lightly. In my almost 7 years of editing in WP, most of which is associated with the most highly contentious subjects, I think I can count my ANI petitions on one hand (it could, perhaps, be 2 hands). My strongest and, I think, demonstrated preference is for talk resolution, not administrative intervention. While I'll not waste your time further in a defense of my rationale for seeking administrative redress in this instance, your "determination" has left me both bemused and in somewhat of a quandary.


 * As you are hopefully aware, administrator DGG had already made what I perceived to be a "determination" that the tag was legitimately placed and should remain, a determination he has now reiterated on the article talk page. That DGG had actually made a "determination" was challenged by User:Snowded and, in deference to that assertion, I refrained from re-tagging the section pending further clarification from DGG...and so-stated that intent within the ANI.  While awaiting that further clarification, subsequent "content" argument continued to be appended to the discussion and it was to those arguments that I responded, a response which then inspired your closure with the conclusionary (and, IMHO, Scarlet Letter) "This board is not for content disputes, and there is no need for administrative action."
 * I believe that assessment to be both a fundamentally unfair and inaccurate characterization of the dialogue and conclusion previously attained within the ANI and transforms my petition for redress, favorably considered by a prior administrator, into a "content dispute" inappropriate for consideration within an ANI. Please reconsider the text of your conclusionary closure in light of those considerations. Thank you.


 * P.S. As to "genocide", I'm not confident that you are aware, perhaps, that the term is the one utilized as an example in the pertinent WP:NPOV guidance? That was my source for the employment of the word used to illustrate, IMHO, a valid, not hyperbolic, point. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * DGG can make whatever determination he wants. But he can't state that the tag needs to stay on the article. Neither can I. Administrators don't have such authority. An admin can, at best, say that you weren't being disruptive in putting it there. If it's determined that you were being disruptive by placing it there, or others were disruptive in removing it, then an admin can warn or block editors. That's as far as an administrator can go with a dispute like this. Otherwise, the applicability of the tag is something that can only be determined by consensus between editors. As such, it's essentially a content dispute, and I stand fully behind the language of my closure. Any comment on whether or not the tag should stay is his opinion and holds as much weight as anyone else's. Oh, and yeah, I didn't realize that about the genocide comment, so feel free to ignore what I said there. :) --  At am a  頭 18:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I should add, the discussion on the talk page of that article seems productive, the RFCs there are appropriate and properly done, and I hope that the conclusion of that discussion can leave people reasonably satisfied. --  At am a  頭 18:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agrre with you that the talk p. is the place to discuss this. And I hope everyone understands that unless I'm doing something only an admin can do, or am specifically stating I'm doing something as an admin, as  I might with BLP, I only intend to make the same sort of statement as any ordinary editor. My opinion is the tag should stay on any genuine dispute unti lit's resolved, because I think any other rule leads to edit wars over side issues. My opinion holds to the extent it proves to have consensus, and no further, as with any admin or other editor responding to an RfC.  I try to be careful in my wording when I give an opinion, because I know that sometimes people take it too definitively; if I failed to make this clear enough here I apologize. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I for one figured as much, DGG, I've known you for a long time on Wikipedia and respect you and wouldn't have expected any less, that's why I assumed your comment was meant to be just your opinion. You're probably the last person I'd expect to try to flex admin "authority" over something like that. :) --  At am a  頭 01:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, and in an attempt to at least establish what is establishable from both my ANI petition and subsequent discussion both here and elsewhere, this will represent my last observation here on this subject. I believe it can be fairly represented that...
 * 1. There is an ongoing dispute(s) in the article.
 * 2. I promptly began a discussion on the article's talk page specific to my objection.
 * 3. My purpose was to attract editors with different viewpoints to consider, under WP:NPOV, whether the content, as it is currently presented, adequately reflects that WP:POLICY guidance.
 * 4. The article is reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view as now evidenced by the comments of at least three editors.
 * 5. Assuming that the above now clearly satisfies the stated WP criteria for the placement of a "POV Section Tag", I can legitimately, per the guidance of Template:NPOV, restore the tag pending consensus resolution of my POV objection.
 * DGG has expressed support for the continued placement of the tag "until the wording is fixed" as reflecting a "genuine dispute". He is also suggesting (if I correctly understand his remarks) a probable futility in the employment of this tag owing to the POV nature of the subject rendering a consensus-based, NPOV presentation difficult, if not impossible...a rather pessimistic outlook with which I take exception and intend to work towards disproving.
 * Thank you again for your time and consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops...
You deleted User:Hammersoft/Editnotice, which i wanted to have deleted (thanks!), but then deleted User talk:Hammersoft/Editnotice too, which I didn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bonehead mistake, it's back now, sorry about that! --  At am a  頭 23:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you take a look please?
Thanks for your recent assistance at the COI noticeboard. Could you possibly give me a second opinion at 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, where I recently blocked User talk:212.178.238.210 for repeatedly removing what seemed like reasonably-sourced material from the article. It isn't simple vandalism though as the IP (which resolves to Serbia) has made edit summaries like "(Reverting trivial and unimportant stuff. Yes, TRIVIAL and UNIMPORTANT!!)". I may be seen as involved as I had previously edited the article, albeit just a format fix. I see I also got involved in implementing a compromise version in the article last April. Looking through the article history, there has been a lot of edit warring over the inclusion of this material without any recent discussion in talk. Could you please take a look, review my actions, and give consideration to semi-protecting the article? Thanks a lot, --John (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at it, I'll let you know. I probably won't get a chance to do much until tomorrow. --  At am a  頭 07:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, from a quick look so far, what I can say is this... I agree that the edits don't seem to be simple vandalism. On the other hand, the edits are definitely a problem. I can tell that the person behind the IP was also editing as 178.222.92.195 with the same edit-warring methodology, same change to content, and same edit summary. Even further back, it's probable that there are a number of edits from IPs in the 212.124.17x.xxx range that are that same person, they show identical behavior.


 * I don't think you're involved enough to question your actions. But since this editor has no problem hopping IPs, and they are even from different ranges, semiprotection might be the only way to feasibly stop it. It's a shame because 68.202.26.86 has done good work from what I can tell and would get caught up in that. If I do protect the article, I might have to suggest that they register an account, or at least bring suggestions to the talk page so that they can still contribute. Somehow I doubt that the troublesome IP editor is going to bother to do that. --  At am a  頭 07:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your time. Is there an Arbcom remedy that covers this? Would that even help? As you say, semi-prot is a blunt tool for something like this. --John (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:DIGWUREN would cover it, as Yugoslavia would have been considered an Eastern European country. Looking at this you can see that discretionary sanctions are in effect for such an article. In particular, that case establishes a low tolerance for editors who use such articles as a battleground. But that means playing IP whack-a-mole. --  At am a  頭 23:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see what you mean. It was just a thought. Maybe a longish-term semiprotection, and the good guys can request edits on the talk page or register an account? --John (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The editor returned under yet another IP making the same edit, which I'm now treating as vandalism. I no longer believe the intent from this editor is to improve the article in good faith. I've also semiprotected the article for a month, which I do reluctantly but I don't see any other way to stop this. --  At am a  頭 18:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your trouble. --John (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Euthanasia topic ban
Hello. I was thinking the euthanasia topic ban over me, was already over since november. Am I wrong? Thanks. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  14:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're technically correct and I've made the clarification at ANI. --  At am a  頭 17:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks and socking. Thank you. Edinburgh  Wanderer  00:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry was trying to do talk back request. You clearly already know about the discussion.Edinburgh  Wanderer  00:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) --  At am a  頭 00:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry how many diffs do you want I've shown you that part of his unblock was not to use multiple accounts including ips. He has now left another attack on my talk page. This is quacking so loud. Personal attacks are not tolerated.Edinburgh  Wanderer  01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That diff you posted to ANI showed me what was going on, thanks. That's what I was originally asking for. I don't think it rises to the level of requiring an immediate block, but any comments like that which occur after my warning will lead to a block. The comment on your user talk page was milder but still pushing it. If anything else comes from that IP which involves an actual personal attack just let me know. --  At am a  頭 01:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Edinburgh  Wanderer  12:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Delicious Carbuncle
I agree it's a serious charge, and I've set out the background at WP:AN/I for your and others' consideration. Prioryman (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. Obviously the claims against DC aren't completely unfounded, but so far I'm seeing that the community is divided on what sanctions, if any, are appropriate. --  At am a  頭 17:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Atama, I have my doubts that any admin will be willing to wade into this mess, but since you commented at ANI, I will ask. Prioryman made false and inflammatory statements which he claimed he would apologize for if they proved to be incorrect when he reviewed evidence from Russavia. He now knows that they were incorrect, but has yet to strike them. Additionally, he has replaced one further false statement with another. I have chosen not to participate in the ban discussion, but I am displeased by the possibility that I may be banned on false pretenses. I suspect that my participation in that discussion would make AN/I virtually unusable due to the inflamed passions of some editors there, but there is a limit to how long I will stand by and let these false statements stand. Are you willing to ask Prioryman to make good on their promise? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to force someone to apologize; as I've learned from wiser people than myself a forced apology isn't an apology at all. I've been somewhat following the discussion though I have yet to offer my opinion and probably won't, but I'll try to look into the accuracy of those statements. --  At am a  頭 19:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, it's not the apology I'm interested in. This likely won't be clear to you without seeing the archived WR thread from Russavia, but there quite simply is no "deeply homophobic discussion" for me to drop Fæ's address into. My post was in fact the start of a thread that no reasonable person could see as homophobic. Not redacting the address information from a WHOIS record was an oversight on my part and I have already stated that I should not have posted the WHOIS record with that information included. Note that it was redacted soon after. The domain in question was not at that time registered via a proxy registration service although that changed soon after my WR post. No technical or other means were necessary to access it. Thanks for taking a look. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As Timotheus Canens [has said, "Absolutely nothing justifies posting an editor's home phone and address publicly." See also Madman's comments and Fluffernutter's comments, which do a great job of summarising the central issue here. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Prioryman, I am not disputing that I posted the address information, which I should not have done. If this was a dispute resolution, perhaps I would feel like explaining my actions, but it is not. Regardless, you have made false statements, which I have detailed above. You know those statements to be false. Please strike those statements. Rest assured that reasonable people will take notice of your actions here and, regardless of what happens to me, they will remember this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So just to be clear... DC, your only objection in regards to accuracy is the suggestion that you dropped this information in the middle of a "homophobic discussion". But in fact, the material you added was added as the first post of a new thread that had nothing that could be considered homophobic. Is that correct? If so, Prioryman, would you insist that it's still the case that the information was introduced in the "middle of a deeply homophobic discussion" or would you concede that on that point alone the statement was inaccurate? --  At am a  頭 22:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is not simply that my post started a thread rather than came in the middle of it. To be clear, there is no deeply homophobic discussion at all. It simply does not exist on WR (and has never existed). Prioryman has seen the archived discussion and knows this to be the case. In addition to this, Prioryman has made false claims about the registration of the domain in question. The proxy registration was not in place when I retrieved the WHOIS information (I know this, because that is where I got it from immediately prior to posting it). I would like Prioryman to strike both of those statements (and any substantially similar restatements of the same falsehoods). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out, Prioryman, in your own words you later stated, "DC posted Fæ's phone number and home address on a new thread on WR" which seems to contradict what Russavia said before about exactly where and how DC had introduced Fæ's personal information on WR. Note that I'm not out to "get" anyone here, personally I'm just hoping that the two of you can at least agree on this one particular point. --  At am a  頭 22:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll double-check that point, but does it really matter whether it was a new thread which he started or in the middle of an existing thread - which he also started? The fact is that the privacy violation happened, that it was not accidental and that it was done in the full knowledge that Fae was under off-wiki threat at the time. Everything else is a side issue. Frankly, there is a lot of misdirection going on AN/I at the moment to distract attention away from this central issue. Don't be taken in by it. Prioryman (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Atama, just to let you know, Prioryman also now owes DC five cents. Cla68 (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The thread on ANI was closed with a "no consensus" which is probably how I would have closed it. I think this is a moot point. My opinion of the whole matter is this... Delicious Carbuncle posted information that he shouldn't have, but seems to have done so out of carelessness rather than maliciousness. That doesn't make it okay; whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere we should take greater care in being sure that our actions don't bring harm to someone than to prove that they've done something wrong. I don't think it rises to the level of a site ban, though. --  At am a  頭 17:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How in the world can you attribute it to "carelessness"? DC specifically went out and looked for Fae's home address and phone number. This wasn't information which he accidentally copied and pasted. He went out of his way to trace Fae's contact details, which Fae himself did not at any point disclose to DC. This was absolutely 100% premeditated. And when you consider that DC had only 20 minutes previously publicly acknowledged that Fae was being harassed off-wiki, it's hard not to see it as malicious. DC was fully aware of the potential consequences of what he was doing. Prioryman (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can attribute it to carelessness because I'm not ready to call DC a bald-faced liar. I'm not as emotionally invested in this as you clearly are. Take a breath. I have no access to any of the information that's being claimed by either side, the WR thread was deleted and I couldn't find any working links to an archive of the thread in the ANI discussion or elsewhere. But from what I've read, this is how I see it.


 * Fæ claimed to have returned to Wikipedia as a clean start and applied for adminship under that claim. DC had evidence that could show that claim was false by connecting Fæ to the prior account. This was shown with WHOIS information. DC claims it was a copy-paste and included more than he'd intended. You claim it wasn't. The burden is on the accuser, so how are we to know it wasn't? Also, DC claims that the address info was redacted, is that true? Did he redact it himself or did someone else have to do it?


 * Before I pass judgement I'd like to know the answers to these things. But I don't see any reason why DC would be motivated to maliciously harm Fæ and his explanation is plausible. I would have to make an assumption of bad faith absent evidence to think that he was out to get Fæ. I don't know DC well enough to make such an assumption. So, that's why I have the opinion that I have. --  At am a  頭 20:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A follow-up; re-reading the ANI thread, it looks like Scott Mac has claimed that the info that was redacted was done by a WR mod an hour later, not DC himself. I think I can assume that's the case because nobody has contradicted it.
 * That is the case. When I returned to WR some time after starting that thread, there was a message informing me that the information had been redacted. I agreed fully with the redaction. The thread was later moved, at my request, to a non-public location for other reasons relating to Fæ's privacy. Surely Russavia or Prioryman can provide you with the link to the archive which they have spoken of in other threads? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have a high opinion of WR. I think the only time I ever bothered with the site was when someone pointed out that I was mentioned in a thread there, where people pointed out how I was duped by a sockpuppet (which was true) but other than that, I've basically avoided it. Just putting that out there for anyone who's curious about how I feel about the site. But reading the ANI thread yet again, I still don't see how the dots are connected exactly. I'm still seeing a bad faith assumption that DC was intentionally harassing Fæ. He definitely screwed up and to be honest I wouldn't defend him strongly because inadvertently or not, he did put someone at risk, but I'm not going to call for his blood here. --  At am a  頭 21:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

NATO Flag usage on the Kosovo War Page
My friend, I have a question. If the NATO flag usage is copyrighted by using then am I allowed to use the {{flag| or {{flagicon| fashion? It doesn't seem to be a copyright. Thank you and please answer at the greatest time. TsarSrbinu29 (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This question is academic because the NATO flag doesn't have a copyright since it "only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text" and is therefore in the public domain. We actually have a place for discussion on how to treat non-free flags, see here. The template itself states that any reproduction of such flags on Wikipedia which are "low-resolution images" that "illustrate the symbol in question" are fine. A flag icon would certainly fall under such criteria so it shouldn't be a problem. --  At am a  頭 18:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Some info
Hello Atama, I am writing you because of the great regard I have for your judgment. Regarding the NYY situation, perhaps you weren't aware that a prolific POV edit warrior with an extremely long block history who shall remain unnamed (Bink), was recently unblocked when he made a similar promise. The unnamed editor (Bink), just as NYY, could be described as aggressively editing policially charged articles. However I will say, and I think they both would agree, that they edit from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Is there anyone out there who would say that they share the same ideology? Not in this reality.

You're probably asking yourself how I know so much about the prior incident. Glad you asked. NYY was the editor who uncovered unnamed editor's (Bink) destructive edit warring. I was the editor who made the report and got unnamed (Bink) blocked yet another time. Initially unnamed (Bink) tried to squirm and slither his way out of it--but to no avail. My report was solid, his eqregious transgressions obvious, and the full weight of wiki-justice came crashing down on his head. Leaving a pretty nasty bump if off-wiki reports are to be believed. He had to be stopped. Blocking was the only answer with editors like this. It had to be done to protect the encyclopedia from unnamed's (Bink) continued disruption. There are those who, at the time, said that I took sadistic pleasure in his demise, his comeuppance, his disgrace. I deny those charges. Would I hold a grudge just because he put my beloved WPConservatism on the deletion-block? Again I deny!!

You can see that unnamed (Bink) getting quickly unblocked, while NYY languishes in wikijail, forced to serve out the full week, could be seen by some, not myself of course, as bias, or preferential treatment. Some, not me of course, might be inclined to suggest that hard far left-wing editors get quick unblocks and that God-fearing traditional values editors are screwed.

I am not for one minute suggesting anything improper was done. The circumstances involved with the 2 blocks are different. I just wanted to give you a little of the history in case comparisons to the unnamed editor (Bink) are offered. – Lionel (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really care what someone's POV is. If someone looked at my edit history and tried to guess my political, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs, I'm fairly sure they'd be wrong. :) I do suspect that there might be a left-wing bias on this encyclopedia overall, maybe, but if I even think about that when making administrative decisions and allow those concerns or doubts to influence me then I'd be guilty of bias myself. I have to maintain a sort of tunnel vision to be objective. It's regrettable if my actions look like they're contributing to a systemic bias, but I can only judge each case on its own merits. If anyone is wondering how I came across that person, I look at the admin dashboard when I have spare time and among other things I look at requests for unblock. NYY wasn't singled out for any particular reason. --  At am a  頭 18:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything does seem in order... I just thought I'd drop a note since NYY had a front row seat for what-his-name's quick unblocking and NYY is probably wondering WTF. But they are different situations with different outcomes. Anyway take care TTFN – Lionel (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks I appreciate it. --  At am a  頭 00:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

List of shogi video games
Hi Atama. Just because that article got deleted it doesn't mean that the title shouldn't be on the Shogi list. The game exists: http://www.gamefaqs.com/n64/576255-ai-shogi-3. Cheers. --Hydao (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I won't object to anyone putting it back. Frankly I'm not all that impressed by a list of red links to subjects that are unlikely to ever be considered notable, but it doesn't really bother me either. I know that WP:L suggests that "any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists primarily of red links) should be in project or user space, not the main space" but I don't see anything in our MOS that suggests that the list must be removed. --  At am a  頭 17:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I have to agree with you, but well, I created that list a year ago when I was kinda new to Wikipedia. I will "improve" that list later on. --Hydao (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. And if a few of those red links do turn blue, and the games are sufficiently notable, then that's a good thing. :) --  At am a  頭 18:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Expired prods
Something odd going on with these - I'm editing them to force them into the right category. Something on the internet is wrong. pablo 19:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Experts declare: Something on the internet is wrong! The world panics. :p No you're right, there's something that's not right with proposed deletions. I knew you were doing something because I see you in the history of every prod I'm reviewing so thanks for that. :) I hope it gets straightened out. There was a time when I'd go through dozens of expired prods every day, and I haven't done that for a long time because there's usually no need with other admins taking care of it, but now with this whole kerfuffle I guess I need to get back on that horse. --  At am a  頭 21:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok good luck ... damn, I misquoted ... pablo 22:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Bob Warfield, deleted?
The ring theorist Warfield is an internationally known mathematician, and author of leading research monographs.

Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you want it restored? Per WP:PROD it can be restored on request by anyone who opposes its deletion. (Anyone could have objected to deletion over the past 8 days that the article has had the tag, yet nobody did.) Are you willing to improve the article? Before being deleted, it was a BLP with no references aside from his company's web site, blog, and his self-published resume. --  At am a  頭 23:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I cannot see whether that article is the Robert Warfield I know, now. However, I suppose that I wouldn't have linked to it without checking---knock on wood.
 * If this is the Warfield who wrote on non-Noetherian or non-commutative Rings, then he's famous, and I can at least fix the article to have a reliable source or claim of notability. Charles Matthews has forgotten more algebra than I ever have hoped to know, and he could probably write off the top of his head, also. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt it. The article claimed that he was one of the original developers of Quattro Pro software and later had senior positions at Borland, Oracle Database, and Rational Software before founding his own company SmoothSpan. I don't see any mathematicians named Robert or Bob Warfield on Wikipedia. But, since the Bob Warfield article is now deleted, you're free to create an article with that name about that person. :) --  At am a  頭 00:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update! (I was sloppy with my linking, then....)
 * He's too far from my interests, and my pro-bono-Wikipedia energies have been low for months, truth be told. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can understand, it takes a lot of energy to start up an article from scratch and I've only done it a few times myself. You're welcome for the clarification. --  At am a  頭 21:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

PROD of Crest and Colors of Paris Saint-Germain F.C.
I looked at your PROD removal edit comments that neither of the above articles is eligible for PROD because they have already been proposed before, yet looking through to edit history, I can find no evidence of a previous PRODing. Could I ask what rationale you used to determine that the articles had already once been PRODed? Achowat (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The talk pages of both articles have the notice. And oddly enough, you placed them there. So, my question is, why did you put them there? Those templates are meant to alert people that the articles have had contested PRODs, and are therefore ineligible. --  At am a  頭 22:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, if you didn't mean to contest them, but had added them because you thought that was part of the PROD process, let me know and I'll ker-zapp the articles immediately. --  At am a  頭 22:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That appears to be entirely my fault and a misunderstanding of the use of that template. I apologize for any confusion I caused (especially seeing how I cause all the confusion). Achowat (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah no don't sweat it. Since you placed the templates and clearly weren't contesting the deletions, and the templates don't represent any previous contesting of a proposed deletion, then those articles can legitimately be deleted per PROD. I'll go do that now! --  At am a  頭 22:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Both are deleted now, thanks. --  At am a  頭 22:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
LOL thanks, trust me I've done much stupider things even as an admin, but I appreciate it. :) --  At am a  頭 17:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Advice
Greetings Atama, sincere apologies for disturbing you this way, but I noticed you working actively on ANI, and wondered if I may ask a question of advice about a situation that is bothering me. I feel it best to seek advice from an admin first, before submitting what may be an unnecessary ANI report. Thank you in advance for you time. Wesley ☀ Mouse 23:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to disturb me all you want, that's why I wear this target hat in the first place! --  At am a  頭 23:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, LOL at the target hat - that has just given me the fit of giggles. Not heard that phrase in a long time.  Secondly, a user may be on the verge of vandalism, or uncivil behaviour, including removing warnings/cautions from their talk page.  I can provide links if necessary, but is this something that should be taken to ANI, or is it best to try and resolve the matter first - so that admin's time isn't wasted with what could be seen as an unnecessary ANI report?  Wesley ☀ Mouse  23:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's a complicated situation where administrator action is controversial, it might be a good thing to bring to ANI so people can argue and bicker and threaten each other and get off-topic and then eventually (possibly) come to a real decision about it. If it's fairly straight-forward just let me know the details and I'll look into it myself. I've been on Wikipedia for over 5 years and only once have I ever raised an issue on ANI (for myself at least) and in that one case I shouldn't have brought it there anyway. --  At am a  頭 23:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

OK here goes... has redirected the following with what appears to be without consensus; ; ;. They then go on to duplicate a link on article Eurovision Song Contest -, and also add wikilinks for map cooridinates to the redirected pages shown above. These links got removed and a general notice issued on user talk page. User then ignores requests and re-adds content, , ; as well as deleting my notification on their talk page. He then goes on to re-add previously removed content before starting a content dispute disucssion on article talk page. Content then gets re-removed again, and a warning issued, due to previous requests being ignored - vandalism warning my be incorrectly issued though, not quite sure. It was at this point I noticed the user had deleted my previous notice; so I re-added the noticed, and posted a comment to inform them that removing warnings shouldn't be done, and archiving is a better and more civil option.

If I have done anything wrong, then I'm happy to hold my hand up and apologise to the user. But I am confused as it does seem that the user may be doing things without following proper guidance. Wesley <font color="OrangeRed">☀ <font color="SaddleBrown" face="Tahoma">Mouse 00:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did a couple of things wrong. First of all, the vandalism warning was definitely out of line. We have a very specific definition of vandalism which applies to particular types of behavior. These edits weren't anything close to that. Accusing a person of vandalism when they're not engaging in it can be considered a personal attack if it persists. Also, this editor did absolutely nothing wrong in removing the warnings you left, that is specifically allowed. When a person removes a warning, they are acknowledging that they've received it. A person can remove almost anything from their user talk page except a very few specific things. You may not have noticed, but the page you linked to in order to back up your complaint about removing warnings is "currently inactive"; in other words, it represents something that doesn't apply on Wikipedia. It may have been in force at some point but what you read there isn't relevant (and in this case it goes against what actually is our guideline).


 * The other thing you did wrong is engage in an edit war. You're at 2 reverts right now, which means you're still two reverts shy of a three revert violation. But technically, you could be blocked by an administrator to stop the edit war. I tend to restrict myself to one revert per day per article just on general principles. You don't have to do that, but it's a good way to keep yourself out of hot water.


 * Those initial 3 redirects that the editor created, I don't see anything wrong with them; they seem reasonable and wouldn't need consensus, it's not like the editor took 3 existing articles and turned them into redirects, those redirects were created as new pages. But I also don't see why anyone would need them, they don't serve any purpose that wouldn't be served by a piped link.


 * Either way, though, what you need to do is continue the conversation on the talk page of the article. I haven't seen you ask this person why these links are needed. Maybe there's a good reason for it? If not, maybe you can convince them that it's not needed. But this is why we don't allow edit wars, it gets in the way of talking. And definitely cool it on the vandalism accusations and the warning templates, I think you recognized that you might have been out of line about accusing them of vandalism, but I think you should just stop with the warnings completely, especially since you're at 2 reverts so far already and people who cause too much noise can draw attention to themselves.


 * I hope I'm not coming off as overly harsh. I'm just trying to make clear the importance of changing your tactics in this dispute. Just talk with this person and try to resolve it, they took this to the talk page first and explained their revert when they reinserted the info so I don't see that this person is particular unreasonable. See what you can work out.


 * I have to say, it's a good thing you didn't bring this to ANI. This isn't the kind of dispute you'd necessarily want to advertise. ;) --  At am a  頭 04:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply back Atama, I was in London all day yesterday attending a training event for the Games Maker Volunteer at London 2012 Olympics. I gratefully appreciate you taking time to look into this, and seriously take on board all comments and suggestions put forward.  The 1R advice sounds pretty good, and something that I shall implement into my own style as an editor on Wikipedia also.  I have acknowledged a mistake with the vandalism warning upon re-review; and have since struck out the warning, and rephrased what I meant in more simplified terms.  I am also thinking of creating a sub-page in which I will keep notes of any mistakes that notice I've done, and log them down, so others can see they are mistakes/typos etc.  Does that sound like a good idea? Anyhow, I'm about to start a discussion on the article talk page and hopefully engage in a reasonable debate to find common ground between all parties involved.  Once again, thank you for helping me, I do appreciate it ever so much.  <font color="DarkSlateBlue" face="Tahoma">Wesley <font color="OrangeRed">☀ <font color="SaddleBrown" face="Tahoma">Mouse  18:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll follow up your late reply with my own late reply! (Though I don't have as good of an excuse, mostly I forgot.) It looks like the discussion is active and has gotten attention so I hope it can be resolved quickly and without much difficulty. You can feel free to log all of your mistakes if you want, some people might consider that humble or done in the interest of transparency. If I did that I'd have trouble keeping track, myself. I generally let people point out my mistakes while I apologize, and try to fix what I did if it's necessary. But feel free to handle it however you want, I doubt anyone will fault you for it. --  At am a  頭 21:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review
Hey Atama, thanks for the review of the close. I'd offer you one of them virtual cookies, kittens, or bubble teas if I didn't find find them exceedingly infantile. Still, it's the thought that counts, so with that, here you go, the thought of a virtual cookie, kitten, and/or bubble tea. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it. :) I don't close many AfDs myself, and have lots of respect for people who do. It's one of those admin roles where you rarely get thanks and pretty much the only feedback you receive is when people disagree with you, but somebody has to do it. So you should have at least half of the cookie or tea (I don't advocate splitting a kitten in half though). --  At am a  頭 02:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK
Opinion: Do you realize how your BOOMERANG essay has given thoughtless Admins a handy buzzword to throw around their prejudices to apply automatic and simple solutions to problems as a matter of course? (To basically replace thought and evaluation with: "I think we have a BOOMERANG here.") See it all the time, it is amazing. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh well at least I've made an impact on Wikipedia in some way. :( I don't apologize for the essay, the intention of the essay is mostly in the "immunity" section of it, but I'm not particularly proud of it or how ubiquitous it is. --  At am a  頭 02:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. More opinion: It is often used as replacement for thought, as well as seeming to inflate the ego of whomever can be the first dimwitted editor to say: "I think we have a BOOMERANG here." (As though suddenly he becomes really very clever by its use. The party asking for help believes they have been injured, acc. AGF. And my gosh, aren't we so clever to spring on the party: "Hey, not only aren't you going to get help, you're going to be suprised by getting something quite the opposite of what you anticipated to get. And aren't I so clever to surprise you so, because you see, clever people like me often have a different view, and the more different, such as a 180 degree opposite view, the more clever!") I have no problem with the theory of your article, the point is how it is all too frequently (ab)used. (By shutting down and replacing thought, introducing prejudice and suspicion in a way seemingly justified and endorsed almost as if by policy; and all of that in a handy buzzword that is so E-Z! to use – saving all that nasty work and effort of thinking and evaluating. And making the user look so clever in the process. Nice, huh?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really care for that either to be honest. To just say "boomerang" and turn it around on the reporter without explanation is childish, it's the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I". I think the essay can be useful just as shorthand to indicate to the "regulars" that the person who is making the complaint should have their actions reviewed and possibly sanctioned (and that does happen a lot, often times it's the more troublesome person who's just trying to stir something up that runs to a noticeboard to complain). And it can be useful also when a person brings a complaint to a board, and it's obvious that they're the one at fault (or at least their actions are also worthy of sanction) and they complain that any review of their own actions is "changing the subject". But I don't like seeing it used as a "gotcha". I don't believe I've ever used it that way, but then again I generally avoid linking to the essay myself. Both because it seems almost somewhat self-promotional, and because the circumstances of its initial creation are not something I'm proud of. --  At am a  頭 17:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, but I don't know the "circumstances of it's initial creation", nor (whatever they might be) do I think they would be particularly relevant now. (The rest of your comments, I've already gleaned from your article itself.) The point is, IMO, "I think we have a BOOMERANG" has become a sort of Frankenstein's monster. (Out of control/reckless/dangerous/and abusive.) With you (author/creator) unfortunately and with all good intent, in the historical role as curious/interested/theoretical phycisian/Dr./scientist. Thanks again for your comments and for entertaining mine. (I'm surprised some Admin hasn't swooped in to theaten me w/ block. But you never know ...) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Atama,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Alliance Francaise (Ahmedabad)
I got your message. I'll follow it. The article is not that notable. That;s why I've nominated it for deletion Good Faith. Thank you. --20:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)--kondi talk/contribs 20:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I would have been happy to delete it right away but it wouldn't have been fair to the other person who had worked on the article, and our G7 criteria is pretty clear that it can't be deleted if someone else has made a significant contribution. --  At am a  頭 20:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've proposed the article for deletion, I informed CaroleHenson of the proposal so that they can contest its deletion if they want it to be kept. --  At am a  頭 00:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Champion City Comics speedy deletion : (
Champion City Comics is an active webcomic company updated daily and with two printed books. It was deleted, if I understand correctly as not being important. I work 8 hours a day on this company and have put my lifeblood into it. So has Tony and other Champion City staff. Webcomics are important as feeders to the big companies like Marvel.Champion City Comics, founded by TonyDoug Wright in October of 2009, is a webcomics community fueled by a do-it-yourself philosophy. It has been our goal to provide excellent webcomics to a worldwide community while supporting and developing up-and-coming writers and artists. Currently, we have nine titles that cover various genres from science-fiction to crime noir to teen humor. Our dedicated staff of writers and artists hail from the United States -24.10.69.55 (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was written as an advertisement. While Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", that doesn't mean people are allowed to insert advertisements for their web sites as articles. A site full of ads stops being an encyclopedia. I'll note that even in your note you've left for me here, you were unable to refrain from promoting your site. I wish you well in your webcomic site, I myself am personally inclined to such things and I'll be sure to look it over myself. I've even considered starting a webcomic, though I couldn't come up with a solid idea for it so it never went anywhere. I'm definitely sympathetic to your cause. But regardless of my personal preferences, as an administrator I can't let such things stay in Wikipedia, whether I like them or not. --  At am a  頭 22:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A quick update: Actually I do like your site, there's some good stuff there. :) --  At am a  頭 22:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user
FYI,. I thought this had been resolved at ANI?  Claret Ash  11:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But this editor hasn't actually adopted anyone yet. If and when that occurs, we'll need to prevent that, basically by explaining to anyone who asks to be adopted that Androzaniamy would not be a very good mentor, since she herself is a new and inexperienced editor whose inexperience has been causing her trouble. I'm sure some people may consider me hostile toward her based on my comments at ANI, but I'm mostly concerned about any editor she "adopts", more than her own actions. I've now watchlisted her user page to see that this doesn't happen. Unfortunately, we don't have any policy that prevents one person from adopting another, and no requirements for adoption. Adoption and mentoring are purely informal procedures. The closest we come to making them formal is when a person is asked to seek a mentor or be adopted as a condition of an unblock (or an alternative to a block or ban). --  At am a  頭 17:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: It looks like Eagles247 removed the adopt-a-user tag. I left a message on Androzaniamy's user talk page (which I tried to make as nice as possible) explaining why adoption wouldn't be a good idea, and asking her to not replace the tag. --  At am a  頭 19:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Best methinks to continue discouraging Andro from advertising for adoptees than to risk her humiliating herself later when prospective adoptees are advised against being adopted by her.  Claret Ash  10:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm tempted to start yet another ANI discussion, but I won't (for now). Adding the adoption template against everyone's advice at the ANI discussion, as well as erroneously warning Wikipelli for 3RR is highly disruptive. <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 18:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, you know that Androzaniamy does have a point though. She stated that she's discouraged from adopting someone but not prevented from it. And she's right. But if she does adopt someone, that doesn't prevent other people from warning the adoptee, or intervening when she makes a bad suggestion that's likely to get the adoptee in trouble. --  At am a  頭 19:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's this type of stubbornness that causes others to label her "defensive," but yet she still can't see that. The 3RR warning is still disruptive, however. <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 19:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If the 3RR warning came off of a contentious or public discussion, I'd assume good (misguided) faith, but I don't know how she'd come up with my revert without watching my contribs and jumping as soon as she saw I'd reverted 2 edits. My feeling is that it was more than an accidental and ill-informed warning. She had to dig to find that one. That bothers me.   Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   05:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Bill Huffman
It appears that "Bill Huffman", who as you know, is currently editing under a different account name, is still using his old account, to pop-up here and there to hector me. He appears also be keeping an attack page. I think you have warned him before about doing this. Could you get him to stop? I suggest blocking both the Huffman attack account and his current, editing account since he refuses to stop the behavior. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He has claimed that he is only using his "main" account for editing non-article space, and alternate accounts for editing article space. He hasn't edited the same page with both accounts. If that's the case, he's complying with WP:SOCK this time. --  At am a  頭 06:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, he is just using the Bill Huffman account to give me a hard time, after he said he was retiring it. Cla68 (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not giving you a hard time. My suggestions are being made in good faith. You assume bad faith on my part, just like you assumed bad faith against Jimbo Wales in the link that you pointed to above and mis-characterized as an attack page. Wikipedia can be a fun friendly place to edit. It seems to be a fun friendly place for you when you edit in the military history area. When you edit in other areas then it appears that it is frequently not a fun friendly place for you to edit. Have fun, stop editing like it is a battleground outside military history. I think that you'll have more fun, I know that others around you will enjoy themselves more. Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, it looks like I will have to take the time and put together a user conduct RfC. Atama, if I do all the work and put it together, will you co-certify it with me? Cla68 (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not that anyone asked me, but I have to agree with Cla68 that this isn't an appropriate, WP:SOCK-approved use of alternate accounts. Over the past 6 months, it appears that the Bill Huffman account has been used almost solely to argue with Cla68 in various venues. I don't think it's appropriate to keep one account that's dedicated to arguing with a specific editor, and a separate account that one uses for regular editing. Certainly if I were in Cla68's shoes I'd feel like this was a pretty clear-cut abuse of an alternate account. I have no idea what Bill's current account is, but I do think it's fair to ask him to restrict himself to that one account. It's probably best for him to avoid Cla68 anyway, unless they cross paths in the course of regular article editing. MastCell Talk 19:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it follows our sockpuppetry policy to the letter, if not by the spirit. Bill edits under his own name, and so can claim (and has claimed) that the purpose of the alternate account(s) has been for "privacy" under WP:SOCK. In the past, he hasn't complied with WP:LEGIT fully because he had edited the same page with both accounts (this was a long time ago). You could possibly consider the Bill Huffman account to be a "bad hand" account but to do so you'd have to demonstrate unambiguous disruption (what would be warnable/blockable behavior). I don't see that. So I think that this rises to the level of an RfC or maybe going to AN to ask for an interaction ban possibly, but no further.


 * But while I don't see any clear-cut abuse per our sockpuppetry policy, Bill isn't following the spirit of the policy. Basically, I've asked him many times over the years why he needs to edit under his own name at all. He has never given a satisfactory answer to that. Frankly that bothers me. I don't like an account that exists just to pester someone. I sometimes wonder if he keeps the account just so that he can use WP:OUTING as a blunt instrument in a dispute. So don't think I'm on his side here, I just don't feel that I have justification for using the tools. Note that his behavior isn't new, and has gone to ANI at least once and no action was taken, which reinforces to me that this isn't clearly actionable. --  At am a  頭 01:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a user conduct RfC then, to invite community input, is probably the best course of action. A user conduct RfC, as you're probably aware, requires certification by two different editors.  You are the only other one I remember who has addressed concerns with Huffman.  I would, of course, allow you to review the RfC before posting it and asking you to sign your name to it.  Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Atama, thank you for the Birthday wishes. I really apreciate it. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Katsumi Yamada (deleted)
Atama, please restore the page for Katsumi Yamada. He is such a long-time competitor on the Japanese program, "Sasuke" (known in the west as "Ninja Warrior") that he is referred to on the program as "Mr. Sasuke." See refs below for examples.

Thank you!

www.scholarsandrogues.com/2010/01/16/behind-the-warped-wall-katsumi-yamada-cant-let-sasuke-go/ http://sasukepedia.wikia.com/wiki/Yamada_Katsumi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevensanchezsiete (talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've restored the article on request, because proposed deletions are uncontroversial and can be restored for nearly any reason. However, the reason for the original deletion still stands. The subject has no demonstrated notability, he has no significant coverage in reliable sources to show that the article merits inclusion. A wiki for the TV show doesn't even come close, nor does a blog like Scholars and Rogues. If the article isn't substantially improved, it runs the risk of being deleted again, next time through Articles for Deletion and restoration would be unlikely. --  At am a  頭 15:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Project Management Interview, Michigan State University Reasearch Project
Hello Atama,

I am a student of Michigan State University working under Dr. Obar on an exploration of the Wikipedia adminship process. Thank you for volunteering to be a part of our project; we are glad that you have expressed interest in participating in our interviews of Wikipedia admins. If you are still willing to join in our work, please email me at cortezr@msu.edu or message me back on wiki so that we can contact you formally.

Thanks,

Ltezl (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

He's back, just after you told him not to
Sockpuppet investigations/Tyrobben is back again, see the case for the new sock (I also hit an IP which I found while patrolling unblock stuff). Since you gave the warning I though I would leave the master in your hands. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  06:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

United States Education Program: Wiki-Project Management -- Interview Request
Hello User:Atama,

I am a student of Michigan State University working under Dr. Obar on an exploration of the Wikipedia adminship process. Thank you for volunteering to be a part of our project; we are glad that you have expressed interest in participating in our interviews of Wikipedia admins. I apologize for the lateness of this message, but if you are still willing to join in our work, please email me using Wikipedia's email function so that we can contact you formally.

Vert3x (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

your assistance please...
In February of 2010 you deleted the article Kenny Ray Morrison as an expired prod. Unfortunately, whoever placed that prod didn't bother to leave a heads-up on my talk page, and I only became aware of the deletion now.

I request userification to User:Geo Swan/userified 2012-05/Kenny Ray Morrison please. Geo Swan (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, although the prod placer predicted Morrison would be forgotten, he was subsequently part of an opinion piece in Sports Illustrated.
 * I've restored it per your request, to your user space. When you feel it's ready to go back into article space, feel free to move it, you should be able to. --  At am a  頭  23:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've asked the original prod placer to explain his concern.  Is there something you think the article needs?  Geo Swan (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've asked the original prod placer to explain his concern.  Is there something you think the article needs?  Geo Swan (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

PG
Not sure if you remember this but you commented on this ANI. There were previous ones as well. Basically he is back using different IPS and not using his main account see this discussion. What are your thoughts. <font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  15:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I won't have time to look at this for a few days but if he's really using IPs to disrupt again then I'll follow through with what I said before. --  At am a  頭 23:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He is certainly not using his main account as he was instructed to do in the original block as part of his unblock conditions. There was also this comment at an AFD that me and Snowy thought was him. . Ill leave it to what you think is best either way but thanks for looking at it in advance. He may have some good points although half are always false but their is no talking to him as he has a clear agenda in the discussion shown it was about a totally different subject and he turned it to all about him. All i know is the footy admins are all involved so cant really do anything now. <font color="Maroon">Edinburgh   Wanderer  15:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah he was being pretty obvious about it. He didn't even deny sockpuppet accusations, just deflected them by saying to "focus on edits, not the editor". I've blocked indefinitely. I'll note that he was blocked indefinitely once in the past for the exact same thing but that block was overturned after he promised to change. --  At am a  頭 02:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

COI Guideline
I've been really busy writing an op-ed for the Signpost, contributing to  a new COI essay, looking at  duplicating the AfC process for request edits (though that may be beyond my technical abilities) and having some pretty lengthy conversations with users interested in the subject of COI, where I feel we're all learning from each other and finding good compromises.

At the end of the day though, the COI guideline is the front and center quarterback and the RfC was unproductive. I actually thought the guideline was fine, until I started hearing all the questions from PR people and realized just how confusing it is. I thought I would poke around and see if we can round up a posse to go through it line-by-line and just improve/clarify (not drastically change, but just improve). I'd be happy to help out as a sort of representative of the dark side. Maybe I am shooting for the moon here in thinking we can organize and mobilize? ;-) Posting a similar message with folks that are active on the COI guideline Talk page. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 23:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
I would appreciate some explanation. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for participating in my RfA. I appreciate that you took the time to comment on my candidacy. I haven't seen your name around as often as I'd used to, but it's great when you do pop in every now and then.

Take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Just making sure you're aware of this. Vincent Liu (something to say?) 01:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate that, I've given him an explanation. --  At am a  頭 02:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of your unblock decline?
User talk:Canepa has posted a comment requesting that you review your decline descission based on some additional information xe has posted. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'm giving this a second thought and talking with the blocking admin. --  At am a  頭 16:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for removing my block!
Hi Atama, Thanks much for your understanding in removing my block. As you understood, my sockpuppety was out of ignorance and not out of malice. I created a second username with a more proper name because I thought people would take me more seriously. Then I think I might have made one edit unwittingly with my step father's account. That's why the SPI found my original account and the two sockpuppets. I did engage in some edit warring and I will be more cautious in the future. Now that I understand the rules and norms I promise to be a good editor!

All the best, Amrit914

P.S. Thanks for your advice, I will be sure to follow your suggestions. - Amrit914 (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just glad to see that you're enthusiastic about contributing to Wikipedia, feel free to ask me for any advice. Even though I go for long periods of inactivity, I'm informed of any messages left on my talk page here and try to respond quickly if I can. --  At am a  頭 16:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I wanted to ask one request. My user page still "brands" me as an abusive user.  I was wondering if this could be removed.  As we discussed, there was no malicious intent on my part.  It seems a little harsh for me to have this "scarlet letter" on my account forever.  Other editors might not take me seriously if they see this.  Is there any way this could be removed?  Amrit914 (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can be removed, just go in and delete it or replace it with whatever you want to have on your user page. Those messages are useful for currently-blocked sockmasters (especially those who are indefinitely blocked) but for someone who was blocked once and isn't anymore, it's not intended to be a permanent "badge of shame" (that's what your block record is for, hehe). --  At am a  頭 15:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Protecting biography pages of living persons
Thank you for your diligence in combating vandalism on the biographies of living persons.

Although today's episode re: Mia Love is what's getting everyone's attention, I understand that you try your best to be as diligent with everyone's pages, regardless of ideology or political affiliation. For that, you and your fellow editors are to be commended.

Sincerely,

Jerehodges (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Jere Hodges
 * Thank you, that is very kind of you to say. :) --  At am a  頭 20:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of BLPs, would you mind taking a look at the page for Mata Amritanandamayi? (If you'll recall this is the page I got in trouble for). I'm concerned about one editor's work on the page. If you take a look at the talk page you'll see what I'm talking about. Amrit914 (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)
Hi Atama. Because you participated in Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

We need an equivalent to WP:LAME
Some days I feel the need to have a special category or list for things like User talk:BionicXtina.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe a version of LAME specifically for people who fall under WP:DUCK... WP:LAMEDUCK? :) --  At am a  頭 20:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of wiki page UltraVoice
Dear Atama,

I just noticed that UltraVoice had been deleted back in 2011 by you because it appeared to be an advertisement. The UltraVoice, as described in the article, was a great advance in the medical technology helping cancer patients speak. The wiki site had valuable information for medical doctors, speech pathologists and patients and family. When you have a wiki site for almost anything, for example The Eagles (music band of the 1970's) people finding out about them might be interested in buying music, but that does not make a factual description an advertisement. The same standards should be available to UltraVoice.

davidbaraff@msn.com

David Baraff Davidbaraff (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * UltraVoice was a proposed deletion. The way a proposed deletion works is that someone finds an article and suggests that it should be deleted for a particular reason. If anyone objects to the article's deletion in good faith (including you) in the 7 days following the proposal, the article can't be deleted. Nobody objected, so the article was deleted. Furthermore, the article lacked sufficient coverage from reliable sources to show notability, and the article did read like an advertisement. Just a hint, but encyclopedia articles don't usually include "recent improvements" that talk up the viability of a product, that is marketing language. Although Wikipedia has millions of articles, the encyclopedia does have a threshold for inclusion (mostly depending on notability).


 * If you want the article restored, it can be. Proposed deletions are for articles where deletion is uncontroversial; in other words, nobody wants it to be kept. If someone wants it restored, it can be restored on request. Just keep in mind that the concerns that led to its deletion are still there, and if the article is restored, although it can no longer be uncontroversially deleted as a proposed deletion (since you object to its deletion) it can still be deleted through other methods, such as an Articles for Deletion discussion. --  At am a  頭 16:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Tony Teora page deletion
Hi Atama,

I'm a science fiction author and put together a Wikipedia author biography. I thought I had enough of references to validate my work/history, but in any case you put it up for deletion. I was not online at the time and missed the 7 day notice. I was wondering if you could put it back online? Or allow me to put it in a sandbox to get it acceptable to you or whomever else might have an issue? My agent would like me to get me into Wikipedia. I thought I could do it myself. If I can't figure out to do it (w/o getting it deleted), I'll see if my agent's firm can assist me with the process.

Your help and advice would be appreciated. I considered doing a new one, but I suspect I may encounter the same issues with you or another Wikipedia monitor/admin, etc, and want to know how to proceed? I am hoping this is the proper place to contact you, and also, please excuse any lack of understanding of the process. I am pretty new to Wikipedia.

Thanks, Tony Teora Tonyteora (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Tony Teora page deletion
Hi Atama,

I'm a science fiction author and put together a Wikipedia author biography. I thought I had enough of references to validate my writing/work/history, but in any case you put it up for deletion. I was not online at the time and missed the 7 day notice. I was wondering if you could put it back online? Or allow me to put it in a sandbox to get it acceptable to you or whomever else might have an issue? My agent would like me to get me into Wikipedia. I thought I could do it myself. If I can't figure out to do it (w/o getting it deleted), I'll see if my agent's marketing firm can assist me with the process.

Your help and advice would be appreciated. I considered doing a new one, but I suspect I may encounter the same issues with you or another Wikipedia monitor/admin, etc, and want to know how to proceed? I am hoping this is the proper place to contact you, and also, please excuse any lack of understanding of the process. I am pretty new to Wikipedia.

Thanks, Tony Teora Tonyteora (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Tony, the article was deleted because the proposal to delete it was uncontroversial; nobody objected to its deletion for 7 days since the proposal was made, and I found no prior objections to deletion. Also, I felt that the reason for deletion as given did apply to the article and was properly based on our deletion policy. But any article deleted uncontroversially can be restored on request, so I've restored it. Please keep in mind that the concerns raised in the original deletion proposal are still valid, and without improvement the article will likely be deleted again. This is due primarily to the lack of notability shown in the article because the biographical content in the article is not properly referenced with significant coverage in reliable sources.


 * Also, please keep in mind our advice on autobiographies, and why they are discouraged. And I very highly recommend that you take a look at WP:PSCOI; unlike many pages on Wikipedia that try to give advice, that page is written in clear English and it makes some very good common sense suggestions for how to deal with articles that you're personally close to. We have an official conflict of interest guideline but it's not nearly as clear (unfortunately). --  At am a  頭 08:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, a more personal piece of advice... As I said, I have a lot of experience working with COI cases. I play both sides; protecting Wikipedia's reputation by keeping it clear of empty marketing attempts, but also trying to help people who are in some way closely tied to articles that really do belong in the encyclopedia. One mistake I see made very often by agents, PR folks, and other kinds of marketers, is that they see Wikipedia incorrectly. Wikipedia is a very popular site, one of the most popular sites on the World Wide Web. It costs nothing to add information to it, and anyone can contribute (for the most part). So it seems like the greatest gift in the world for someone whose job is to raise awareness of their client.


 * The problem is that while anyone can contribute, there is a set of criteria for anything that is added. To maintain at least a shred of credibility, the encyclopedia can't have an article about each and every subject that anyone thinks of. So we try to maintain an objective set of criteria, a bar that an article has to clear to be considered "notable" enough for inclusion. If an agent is trying to make the public aware of their client, as attractive as it might be, Wikipedia is the wrong place for that, because for you to be included that public awareness must already exist. If your article does get deleted again, and your agent or anyone is frustrated by that, maybe you can try to get that point across. And don't feel bad personally if it does happen, it's not a judgement of your work or your talent, it just means that you haven't received the kind of attention yet that would warrant inclusion. If that attention does exist, but just hasn't been reflected in the article yet, take a look at WP:AUTHOR for an idea of the kinds of criteria we're looking for. Specifically, these two criteria apply to an author:


 * "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
 * "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."


 * I hope this gives some insight into what editors at Wikipedia look for when determining whether or not an article should be kept or deleted. If you have any questions, let me know, thank you. --  At am a  頭 08:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Rules
Atama,

I think I understand your points loud and clear. I think your points ensure that Wikipedia maintains its credibility and usefulness. I sincerely appreciate your frankness. I will work to remove anything that is not reliable to the Wikipedia standards (to the best of my ability) and appreciate your patience on helping someone new. I will try to make changes over the next few days. Thanks again for your help and instruction. It's greatly appreciated.

Tony Teora — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyteora (talk • contribs) 04:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer
Thank you Michael, I hope your holidays are wonderful and that you find peace and happiness in the new year. --  At am a  頭 08:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)