User talk:Atama

Welcome to my talk page, please feel free to leave me a message.

Contested PROD

Please be advised that Shade Rupe, which you requested PROD for around three years ago, has been restored by user request. Feel free to AFD it if you wish. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Market Dynamics

Dear Atama,

A previous submission titled "Market Dynamics" was deleted due to a lack of notoriety. This issue has now been remedied with two recent publications. I have enclosed links to these sources, and would appreciate your consideration in restoring the submission. If other changes are still required, I would be happy to review and adjust.

Regards, Josh Dayanim jdayanim@gmail.com

Source articles for reference:

1) Journal of Mathematics Research, February 2011 Market Dynamics: Bridging Security Price Movements and Classical Physics http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jmr/article/view/8030

2) International Federation of Technical Analysts (IFTA) Journal 11, pages 50-53 Market Dynamics: Modeling Security Price Movements and Support Levels http://www.ifta.org/public/files/journal/d_ifta_journal_11.pdf

72.237.206.160 (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review : Ramesh Srinivasan

Hi - about a year ago, you proposed the article titled Ramesh Srinivasan to be deleted for the following reason -- (WP:PROD: Nominated for seven days with no objection: Concern was: Non-notable per WP:ACADEMIC, unreferenced.) I have created a much-improved version of this article with thorough citations, and further information on why Dr. Srinivasan is a notable academic. Here it is, on my user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kairyth/RameshArticleTest I plan on submitting this new article to deletion review, but they recommend contacting the admin who deleted the page first. So here I am, contacting you. Please let me know if you will be able to un-delete this page. Thanks very much - Katherine Becvar (kairyth)

Kairyth (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

request to reverse deletion

Hi Atama,

I would like to request that the article "Deleteme" be reinstated. This was an expired PROD. Deleteme was one of the earliest groups on the photo sharing site Flickr--and is still one of the most notorious. There are so many groups on Flickr now--many of them with names like "dog, dogs, dogs!" but this one really truly is an original.

The section about the group "deleting" a photo by Henri Cartier Bresson is of particular value. I think. This was an online "event" that many people still talk about today--you find references to it in photogrpahy forms--it sparked a debate about the value of art critique, especially in an online era where anyone can be an "expert." (Here's an example: http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/general-chit-chat/63840-henri-cartier-bresson-photo-flickr-deleteme.html). Or Google "deleteme" and "Henry Cartier Bresson."

Anyway, I understand that these PRODs are routinely cleaned up after they expire but I also understand that requests to restore are typically granted if there was only one protest ... Hope you can help--thanks in advance.

70.42.57.137 (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Gienna Shaw giennawrites (at) gmail (dot) com www.flickr.com/gienna

I've restored this per the request. However, I doubt it will last long unless it has massive improvement. I still see no valid claim to notability. It might warrant a mention on the Flickr article but I doubt it. -- Atama頭 17:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

New Pages and New Users

I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.

What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.

I know this isn't necessarily your standard fare, but with your deletion work I thought it might be up your alley. If you're interested, read Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/New pages, sign up and get involved; questions can be dropped on the talkpage or directed at me. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look, I've always put a lot of importance on welcoming new users so this is a particular interest of mine. I participated in the ill-fated NEWT project which put my RFA in jeopardy. I took an unplanned Wikibreak with no notice because I just couldn't take the time to volunteer with my work and personal life being so hectic, but I want to try to come back and help out if in a lesser capacity than before. Thanks for considering me. -- Atama頭 17:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Prendergast

Thanks for the little bit of extra looking you did, and for the pacifying advice you offered based on it. JohnInDC (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure! -- Atama頭 23:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for you comments there - this is the best possible outcome for that situation. I am hopeful we'll see some improvement. The Interior (Talk) 02:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And good to see you back Atama! :) -- œ^™ 08:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, it actually feels really good to be back here again, even if in a limited capacity (I can't devote all that time to mediation for example). -- Atama頭 15:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (again). I'd apologize for throwing you to the wolves but I figure you can fend for yourself. Plus it might do some good, might, to hear concerns coming from an editor who has recently manifested patience and understanding. After my own patience reservoir has been replenished, I'm sure I'll be back! JohnInDC (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL no worries, it's nothing. I've been hounded by sockpuppets and worse, and even once had a months-long mediation trying to settle a dispute regarding Lyndon LaRouche articles between two people, one of whom ended up secretly being a person working for the LaRouche organization and even posting from the organization's computers. :) -- Atama頭 00:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I know. I just appreciate the backup. I hadn't looked in on this after helping settle things down (or so I thought) in September and it's discouraging how much the same it was six months later. JohnInDC (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI Dr. Blofeld

Your comment duly noted for if this should happen in the future. Thank you •martyx• tkctgy 16:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

pleae explain why i am a troll

Atama, I was very offended by your imediate dismeasel of my post here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#unethical_behavior_of_a_linguistic. I looked under the definiton of troll and could not understand why did you considered me as one. I am a M.S in linguists and hold dearly for the subject. Shepit (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel the need to explain much further, I outlined everything very clearly at the noticeboard. If you insist that you're not, perhaps you can respond to what I said rather than simply saying that you're offended. Feel free to explain on my talk page if you wish, or at the noticeboard. -- Atama頭 17:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I used "troll" as a verb (if you have a MS in linguistics you should know the difference), in the sense of being a prank or a joke. I referred to your post as a joke in the edit summary, and as a prank when I closed the notice. It wasn't meant to be an attack on you personally, but rather a reaction to what you had done. -- Atama頭 17:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have many things in response, but you close the disscution with a template, can you please remove it? Shepit (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'm curious what you have to say. :) -- Atama頭 18:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

thank you, I will write a detailed response soonShepit (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate your perspective

Thanks for being a fresh eye on things. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Fantastic world

You deleted the page The Fantastic world. I have permission to use the content you flag and Its not an advertisement. Its a TV show on cable. if the links are a problem I can remove them but I thought wiki was a no follow thing.

please reinstall it ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrothersYoung (talk • contribs) 23:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Matthew, I assume you are Matthew Young, one of the creators/actors of the show? Please know that Wikipedia is not the place for self-promotion. In addition, at least half of the article was a copy of the information found at this Wordpress article posted weeks earlier without permission or attribution, which is a copyright violation. Finally, your chosen username is in violation of our user name policy, so if you do wish to continue to edit Wikipedia I suggest you request a change of user name at the appropriate location. Thank you. -- Atama頭 00:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW

User:The REAL Dux never actually took responsibility for his legal threat. He still tried calling it a "perceived threat" and a misunderstanding. There is no misunderstanding when someone says "Escape Orbit & Niteshift36 identities to be disclosed so that I may hold them legally accountable". His dancing about how he just meant WP policy is not believeable when he was talking about "tortuous, unlawful acts that may include trade libel" etc. Thanks for initiating the SPI though. I hate doing thos things. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah I know. But he wasn't blocked for a lack of civility or misbehavior, it was simply because he had threatened legal action. As long as an editor gives the impression that they will sue Wikipedia, its editors, or anyone else affiliated with the project as a result of on-wiki activity it creates a "chilling effect" where people might be reluctant to oppose the person making the threats. That is why we have a low tolerance for such things and routinely block people unless they recall the threat. We also routinely unblock them after they retract the threat, because at that point the "chilling effect" is gone since everyone is assured that no lawsuit will be forthcoming. Sandstein went so far as require him to state in exact terms that the threat was being revoked (which I think was proper) and the person claiming to be Dux did exactly that. I couldn't in good conscience let the block stand even though I was sure that unblocking him would not be in the project's best interest.

I don't mind filing a SPI case. Digging up diffs to present the case and trying to paint a picture as to why my sock-radar went off can take time and be a pain, but I've done it enough times that it's not that big of a deal for me anymore. If this pans out, there might be some sleepers uncovered as well.

By the way, by far my favorite sockpuppet case was this one. :) -- Atama頭 01:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• That case was a hoot. I dunno, it just tweaks me when a guy who is questioning my integrity dances around taking responsibility by essentially lying and claiming we were all too dumb to understand. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Nothing really changed. That latest response is still him blaming me for the SPI and starting his talk about "defaming" him. There is a COI issue in a big way. When an allegedly new account starts talking about my "pattern of bad behavior", you know damn well he didn't go back through all the archives. If there isn't socking, there is a meatpuppet here. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of high school articles

Thanks for the clarification on speedy deletes. Is there a list/ article on what gets deleted/stayed. For example : what about colleges / security firms (just imagining). Thanks in advance Vinay84 (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's usually done on a case-by-case basis for most articles, but there is a list of what are called "common outcomes" which is derived from years of observation about deletion discussions. It works like precedent, except these aren't "officially" rules. In my experience, however, they might as well be rules. Frankly, I've never agreed with the idea that all high schools are presumed to be notable, but I've tried multiple times to have them deleted at articles for deletion discussions and they always get kept. Since consensus trumps almost anything else in Wikipedia, and the consensus is to keep high school articles, I go along with it. -- Atama頭 06:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Matthew Dodd Productions

You have suggested that the importance of Matthew Dodd Productions is clearly asserted? I fail to see where. The article clearly does NOT credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject as required. The article states it is an amateur game development company best known for a game that isn't out until 2012! Where is the importance? Can you elaborate on your thinking, cheersTeapotgeorge^Talk 18:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There's an implicit assertion of significance, as a developer for an upcoming game. But, you know, I suppose that the fact that the game hasn't even been released yet, that's pretty weak. Also, I reread the discussion on the talk page of the article, and it's pretty obvious that there's no intention to develop the page any further. I went ahead and deleted it per A7. I stand by the removal of the tag on Run Wild: Zombies. There's almost zero chance of the article being notable, but it isn't advertising the game at all (there's no promotional language whatsoever in the article). I would put a proposed deletion tag on the article but clearly the author objects to its deletion so it's ineligible. It would be a good candidate for WP:AFD. I'd be happy to speedily delete that article, except it doesn't seem to meet any of our criteria. -- Atama頭 18:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've taken it to WP:AFD though I think it could have been speedy deleted as advertising...you don't necessarily need promotional language for it to be an advert? Kind regardsTeapotgeorge^Talk 19:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you from CoolGamesNet I mean Green Home

I think I have made the Change Name request so now I begin again. I will begin in a Sandbox this time !

Again Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolGamesNet (talk • contribs) 19:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC) 

You're very welcome, good luck and I'll try to be available if you have any questions. -- Atama頭 19:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

How will I find out that my username is now changed ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolGamesNet (talk • contribs) 20:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe a note will appear on your talk page. You'll also see that when you go to your user page, it will be redirected to your new user name. Lastly, it probably won't let you log in under your CoolGamesNet name anymore. Just a note, I checked over at WP:CHU/S where your request is, and it looks like you mixed up a couple of entries on your request. I left a note explaining everything but you might have to change it yourself for the request to be accepted. You just need to put your user name (CoolGamesNet) after where it says "1=", and replace "please state a reason" with the reason why your name has to be changed (you can simply say you were blocked because of your user name previously). -- Atama頭 20:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sket One

Hi. You deleted the artist page "Sket One" which I worked really hard on on behalf of the artist. Exactly what is the difference between an artist profile and biography and advertising? It seems the wiki gods blur the lines between them and delete willy-nilly. Please justify this as both myself and the artist in question are hurt by this deletion without any actual discussion, despite me contesting this on the contesting page. There was a lot more information on his page compared to artists he has worked with who have NOT been deleted, is that the problem?! --Catxx (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The article was written with entirely promotional language. There was almost no portion of that article that wasn't laudatory of Sket One. I strongly suggest you read other biographical articles on Wikipedia to see what kind of tone an encyclopedia article should have. WP:WORDS is a good guideline to review as well. Just to give you some specific examples from the article in question:

• he put down his artistic roots as a graffiti artist starting in 1986 as hip-hop swept the country - It's better to simply say he started his art work in 1986.
• Sket soon found himself honing his skills and leveraging them into commercial design opportunities - This phrase serves no purpose whatsoever, as the following sentence illustrates that he started commercial work.
• Sket’s career took a big public step forward - Another example of opinionated writing scattered throughout the article.
• The revolutionary idea that individual artists could be featured on toys produced in extremely limited numbers offered an enticing opportunity. - I shouldn't even have to explain this.

I could go on like this for awhile, but suffice to say this kind of language is in every part of the article. The article looked like it was written by a press agent.

Another suggestion is to review WP:NPOV. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that we avoid adding opinion or commentary in articles, or trying to slant an article to a particular point of view. This is true of every article in the project. Opinions can be mentioned, if they are relevant quotations and have a provided source. For example, saying that someone had a revolutionary idea is not permitted. If a notable magazine states that a person had a revolutionary idea, you can quote the magazine saying so. Of course, depending on context such a quotation might not be appropriate either, it varies from case-to-case (as do most editorial decisions).

The usual response when an article contains what is commonly referred to as "puffery" is to fix the article. However, if the article has to be fundamentally rewritten, it is usually deleted, see Criteria for Speedy Deletion. In my opinion, that was the case here. I don't always make such a decision, see just above on my talk page where someone else protested my decline of a speedy deletion for an article that I felt wasn't overly promotional. -- Atama頭 19:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Would it not have been a better idea to post this in the Sket One user talk thing rather than just deleting it to give me a chance to re-write the article? It wasn't written by me and was written by someone else (WHO WAS A PRESS AGENT) to promote him and I was in the PROCESS of altering it. Deleting the article entirely doesn't help me alter it now does it? It just hurts feelings - these pages are about REAL people with REAL families excited about these prospects, it's more than just text on a precious little page! Please reinstate the page and allow me to alter it to the wikigods wishes so that it may stay online. Sket works on drawing pretty pictures. I know wiki language. Neither of us are authors. How about giving us a break rather than leaning so heavily on the delete button? --Catxx (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to improve it, that's fantastic. What I've done is moved the article to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Sket One. By placing it in the Article Incubator, it will give yourself and anyone else a chance to work on the article without it being tagged with another speedy deletion request while you are improving it. When you feel it's ready, you can add an assessment tag per these instructions to get it restored back into main space. Keep in mind that the article isn't completely immune to deletion this way, but it's much less likely for that to occur than if it was still in main space. If you have any questions please let me know, thank you. -- Atama頭 20:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

(The author posted a message on my talk page prior to the article's deletion... I feel obligated to respond and hope you don't mind if I jump in here.) I don't mean to sound callous, but feelings aren't really an issue here. Scores of biographical articles are created and deleted everyday and deletion is often a necessary course of action. As you state that you wrote the article "at the request of the artist himself" and that it was based on the work of a press agent, there is a clear issue of WP:NPOV, and that is evident in the highly laudatory and POV tone that is rampant in the article. To be frank, I chose not to delete the article and deferred to another administrator because I was assuming good faith and hoping you would rewrite it, but given the comments above, I have to agree with the deletion at this time. As the article is in the incubator, I would work on editing the article and showing why the subject of the article is notable as an artist using reliable sources and more neutral language. Right now, the article really fails to assert notability, contains little to no actual sourcing, and reads like a promotional piece. I would suggest following the advice given above. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kinu. I considered writing a similar response, but figured, heck if you want to fix it, here's your chance, nuff said. Also, this is my first time using the Incubator and wanted to see how it worked anyway. -- Atama頭 20:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The subject isn't wiki-friendly. He's happiest with pen and ink and not such technical things. As I run my own independent toy-wiki away from wikipedia, he approached me to help him out. Dead artists I imagine have no such issues! And I'm glad I don't have to deal with wikipedia very often. Much easier to moderate my own wiki with less red tape. --Catxx (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's also a lot easier to write articles about dead artists, since we don't have WP:BLP issues to worry about (the "L" stands for "Living" after all). ;) -- Atama頭 21:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure how to set the article to evaluate, it goes on about editing the template, which I am unsure about. --Catxx (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I can add the template if you want. Now, I have some reservations still about the article. Really, my reservations are only in regards to a couple of places where language is still a bit "fluffy" and some minor issues going against our manual of style (references before periods instead of after them, external links in the body of the article, etc.). But the article itself is much improved. If you want, I can add some fixes myself. However, if I do so I would be a contributor to the article and could not perform the assessment myself to take the article out of the Incubator. I'd also feel compelled to no longer act as an administrator at the article. There's nothing stopping me from doing it on my own initiative, but I'm offering to help you with the article so I'd like to know how (or if) you want my help. (If you don't want it at all, that's fine too, I'd understand.) -- Atama頭 22:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can point out the parts that don't match up to guidelines I would appreciate it. I don't see the problem with the references? By "period" do you mean a full stop? In the UK a period is a woman's time of the month... The external links can be removed, they are just for companies that will probably never be added here. I will look into suggestions tomorrow. --Catxx (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL it means that in the US too (which has led me to some bad puns in the past), but yes in this case I mean full stops (I was even going to use that phrase, but most people in the US don't know what that means). I can't find the exact guideline where it suggests to do that, but if you look at WP:CITE you'll see numerous examples. To clarify what I mean, see this:

• Fred is generally considered to be a terrible person^[3].
• Fred is generally considered to be a terrible person.^[3]

The second example is what we try to do. I think most editors just feel it looks better not to shove punctuation over like that. The same goes for any kind of punctuation, see the following examples where a citation comes before punctuation when it should come after:

• Fred used to eat kittens when he was younger^[4], but now he eats human children.
• Fred has no problem with drinking alcohol to excess^[5]; he is quite successful at it.
• When Fred stated that he "never killed a man in cold blood^[6]" it was later proven to be a lie.

I hope that clarifies what I mean about full stops and citations. Also, WP:EL is the guideline we use for external links, you can use that for guidance. -- Atama頭 22:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I got them all? --Catxx (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You've done a really good job cleaning it up. I would certainly not delete the page as promotional in this state. So now we get to another issue... Notability. As you should know, every article in Wikipedia needs to follow inclusion criteria, and usually the biggest hurdle for inclusion is notability. Not every subject merits inclusion, and the general guideline is that a subject needs to be given significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. As the article stands now, I don't see it. Almost every reference given is to a blog site, commercial site, or Flickr, none of which are considered reliable sources. The news channel interview is an exception, that's the kind of coverage that Wikipedia tends to look for. On its own, it wouldn't be enough to establish notability, but combined with more you might be able to. I took it upon myself to look up coverage myself and came up empty, but you may have access to material I haven't found.

Another consideration is that we have some specific guidelines for the notability of people. Artists are covered under WP:ARTIST. There you'll see other ways to show that a person is notable. Unfortunately, proving that Sket One satisfies any of those criteria will also require reliable sources, but again I hope you can come up with something. The best kind of source would be something like a newspaper article, a book that talks about Sket One at length (rather than just including some of his work), or maybe a review from an art journal or magazine. You'll notice the template at the top of the page has a collapsible "toolbox", which helps you search for sources for the subject. This is because notability is always a factor for articles.

I'm not trying to create obstacles for this article. This is the same inclusion process every article on Wikipedia goes through. Personally I think that the Sket One toys look pretty cool and he seems to be a talented artist. But we have objective criteria for every article. Right now, to move the article out of the Incubator, I would have to fill out an assessment template, you can see the template here. Where it asks for an assessment of notability, I would have to say for now that it fails, and where it asks for verifiability, it would succeed in having references and no original research, but fail in having reliable sources. The last part, asking about neutrality, I would say it definitely passes (thanks to the work you did).

If you want someone else to independently assess the article to get an opinion other than mine, there is an option to do so. I can even do it for you if you like, I just add "status=eval" to the template code and it will show up as requesting evaluation. Just a warning though, the article will be pass-fail, and if the article fails assessment it generally gets taken to Miscellany for Deletion for other editors to discuss whether or not the article merits inclusion, and depending on the discussion it might be deleted.

Anyway, just let me know if you are able to come up with anything. You can also ask for help at a Wikiproject. Wikiprojects tend to have people who have a lot of experience developing articles of particular types, and they may know the best way to find notability for a particular kind of subject. One project that might help is Wikipedia:WikiProject Toys. There's a general directory for arts and culture here but I had trouble finding anything relevant. (There is a Wikiproject for sculpture but it has been inactive for years.) If you need more help please let me know, thank you. -- Atama頭 21:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a shame. To me the big toy blogs (many of which have been going 8-10 years plus) ARE notable, in fact in toy circles, getting a write up or interview on some of these blogs is a big thing. They are read by thousands of kids around the world. These aren't just written by kids, they are also sponsors and hosts of shows, get their own exclusive toys etc. It's a shame the wikigods don't see that in this day and age those ARE the newspapers! The rags of newspapers you get these days don't consider you an artist unless you've done some rubbish for a Turner prize. The only coverage graffiti artists like Sket would get would be someone whinging they wanted it painted over off a wall somewhere. There are only one or two magazines that even cover this subject (one of which hasn't had a new magazine out for 2 years). It is the wiki criteria that means you will miss out on over 1,500 otherwise influential artists in the huge world that is toy/art figures and customs. I've been to opening shows in London in small rooms with over 200 people crammed in spilling out into the streets, 2 hour queues to get in even, clamouring for art, and yet only toy/art blogs will do any coverage of these shows. I'll ask Sket if he's had any other interviews that weren't with toy art related blog sites, but it is unlikely, it's this art world that loves these guys, outside doesn't give a damn! In fact it's only started going "mainstream" in the last 3 years. --Catxx (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added a couple more references. --Catxx (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Were they any better? --Catxx (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Boston Globe interview might do it. It's behind a pay wall, are you able to copy-and-paste any of the relevant information to me? I'm inclined to pull it out of the incubator if it's at all relevant to Sket One. -- Atama頭 20:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking the artist if he has his own copy of the whole thing. --Catxx (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That's helpful, thank you. -- Atama頭 18:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome Back

Only just noticed you're editing again. Welcome back. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks WCM. (I assume you don't want anyone to refer to your old name anymore.) I'm back on a "part-time" basis, I couldn't stay away from Wikipedia forever but I can't be here for hours every day either. I'm also staying away from mediation, I loved doing it but it was a huge time sink for me. Maybe if one day I become independently wealthy and don't need a 9-5 job any more I'd have time for it again, I can dream, huh? -- Atama頭 19:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Ebrahimi-amir

Could you have a look at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee (section called Two Things) and User Talk:Ebrahimi-amir where I've posted the results of some digging? Thanks. Peridon (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Helloooo

Very nice to see you're working again. Welcome back.(olive (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC))

Hey Olive, thank you. I'm back part-time, at least I'm not as active as before, but I'm around now. :) -- Atama頭 22:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Our Red Hot Romance Is Leaving Me Blue Page

Wow! So, speedy deletion I guess was the choice. Guess it really doesn't matter that I contested it. And it's so nice to know that even though I contested it, explained everything, and without even getting an answer, my page was deleted anyway. Did you even read my reply to the Speedy Deletion tag on the talk page? Or just delete the page? This is terrible. This was my very first time EVER doing anything on Wikipedia and I did it for a class, no less, and then just like that, it's gone! Thank God it was already graded considering it was only up for 4 days!!!! I doubt I'll ever do anything on here again. It has been a terrible experience, much less about community, helpfulness, collaboration and learning than I expected. TheLibraryLady (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did actually. Your reply did nothing to defend the article's state, nor did you offer any interest in improving the article. In fact, your comment that there was little more to add to the article helped me make the decision to delete it. I'm sorry if you've felt that the experience was terrible, and I sympathize. I've spent hours trying to improve at least dozens of articles that were eventually deleted. But once I understood Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, I came to understand why the articles were deleted, and at the very least the effort I had made gave me a lot of experience that has been helpful. I have had over 2,400 edits that were deleted, and while not all of them were from attempting to improve an article that was deleted, a good number were. I hope that this experience doesn't provoke you to leave Wikipedia forever, but if so, I am sorry to see you go and wish you well at whatever interest you take outside of the project. -- Atama頭 05:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI thread on Bill Huffman

ANI thread on Bill Huffman, if you have any comment on what you experienced when you tried to deal with this editor last year. Cla68 (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Atama, my Bill Huffman account has apparently been blocked. That account has not been used to edit article or article talk space in a very long time. Contrary to your assertions on the ANI page, I have never used a sock account to try to decieve or try to get around any wiki rules. Cla68 is once again twisting wiki to attack other people. For example he previously lied to ArbCom about a webpage I have. He lied that I made claims on the page about Warren National University simply so he could get me blocked from editting that article. Cla68 is an excellent editor. However, it appears that when someone complains about another Wikipedia editor on Wikipedia Review then Cla68 sometimes goes into attack mode against that editor on Wikipedia. I would like to try to defend myself against Cla68 but I can't really do that as long as my account is blocked. Of course, if none of this matters to you then I apologize for bothering you and wish you a good day. Regards, 98.155.23.219 (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Your account isn't blocked, and never has been blocked. See here. I had an alternate account once (see User:JoeKole) but I followed directions at WP:SOCK#NOTIFY before using it. Have you done so? If you follow the directions in the notification section, and otherwise follow what is written at WP:SOCK you should be in the clear, at least as far as accusations regarding your use of multiple accounts. To clarify, you should do the following:

• Don't participate in non-article space with your alternate account(s). That includes editing policy or guideline pages, or participating on their talk pages. Don't use alternate accounts to contribute to deletion discussions (AfD, MfD, RfD, etc.). Don't use them to participate at RfA, RfB, or elections. Don't use them to comment on RfCs or at Arbitration. Article space, article talk space, user space, and user talk space are fine. Noticeboards should also be okay, though you should probably avoid bringing a dispute to a noticeboard with your alternate account if you can.
• Don't use alternate accounts for evasion; if you are blocked or banned, that is meant to apply to you, not your account, unless there are specific exceptions. (For example, when I blocked one of your accounts last year, that was only to prevent that account from being used, you weren't blocked as an editor.)
• Don't edit the same page with multiple accounts. That got you in hot water before, and I know you said it was initially an accident, but try very hard not to do that. Not only because it's Wikipedia's policy, but you can "blow your cover" that way.
• Don't quote one account with another account, or use them in any way to create support by making yourself look like more than one person. Keep your accounts as separate as possible.

I'm assuming that you're using an alternate account for the same reason as before, to maintain privacy. That's allowed, but again you really should follow the notification rules as I said before, and follow the other rules to stay out of trouble. Most of the time, if someone accuses you of sockpuppetry and you say that you've notified Arbcom, people back off (that helped me before with my old alternate account). Also, there are allegations that you're using the Bill Huffman account only to engage in conflict with Cla68 and possibly others (whether you're starting the conflict or not), which could be loosely interpreted as a "good hand, bad hand" use of multiple accounts, so please make sure you're not doing that. Finally, my advice (just general advice, not policy) is to remove the "retired" template from your user page if you want your account to remain active. Convincing people that you're not trying to be deceptive is difficult when your user page has contradictory information.

I suggest you participate in the discussion at ANI that's currently in progress, to clear up misconceptions. Remember that it's a public noticeboard and any discussion you have is not just between yourself and Cla68 so try not to get into a back-and-forth argument there, it would be counterproductive. -- Atama頭 19:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Can you please email me? I think you can email through the user:Bill Huffman account. There has apparently been a block put on an IP address that I frequently use. I would like to discuss that with you and another thing in private, if you don't mind. Thank you, 98.155.23.219 (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I have filed an SPI. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Equato Encryption

I have the feeling that the Wikipedia deletion system is failing here. You contested my speedy deletion for something that is not "blatant" nonsense but still pretty much nonsense. The author contested your prod deletion proposal. Do we really have to go through AfD for this nonsense article? (I was being nice in saying that there were some nice ideas for a college freshman but really the content is very naive.) Nageh (talk) 06:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

See my rant on the editor's talk page regarding the article's "clarity" and sensefulness. Nageh (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the deletion system failed because you incorrectly tagged an article. The G1 criteria doesn't apply even by your own admission above. Administrators can't delete articles on a whim, even if the article wouldn't stand a snowball's chance at AfD. If there is another CSD criterion that you think fits the content of the article, please let me know. I really tried to find something that did but couldn't. It should be obvious that I don't want the article kept, as I proposed deletion after declining the speedy request. Since the prod has been contested, the only recourse now is AfD, which I will initiate, and you are more than welcome to contribute to. AfD is the only way to delete an article that doesn't fit CSD criteria, and which any editor wants kept in good faith. -- Atama頭 15:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't blaming you. I thought that there should be something like an "unambiguous original research" category for speedy deletions. As there isn't I picked the next best, which was contested (rightfully). The author contested the prod tag - wrongfully I would like to say because he didn't provide any explanation or rationale. I checked the prod guidelines and they only say that a reason should be provided not that it has to - I think the deletion system fails here. There should be no grounds for this to go through AfD because I think it takes away others' labor that could be better spent on other tasks. But so be it. Thanks anyway! Nageh (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You might have a good argument about unambiguous original research. You can try a discussion at WT:CSD and if you get enough agreement then maybe a new "A" criterion can be created? It happens. As to the prod rejection, the whole point of a proposed deletion is that literally nobody cares that the article is kept. Even protesting an article's deletion on the talk page without removing the tag will make the article ineligible, or if Ayan protested on their own user talk page. If someone wants it kept, they will get an opportunity to argue for it to be kept in a discussion. The only reason we have prod is to avoid a pointless discussion where nobody is going to say "keep". If anyone demonstrates they would argue for it to be kept, then the AfD is supposed to happen. A discussion about this very topic occurred last year, see here. There are also people who think that it's far too easy to propose an article for deletion, and since there is no discussion it is a "stealth" deletion done under the radar. So there are opinions all over the place about it, but overall I think that proposed deletions are helpful and do what they're meant to do (if only every other aspect of Wikipedia was so successful). -- Atama頭 16:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, and I may initiate a discussion about introducing a new speedy category for such cases. Regarding prod, yeah, it should be easy to object but at least a reason should be provided. But then maybe it is better to sort this out via speedy or at AfD. Thanks again for replying, Nageh (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it got speedied anyway, now that Ayan asked for it to be deleted as well. Such is the exciting world of article deletion. -- Atama頭 18:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks for all! Nageh (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Request to Reverse Deletion

It appears you deleted this Infection (Morpheme Single) while I was attempting to contest it's deletion. --- I was **still working** on the page when it was **prematurely** tagged.

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --KDSRRGurl (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC) This article is about a debut release by Dean Garcia famous for performing in Curve (band) and the Eurythmics (ie. bassist on Touch (Eurythmics album)) on RCA and Universal records. ( <--significance) This release is by his new band Morpheme which has been referenced on Dean Garcia's current Wikipedia article "Curve (band)" and can be found under the Post-Curve endeavors Dean_Garcia#Dean_Garcia section. --- I had planned to add additional citations to both articles; and am currently researching that I may eventually create an article on Dean Garcia, separate from his Curve (band) and SPC ECO articles. Currently, I can link this album to Dean via his Official Curve site and the noted copyright information on his Morpheme Bandcamp Site. If you go to the Official Curve site, it has a link to his SPC ECO site, which has a link to his SPC ECO bandcamp site, which has a link to the album Big Fat World, which also credits Perry Pelonero and offers thanks to Kim Welsh.

I read what was on the talk page. But I still see no claim to importance, even in what you wrote here. A song isn't important because someone notable is involved with it. Even the band that performed the song doesn't have an article yet. If the song charts, or you can find significant coverage of it, then maybe it can be brought back. If I were you, I'd work on the article for the band first, and I'd suggest you start in your user space first before trying it in article space. -- Atama頭 21:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

re: Fishing

Regarding this: if in future you feel that a case you submitted has been incorrectly rejected, feel free to ask for another checkuser's opinion, either indirectly (on the page by asking for another opinion) or directly (by asking one, such as me, what we think). --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 08:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It would have been years ago, water long under the bridge, but I'll keep that in mind if I get into that situation in the future. -- Atama頭 15:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Swindon library links

Please review your decision to delete a previous version of User:SwindonLocal. I can't see the deleted page, but I understand from the user's later contributions that the page included description and links to sites operated by local government or local non-profit history societies such as:

• http://www.swindon.gov.uk/lc/lc-libraries/Pages/lc-libraries-localhistoryandgenealogy.aspx

I wonder if perhaps you made the reasonable assumption that the user was promoting a private business.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the only link on that deleted page was this one:

• [1]

That, along with an address for their location, and some information about what the "Swindon Collection" held. Really, it was presented like an advertisement for the web site. Wikipedia doesn't care if what is promoted is a private business, or if it's non-profit, or a government facility or program, promotion is promotion. We're all tasked to remove promotion for charities trying to cure cancer just as much as web sites selling male enhancement products. What we curb is any and all attempts to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for free promotion for anything. See WP:SPAM. Either way, at this point there is really no reason to restore it, there was less info on the deleted page than there is now. Also note that SwindonLocal was blocked at the time for having what was believed to be a promotional username (and not blocked by me, I had nothing to do with it). That mess was all straightened out though. If SwindonLocal wants to put the link back in or similar links I personally don't see the harm, the user page still wouldn't appear as promotional as it did at the time of deletion. And that deletion was borderline anyway, to be honest, it wasn't heavily promotional. -- Atama頭 16:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Great - the ability to restore the link was the outcome I hoped for. I will let the user know. (I already added the link to a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wiltshire#Resources where it may prove useful rather than promotional.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Especially following the explanation that later came about from the discussion on the user's talk page, I think that the link isn't any harm. If you're working with SwindonLocal, maybe you can help them make sure they follow WP:UPYES. Information about their off-wiki activities is fine and many editors do it, just as long as it doesn't go overboard. -- Atama頭 16:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 Mini 7 Racing Club season

Hi, I believe you can unblock 2011 Mini 7 Racing Club season from being created now as i think Edd of Mercia understands the problems and concerns that we voiced as can be seen here he is currently working on the article and i think he will be most dissapointed if he comes round to getting it up to standard, but finds he cannot post it due to an indefinate ban on its creation. Thanks Bailo26 23:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Will do. I put a protection to keep him from recreating it over and over again. Since there doesn't seem to be a risk of that now, I'll unprotect it. Thanks for the update. -- Atama頭 23:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please resolve the IBA debate

Hello Atama,

    I have put forward the case in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#iba_dhaka_university.

Please check the talk page of the university.I hope you can resolve the matter as soon as possible.

Thanks Dualumni