User talk:Atama

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

Barnstar

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

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

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

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

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

SFeraKon

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

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

My Secret Page

Yes, I know that you can find it that way, I'm just hoping that people will try to find the page without cheating. Anyone who actually cares enough to find it won't just do that, they'll actually look. Not saying you don't care, I know it was by accident. Anyhoo, here you go. :) User:Hi878/Right Secret Page Hi878 (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

CPUSH

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

Outing or socking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MoveYourWeb

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

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

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

Retiring

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

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

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

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

Atama,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atama,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(see 1/2 way down the page)

Here is Evidence #3:

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

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

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

Thank you for your reply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atama,

Here is what you now know about JimSteele9999:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. See #1.

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

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

Atama,

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

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

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

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

Dear Atama,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alesia Fieldberg

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

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

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

GoldenGem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mediation of Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy

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

This is why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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