User talk:Atama

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

JPL

Why do you think he knows he's mistaken. If someone is mistaken, they stop, if they have offended someone, they apologize. Here, I haven't called him a racist. His view is racist; check he other census edits to find out more of the stuff that he has felt fancy to report from the census and ask yourself in light of his startling admission on what he thinks race is, what the heck is going on??? Until he stops doing what he's doing, there won't be closure. I don't need for him to admit he's wrong - he has a right to have whatever views he wants to hold, but not to perpetuate them here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to tell you, you're going off the rails at the ANI board and it's looking bad. Based on everything I know, and can prove, he's wrong. He doesn't know that he's wrong, because if he knew he was wrong, he would no longer be wrong. But racism at the very least implies malice of some kind. It's just as bad as calling someone a vandal, except potentially worse, because it's even more incendiary a term. I'm not agreeing with his suggestions, but I'm telling you he is not acting like a racist, just like someone who is misinformed (to put it kindly). If someone seriously thought that everyone from Washington State (where I live) had purple skin, I wouldn't call them a racist either. They just don't know what they're talking about. (Only a very small percentage of us have purple skin.)

One other thing... You're an administrator. I know you're not acting in that role now, you've said yourself that if he is to be blocked, someone uninvolved should do it. That's good, and that's the right thing to do, and I'd back you up if anyone suggested that anything you've said or done up to this point is an abuse of admin powers or WP:INVOLVED. But despite all of that, people are going to expect more out of you because you're an admin, even if you're not wearing that hat right now, and we're held to especially strict standards when it comes to conduct. Persisting in labeling someone as a racist, or saying that they have a racist agenda, is liable to draw a lot of heat. If I could offer any advice, just try to avoid the "R" word. You've made a lot of allegations against JPL in the ANI thread that can be verified, such as having a POV, engaging in original research, even possibly editing tendentiously. The ANI thread could turn into a WP:BOOMERANG for JPL. But keeping up the racism stance is like adding lighter fluid to a brush fire. You have legitimate complaints about an editor's conduct that are being sidetracked by accusations that are looking more and more like personal attacks. It also weakens your case against him. I really think you should drop it, even if you don't apologize or retract what you said before, just don't bring it up anymore. That's just my advice. -- Atama頭 03:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

good afternoon Atama!

hello, from a ridiculously hot oklahoma afternoon (i admire your geography..)!

my name is cody ingram and i'm an independent touring musician and co-founder of an independent record label/production company based out of oklahoma, mayfly revival records.

you recently deleted my wiki page, Blue Valley Farmer, and i wanted to discuss it's importance.

as i'm sure you're well-aware, social media and referential media is of the utmost importance in the being-seen/being-heard day-to-day of independent artists. my brother is an advertising art director in chicago and constantly reminds me of this fact ("out of sight, out of mind"). and in an attempt to drive the notion home, he created a (relevant) wiki page for my aims as an artist, as well as a symbiotic launch-pad for others associated with Blue Valley Farmer, in and around the oklahoma area. i'll agree - all of this was done in haste (but with good intention) and was lacking in the necessary third party sources.

i wanted to get in touch with you and convince to you to restore the page, along with some pointers as to make it more relevant/significant in the third-party eyes of wiki gods everywhere.

thank you, cody ingram

(PS. the page, Blue Valley Farmer, was linked to another important/relevant page, Penny Hill [the musician], whom i have toured with in recent months...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluevalleyfarmer (talk • contribs) 18:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Cody. The reason why the article was deleted was because as the article was written, it didn't stress the subject's "importance"; in other words, it didn't mention any significant accomplishments or other indication of why your act is particularly notable. We do have a list of criteria for the inclusion of musical acts, seen at WP:BAND.

I'd like to point out that Wikipedia is not a good place for advertising, per WP:SPAM we are strongly resistant to anyone who tries to use the site for promotion, regardless of intent (so we'll delete articles promoting charities that raise money for cancer research the same way that we'll delete articles advertising for male enhancement products). A good guide for anyone who wants to edit Wikipedia for promotional purposes can be found at WP:FAQO. In addition, if your brother or yourself still have interest in creating the article on your biography, I suggest reading the WP:PSCOI guide. Thank you. -- Atama頭 18:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Star Arcade multi player mobile gaming for deletion

I've nominated Star Arcade multi player mobile gaming for deletion. I reviewed the sources that you placed when you declined the speedy, and I'm not confident that they are strong enough to meet notability as their content highly resembles a press release from the company. I'm letting you know in case you want to give your opinion on the matter. Best regards - frankie (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Pconsulting

I would like to thank you for unblocking me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pconsulting (talk • contribs) 07:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for follow through with the username change request, and good luck. -- Atama頭 16:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

re-player article

Can you re-player Zamil Al-Sulim article, the player is now playing in the Saudi Premier League, He currently plays for Al-Ittifaq.

ThanksSlmcom (talk) 01:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the article, since any proposed deletion can be restored on request, but the article still needs additional sources or it risks deletion again. -- Atama頭 23:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Needtruehelp

Re your message: Thanks for leaving me a note about the unblock. I'm all good with it. =) I do recall blocking them and pausing for a moment because of their two good edits. I don't usually see these SEO service advertising accounts doing any good edits. Usually they are right into the advertising or spamming like this one who can't spell. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I make spam username blocks all the time (as recently as an hour ago) but those good edits were what convinced me to give this person another shot. -- Atama頭 20:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

I see that you put an unblock request on hold at User talk:Frangfl nearly two weeks ago. Is there any progress? It seems unfortunate that a user should be left waiting so long. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I need to pester Hersfold about that, thanks for the reminder. -- Atama頭 16:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Why was my page deleted?

Dear Atama,

Why was my page ,Shenandoah Sound Drum and Bugle Corps,deleted? IT had only been up for less than 24 hours. I understand that there was an attempt at a page earlier by someone else, but I was specifically asked by the Corps to help them create a new one in hopes of not having their page deleted. I don't understand why ours was deleted, it met the criteria for rule a7, the group has placed in the DCA world championships multiple times. Some information that may have shown the corps as more notable and important was yet to be put as we were still gathering it. I am also confused as to why ours was taken down, when other DCA corps had pages with equal or less information on them.

Sincerely, Lufbery17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lufbery17 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Your argument about other articles only suggests that perhaps those articles should be reviewed and deleted, if necessary, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The article as I reviewed it only briefly explained what the group was, with no claims of significance, not even the mention about the DCA World Championship. Another concern here is that if you are being asked by the Corp to create a new page, you shouldn't be doing it. See WP:FAQO and WP:PSCOI as to why it's not a good idea, those are both handy guides. Wikipedia should not be used either for promotion or recruitment. -- Atama頭 01:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Pseudonym (Indian Band)

Hi Atama!
The article Pseudonym (Indian Band) was deleted, but I provided reliable sources and citations.
Citations/Reliable Sources:

1. The Times Of India
2. The Telegraph
3. The Telegraph

And there are many more articles releated to this band.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamgymman123 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC) With regards,
Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{12:50, 12 May 2024 UTC [refresh]}

Those sources definitely showed that the band exists. What they did not show, and what the text of the article did not demonstrate, is how the band is significant. Not every band merits inclusion on Wikipedia, and furthermore, articles about bands (or people, or companies, or web sites) that fail to even assert the important of their subjects are deleted without discussion. -- Atama頭 03:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Toobevr1244

If you feel he can be unblocked, do so. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I'm just perplexed that three different editors see vandalism or disruption (and I trust both yourself and Fastily quite a bit), yet I don't see anything. That makes me wonder what I'm not seeing. But I'll defer to my own judgement here and unblock him. -- Atama頭 04:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

How was is not disruptive or vandalism? On one of the edits, he removed an entire paragraph about the Canadian charting three times and replaced it with one sentence which didn't give any detailed info or sources at all. The chart performance section isn't that big to start with, it doesn't need to be made smaller. He also made grammar edits which were not necessary. I think the point you are missing is that I had just completed editing the article after having an extremely thorough Peer Review, and if what Toobevr1244 thought was incorrect, then the Peer Reviewer would have picked up on it and told me to change or remove the content, but he didn't. It's because he removed perfectly valid content 3 times that i reported him, as i had reverted him 3 times already, and he would have continued if i hadn't of reported it. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 11:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No he didn't. As I said before, you need to be more careful about reading diffs. You very well could have been blocked for edit-warring. For example, in this diff do you think "an entire paragraph" was removed? Look closer. -- Atama頭 16:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well maybe if he had of used the edit summary box (like you are supposed to), the edit wouldn't have been mistaken for removal of content. You can see why it could be easy to think that he deleted an entire paragraph if you don't scroll down beyond that point. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 18:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, and I even thought so on first glance. Just an FYI, I use a special script that gives me an option to see a diff more clearly, you can check it out at wikEdDiff, it's a huge help and would make these kinds of diffs much easier to read. -- Atama頭 18:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Safari isn't supported by that. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 19:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Darn, that's too bad. I still hope that they overhaul our diff system, the default interface really stinks. I don't like the fact that I have to use a custom script in order to reliably compare page revisions, and you just pointed out that doesn't even work in all browsers. I actually found that script at a Village Pump discussion complaining about how awful our diff interface is. -- Atama頭 19:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What does it actually do? Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 19:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

So if you look at the screenshot below (which I got from the script's page):

At the top of the image you see the regular diff interface. At the bottom of that is a small, square grey button with a green triangle or delta in it. With that script active, you still see the regular diff interface, but if you click the button, then you also get to see the enhanced diff interface. The enhanced interface is seen below it, which is a single box, with deleted text highlighted in red, and added text highlighted in green. It can be really helpful for certain kinds of diffs.

Let's go back to the diff we talked about before, which was here. When you look at that diff normally, it's hard to tell what actually happened, it appears to be a huge removal or change of text. But with the enhanced diff tool, the diff looks like this:

As you can tell, all he did was add the sentence highlighted in green. It's a pretty useful tool. -- Atama頭 21:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

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

Oh and I'm on a diet! :( But thank you anyways, I'll enjoy the sweet smell of it. -- Atama頭 18:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for UFV Student Union Society

An editor has asked for a deletion review of UFV Student Union Society. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the note. -- Atama頭 18:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

deleted page: Kemal Curić

I thought this is valid source: http://www.cardesign.ru/articles/interview/2011/05/13/4697/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizajnautomobila (talk • contribs) 19:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The entire article was a copyright violation. You copied-and-pasted the info from that page into a Wikipedia article. That's not allowed, in fact such behavior can actually harm Wikipedia. You can't do that, anything you add to Wikipedia must be in your own words. -- Atama頭 19:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

So if I rewrite text article can be published again?Dizajnautomobila (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You can give it a try, as long as you're not copying the information from somewhere else you shouldn't be in danger of having it deleted as a copyright violation. -- Atama頭 21:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Why did you delete my page called Tryhards Fc, as it is an important club in the gaming industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam ffc (talk • contribs) 00:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

An important club in the "gaming industry"? Do you mean a club you made up in FIFA 11? If this is a joke I'm not laughing. -- Atama頭 01:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

i find this very disrespectful to the gaming community, as it is a community where people are payed thousands. Adam ffc (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

In other words, yes, you're trying to be funny. I'm not interested. Unless you have a valid complaint or other suggestion, I'd ask you not to comment on my talk page any more, thank you. -- Atama頭 01:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

About: Pseudonym (Indian Band)

Hi Atama,
The article Pseudonym (Indian Band) was userfied to User:Iamgymman123/Pseudonym (Indian Band) by an administrator, and now I have updated that adding some more citations. Now if you feel that it is notable, I request you to move this article to the main space.
With regards,
Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{12:50, 12 May 2024 UTC [refresh]}

Here is my problem with the article, and the reason why I deleted it in the first place. What did they do that was significant? It says in the article, "Pseudonym came up with it's first Singles EP Dreams ... The compilation was hand distributed for free to the band's friends and followers." So they made a record that they gave to friends, and then started playing at a pub? Also, know that the following sentence is unacceptable: "This band is still aiming to set a different note in the world of contemporary music with a totally fresh perspective, and is ready to face the challenges that will inevitably come its way." That's pure advertising speak and has no reason to be in an article.

Keep in mind that the original article wasn't deleted for the lack of citations, there aren't any speedy deletion situations that involve a lack of sources. It's the article itself that fails under A7 criteria. This is a band that doesn't seem to have any stronger claim of importance than countless other groups of musicians who haven't made any accomplishments yet.

If that article was moved into main space, it would undoubtedly be deleted right away, by someone else if not me. If there isn't more to add to the article, then it's likely that the band hasn't reached a point where there's enough to write an article about them. -- Atama頭 07:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

About: Pseudonym (Indian Band)

Hi Atama! I have updated the article. Please check it out Pseudonym. Thanks!
With regards,
Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{12:50, 12 May 2024 UTC [refresh]}

I'm not sure that it's much better, that version just expands on the info that was there before. But I wouldn't speedy it anyway. I wouldn't decline an A7, it's borderline, but I think you've put enough effort into trying to demonstrate significance that I wouldn't delete it myself. I don't see that the coverage you've shown in those papers is significant enough to meet WP:BAND and it may be vulnerable to WP:AFD, but who knows. You might get lucky and someone will take an interest in the band who can dig up something else that will help. -- Atama頭 17:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Should I move the page to the main space or upadte it with more details available and then come back to you.
Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{12:50, 12 May 2024 UTC [refresh]}

I'd say, unless you have something major to add to it, I'd just move it. I don't think that the article will attract much negative attention right away. Definitely keep working on it though, and maybe see if you can get help from a related Wikiproject, like WP:INDIA or WP:Wikiproject Music. -- Atama頭 17:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI

FYI, the ANI thread in which you participated concerning User:Marine 69-71 has reopened. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

...Of course it has. Thanks for letting me know. -- Atama頭 15:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

COI board

Hi Atama. Sorry to bug you about this. An entry at the base of the COI board was posted by a user whose unblock request you rightly denied (i.e. user talk:AkibanTech. The entry is kind of mussing up the board, but I don't know the proper way to correct it. The question of course implies that he intends to persist in promoting the company. P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about bugging me, I'm here to be bugged. :) I saw it, and had forgotten about AkibanTech, but now that you jogged my memory I do remember. I'll fix the formatting right now and then consider what's being requested, but there may be some block evasion going on here. -- Atama頭 17:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:Possible solution

Personal problems and the preperation of my defense have taken some of my time. I do not believe that I should give up my admin. powers, however I will auto impose a probation upon myself in which i will not use my admin powers for at least a year. I encourage you to monitor my behavior, if I fail to live up to the expectations then I will do the honorable thing. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be willing to do so, especially if it satisfies the people calling for blood. If you or anyone else needs me to formally agree to something or make some statement somewhere, just let me know, thanks. -- Atama頭 22:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Atama, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Atama. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

About: Pseudonym

Hi Atama!
I have updated the article Pseudonym. Please check out the article, I have added all the things possible related to this band. I hope that the article now meets all the wikipedia's policies.
With regards,
Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{12:50, 12 May 2024 UTC [refresh]}

It looks a lot better and you obviously put a lot of time into it. I'd have trouble imagining someone deleting it in the state you have it in now. I suggest you move it, or if you want me to, let me know. Oh, just two more suggestions, you should probably call the article "Pseudonym (band)", the lower-case "b" for style purposes (we generally only capitalize the first letter of an article name unless it's a proper noun) and it shouldn't be necessary to disambiguate it with "Indian" since there isn't any other band called Pseudonym on Wikipedia (I already checked for that). You can actually change the name as you move it into article space, since a move is really just a rename of the article anyway. -- Atama頭 01:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the article to the main space and renamed the article to "Pseudonym (band)" while moving. Thanks for all your help and suggestions for the article.
With regards,
Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{02:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)}

Fountainviewkid

Your input is sought and welcome at User talk:Fountainviewkid#July 2011. Jclemens (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

...and you'll see my decline/change to his block length. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I won't make a big stink, because I declined to do the unblock or block change myself specifically because I wanted another admin's judgement. I just wanted to point out that FVK didn't break 3RR, he didn't do 4 reverts, or 3, or 2, only one revert on a page that he hadn't edited at all since June 30. But if you stand behind the decline, I won't argue, nor will I intervene and unblock. I do think FVK is confused, I had a long talk with him after his most recent block for edit-warring (where he did 2 reverts on an article with a 1RR restriction), where I initially declined the unblock request then decided to unblock based on his pledge to avoid edit-warring. I convinced him to try to stay with a self-imposed 1 revert per article policy, among other changes in behavior, and he did stick with 1RR and got blocked for edit-warring anyway. I explained to him this time why his tag-teaming was bad, as well as some of his comments against the other party, but it's going to be hard to explain to him why his 1RR didn't work. -- Atama頭 00:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, in case it wasn't clear (because now that I've re-read what I wrote, it's not even clear to me), the 1 week block reduction isn't what I think could be an issue (the 24 hour block suggestion I made was almost arbitrary), it was the language in the decline that said that he shouldn't be violating 3RR. That might be confusing (it's even a little confusing to me, honestly). And if FVK did break 3RR or otherwise return to edit-warring, a 3 month block would be warranted, he has to learn one way or the other. -- Atama頭 00:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I do hope you won't mind me commenting but having recently had dealings with User:Lithistman, as a result I'm not convinced it was all down to your mentee's doing. In my experience with User:Lithistman, he chose to edit war in a tag team to impose changes on Henry Morgan rather than resorting to the talk page for discussion. When I declined to continue with that and tagged what I thought was {{dubious}} they continued to edit war to remove the tags I'd added, resulting in a 3rr report and the article protected. In addition, their rationale for edit warring (if you can call it that) was to accuse me of being angry and to accuse me of WP:POINT over the tags I added, as well as a more than reasonable 3RR warning. As an observer of his behaviour he seems to get quite agitated when editors disagree with him, even to the point of intervening to encourage other editors to edit war and it seemed to inflame the situation. He seems unable to comprehend the destructive nature of his behaviour. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. You're even extending your disputes with me to uninvolved editor's talkpages? Why would you do this? During our dispute, one person displayed agitation, and that person was you. You edit-warred against two other editors to remove sourced material. And then you extend the dispute to Atama's talkpage, after it was already settled. As I noted at the Morgan talkpage, editors reading through there can tell who lost their cool, and who did not. LHM 05:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

...and as per the note on my talkpage this morning, I hope to insert deity here that he does not have his block reduced any further (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said before I don't want to raise a stink, I just wanted to make certain that you had all the facts. I won't question your judgment, thank you for your reply.

And to WCM, it does take more than one person for an edit war to happen (in this case, apparently 3 people), so as one of the participants LHM certainly can't be considered blameless. -- Atama頭 16:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I was simply placing a tag that expressed my concern that the article subject might not meet notability guidelines. Per the project's standards on tagging, I wasn't out of line, as I started a discussion on the talkpage, explaining why I tagged it. Also per those standards, the tag should have remained until and unless the concerns were addressed, as Jclemens pointed out when he asked Fvk to self-revert. As for WCM, as I point out in my note to him above, if you read through our disagreement there, you will see very clearly who lost their cool in that discussion. Best, LHM 05:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion you were correct in your placement of the tag. You had notability concerns, and wanted to discuss them on the talk page, which is exactly the purpose of the tag. Despite what FVK and Lionel suggested, the AfD does not put a moratorium on notability discussions. What they should have done was left the tag, made their case, and if the three of you couldn't come to a compromise, to ask for outside assistance. But you were edit-warring, you reverted 3 times over the period of a few hours, and while that falls short of breaking 3RR, it is edit-warring, and is no different than what FVK was blocked for (it's worse, actually, because FVK was blocked for participating in the edit war with a single edit, while you had perpetuated the war over 3 reverts). The same can be said for Lionel, who had 3 reverts as well and also avoided a block. Honestly, if it were me, I would have just fully-protected the page until you three could talk it out and not blocked anyone, but it wasn't me who got involved. -- Atama頭 14:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I only made two reverts there, unless I'm just completely misremembering. Placing the initial tag does not "count" as a revert. In retrospect, though, I shouldn't have even reverted once--as I could tell that a "fight" was brewing--more or less twice. I've never really been the type to edit war, so it was certainly a mistake on my part. As for the block, I think Jclemens expressed his reasoning very well, given past history and, particularly, the content of that edit summary, as well as the refusal to self-revert. The block issue, though, does not mitigate the fact that I should have handled things differently on my part. Thanks for the reply, LHM 15:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I thought you'd reverted FVK but you had made a "null edit" in response. But that in itself, while not a revert, was a problem, in that it was discussion through edit summary, which isn't right. Explaining an edit with a summary is a very good thing, but it's not a substitute for using the article's talk page (and a lot harder to follow). What I thought was Lionel's third revert was also a null edit, responding to your null edit, so you both were at 2 reverts. Anyway, since the block occurred I think all three of you (including Lionel and FVK) have shown great civility and it's a shame that this block is still causing controversy. -- Atama頭 15:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My recall

Hello! I've been mulling over criteria for what I feel would be acceptable for recall and I'd like it to where only a select few editors I trust can ask for my recall. I'd like you to be one of those editors. I've outlined the process here. If there is any reason you would not like to be on this list, for example maybe you object to recall or perhaps you don't want to deal with the drama involved, could you please let me know?--v/r - TP 18:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind, I'm flattered you'd want to include me. I was just worried when I saw the section title that you were up for recall which would have been hard to believe. -- Atama頭 18:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Fvk.

While I supported unblocking Fvk, I'm concerned that the current tide at his talkpage is going to be counterproductive. There seems to be a movement afoot intent on making Jclemens' block out to be wholly unjustified, which it was not. What concerns me most is that Fvk truly seemed like he "got it" as far as knowing why what he did was wrong. But now, there are several editors there who seem like they are not only minimizing what he did, but actually claiming he did nothing wrong to begin with, which I don't think is a good thing for the progress that Fvk seemed to be making early on in this episode. I thought hard about contacting those editors individually, or perhaps making a note at Fvk's talkpage to this effect. However, I decided that the best course of action would be to contact one of Fvk's mentors with my concern. I hope you understand that this is in no way a complaint about Fvk, but a genuine worry that those who are currently commenting there may well be undoing some or all of the gains that Fvk initially made. Best, LHM 05:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and Bwilkins is getting irritated, which is understandable. The only one who's really stirring things up is Kenatipo, and I've left a note on his user talk page to try to moderate things. -- Atama頭 14:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you're taking care of it. It just felt like some of the gains he'd made as an editor were in danger of slipping away. Best, LHM 15:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I almost reverted Kenatipo's refactoring from FvK's talkpage ... in part because he failed to use any edit-summary to explain his deletion. The funny part is, Kenatipo and others now have FvK convinced that he has done no wrong ever on Wikipedia, and that it's Wikipedia who has wrong him (specifically me), so now he's off for a little break. Brilliant. If someone had focussed on the fact that he had a 1-month block reduced to 1 week and how great that was, we'd have a happy camper...but no. Indeed, the blocking admin could have fully removed the block if he truly felt it was in error, but described the reduction as being "in the middle of fair". It was not the block that drove him away. It was certainly not the reduction of the block that drive him away. It was the "oh you have been sooooo wronged, this is horrible, they're soooo mean to you" that made him think he actually had been wronged that did it. Again, brilliant. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I tried, and I advised Kenatipo to not keep harping on the idea that FVK is being persecuted, but rather to encourage him to return after the expiration of the block. I believe that is why Kenatipo removed the information that he did. But the cat's out of the bag, nobody can unsay what was said even if they delete it, FVK has already read it. Also, based on his most recent email to me, it looks like FVK isn't interested in my advice any longer, so I'm not sure what more I can do. I'm not sure what else I could have done, I suppose I could have just removed or reduced the initial block myself but as I said, I was trying to be his mentor, not protector. Wikipedia doesn't really stress me out, but sometimes it does make me tired. -- Atama頭 17:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If he's now rejecting his mentors, I am afraid that things won't change much at all upon his return. I hope I'm wrong about this. LHM 17:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

He may still be listening to Wehwalt as far as I know, he's just not interested in accepting my advice any more. -- Atama頭 17:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess all I'm saying is that is an incredibly bad sign. LHM 18:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, nothing quite as unfortunate as proving me right. Part of the whole reasoning behind only removing 3/4 of the block was that I was not seeing a level of maturity that one hopes to see in order to respond properly to disputes. We saw glimpses of that maturity, but it's gone to hell now. I really would have quite happily been proven wrong this time because I believe he has much to add to this project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

FVK emailed me again that he doesn't mean to dismiss me as his mentor. He had said he didn't need my advice any more, but I guess he didn't mean it that way. -- Atama頭 21:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm very concerned about how this is all going to end up playing out. LHM 00:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed this thread. BWilkins noone is buying your hypothesis that Fountain is suffering from a Wiki persecution complex. He doesn't think that Wikpedia is persecuting him. To the contrary he feels that the community has supported him. He is overwhelmed that editors, admins and even LHM have rallied to his support. It is you BWilkins and only you that he feels is persecuting him. Your revisionism isn't going to work. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"nothing quite as unfortunate as proving me right" "it's gone to hell now" These unfounded and baseless claims that Fountain has proven you right are absurd. Please stop. It's very transparent. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

BWilkins

I respecfully brought the inappropriateness of this edit [1] to his attention [2] but he summarily deleted it. It's difficult to AGF. I can think of only 2 possible explanations for kicking a guy when he's down like this:

1. Just his surly, offensive demeanor that came to light and which was criticized in his failed first RfA
2. He's feeling the intense presure for his intransigence and if Fountain starts calling admins nazis again he'll be justified in refusing to listen to consensus and invoking WHEEL

BWilkins' post has to be removed. At best it is humiliating and at worst it is baiting. Due to the real danger of Fountain going crazy, and BWilkins refusal to engage, at this point the only option I see open is to take BWilkins to WP:ANI where the community can weigh in on this matter. Your opinion is valued.– Lionel ^(talk) 00:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No. I disagree with you 100%. I would not have made the decision he made, as I've said, but there's nothing inappropriate about what he said there. Bwilkins had no obligation to unblock FVK. Jclemens made the decision to block, and Bwilkins reviewed it. He could have let the block stand, he could have extended the block (which would have needed a really, really good reason), he could have reduced it, or he could have removed it. He chose to reduce it, by a considerable amount. By doing so he was showing support for FVK. An administrator doesn't remove or reduce a block without placing their faith in the editor. That is why Bwilkins invoked AGF, because that's what he was doing. FVK didn't have to get on his knees to kiss Bwilkins's feet, or even give a simple thank you. He also had the right to question why the block was longer. Saying that "Wiki has turned into Iran or Syria" was improper, and I told FVK I felt that way. I don't think FVK is awful for doing so, and I don't think he violated any policies or guidelines, he was just saying how he felt (without breaking WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL. But he still shouldn't have said it.

Here is how I see it. FVK I believe really has been trying to improve, and got blocked anyway. He was blocked because he did the wrong thing, granted, but it still sucks when I see someone who is really trying and still suffers for it. Bwilkins really was trying to do the right thing, too. Both of them were burned by this. And both have expressed their displeasure. They're being human. Nobody has gone over the top, and who hasn't said a sharp word when they stubbed their toe? We allow editors, even admins, to be human now and again.

Bwilkins's comment doesn't have to be removed, no more than FVK's comment does. If someone wants to remove Bwilkins's comment, let FVK do it. It's his user talk page and he can do it himself per WP:BLANKING. The same way Bwilkins removed your comment. He read it and acknowledged it, he just doesn't want to talk about it. Leave him alone for crying out loud. -- Atama頭 02:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Another thing, Bwilkins explained above why he reduced the block. "I believe he has much to add to this project." Nobody says that about an editor that they are trying to bring down. -- Atama頭 03:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your candor. This is about the remark. Fountain has a history of enormous incivility while blocked. Look at Fountain's page: at the present time he is very vulnerable. BWilkins' comment served no positive purpose as far as I can tell--and I tried asking him. How is a blocked editor supposed to respond to something like that? IMO it is baiting.

And one last thing, about the block... BWilkins had one more option that you didn't mention in your response above: he could have refrained from invoking WHEEL and allowed another admin to take action. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What Fountain can and what I recommended that he do is nothing. And like I said, he can also remove it. I know you're protective of him, and I know why, but have faith in him. All things considered he's doing well, under the circumstances. -- Atama頭 03:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny... I wrote the indictment and posted it to ANI. But I got an edit conflict. Glanced at my watchlist and saw that last post of yours... I'm gonna sleep on it. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Really, this thing has gone on too long - THAT is why I removed the post from my talkpage after reading it. The block is almost over. Nothing to gain by extending discussion anywhere about it. How he acts/reacts when he comes back is the only important thing here. Move forward, stop living in the past - especially the very distant past. I did what I felt to be the right thing, period. The dramah is absolutely brutal. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Mikhail Akhmanov

I would question your use of A7 to speedy delete the above article. On my reading, the article satisfactorily asserted the significance of its subject. I would usually expect a British science fiction author with a publication record comparable to that of Akhmanov (a long list of published novels, as given in the article, some at least through major publishers) to meet WP:NAUTHOR, even with only British (and not American) publication - and the size of the Russian science fiction market is at least comparable with the British one (even if very little Russian science fiction gets translated into English).

I am not currently questioning the actual deletion of the article - assertion of significance falls far short of actually establishing notability, and the article did not do the latter, so would presumably have been deleted under the proposed deletion process anyway. Moreover, while I did consider deprodding the article, I ended up not doing so because I can not at the moment trace reliable sources in English (at least, any significantly more reliable than Amazon) and can not read Russian. However, if it is possible to email me a copy of the article, I would appreciate it - I am still keeping an eye open for sources in English and, if and when I find them, will want to decide if anything from it would be usable in a revised article (in which case I will ask for the article to be restored or userfied) or whether I have to start again from scratch. PWilkinson (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the problem. The article described Mikhail Akhmanov as a Russian science fiction author. Not a successful author, or a noted author, or a popular author, or an award-winning author, just an author. Only a tiny blurb at the beginning of the article had anything to do with the man himself, the article could have more accurately been called "a list of published works by Mikhail Akhmanov". The article had been in that state for years. There was a very clear failure to establish any kind of significance to the person. I can email you the article's contents, I suppose, but it might be more convenient to userfy it for you, that way you can develop it in your own user space and when the article is ready, it can be returned to the main article space with proper attribution given to the previous authors of the article. -- Atama頭 16:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There was certainly something on the page that came across to me as enough of an assertion of significance to cause me to look further - but it may just have been something that connected with something else I already knew. The reason I suggested email rather than userfication is that I don't expect sources (at least ones I can read) to be easy to find and don't have much time at the moment - so it may well be anything up to six months before I can do much with the article. But if it is going to be OK to leave it userfied for that long, I quite agree that userfying the article to me is probably the best way of dealing with this - so if so, thanks for the suggestion and go ahead. PWilkinson (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Dew Tour

Hey Atama. I finally finished my report regarding Dew Tour. I created it here in my userspace but linked it into the COI Noticeboard discussion. It's large and I'd like to keep it from getting too unorganized. The only thing I didn't do is list which of the accounts in question edited which of the 24+ pages. A few have been deleted, I didn't want to spend even more time, and I feel that the issue is obvious from looking at the users' edit history. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. OlYeller^Talktome 23:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have some information. You are invited to comment at the relevant thread. Thank you. CycloneGU (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if you were not involved with the issue in question, simply per my talk page I had offered to notify people he thought might have information related to the case, and he gave your nick as one of the six he thought might have information to add to the discussion. I simply took the role of providing neutral notices (as a third party) so he wouldn't accidentally be seen as canvassing. =) CycloneGU (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh no worries. Anytime someone wants my input for anything I'm game. I must have amnesia though, I mean Zac is familiar but good grief I deal with a lot of stuff day-to-day here so I just can't remember. -- Atama頭 17:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I just looked back, and okay, yes, I do remember Zac. He was blocked a month ago for what was a weird and situational incident of sockpuppetry. I procedurally declined an unblock request (he had made two unblock requests at the same time on his user talk page, so I declined one and let another admin handle the other). He then emailed me some info, which I'll have to go and dig up to see if anything is relevant. -- Atama頭 17:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Need help to delete per CSD#G4

• "Qasr-e-sheereen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)" and "Alzakir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)"
• Hey Atama, I need your to delete the above article page and then salt it permanently because a Pakistani editor keeps creating it with copy-and-paste moves from http://www.qasresheereen.pk/ , this was also the reason why it was deleted the first time round per CSD#G11 filed by another editor. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• I deleted it per G12 as being a copyright violation, because you're correct that it was a copy-paste from another site. G11 would have also applied as it did before. I don't usually salt an article until at least the 3rd recreation (it's just a personal rule, it's not based on policy or anything), but I see that the editor has been repeatedly warned, so I'd probably salt if it's recreated again. By the way, G4 only applies when a page is recreated after it was deleted through discussion (AfD, MfD, etc.) not other deletion methods (CSD, PROD). So G4 didn't apply here. -- Atama頭 17:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• My bad, I got that one mixed-up and... I've already nominated it for perm salting on WP:RPP following the garbage disposal process. Like I said, my bad! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• If someone else wants to protect it from creation, more power to them, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. -- Atama頭 17:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks and on another note, could you please take a look at User talk:Hotroddude#Cease editing on Boyd Coddington with immediate effect? This guy has a serious COI issue on the article page of "Boyd Coddington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)". --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Is he formally banned from that article? We caution people from editing where they have a COI, but it's not disallowed. Your warning on his user talk page sounds like he has already been banned from the article. -- Atama頭 17:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Apologies for making it sound like that but there has been at least three other username that has similar COI issue to the subject page and had been abandoned (as I see it). This guy is no better, his initial username was Boydcoddingtonjr (which is the name of the subject's son) before he changed it to Hotroddude. Do you see now where this is leading us to? See also a discussion by another concerned editor on User talk:Dave1185#Boyd Coddington. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oh sure, the COI is pretty clear, there's no question. But editing with a COI isn't blockable, and it's not appropriate to warn someone that it is. On the other hand, having a COI, and causing disruption, that is blockable. For example, there's a possibility that we have sockpuppetry going on between these accounts. But we would block on that basis, not just on the COI. -- Atama頭 18:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Speak of the devil, he's back at it again going back to use his old junior username. Guess COI and SPI now applies all at once, no? As usual, my nose for SPI is working perfectly, if I may say so myself. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'll leave a message on Hotroddude's user talk page to inform him of our policy on using multiple accounts, if it is ignored or otherwise doesn't give a satisfactory reply, I'll open an investigation at WP:SPI. -- Atama頭 18:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Roger, out. Victor mike tango. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64 a disruptive editor who knows the rules well

Atama, thank you for your insight into my complaint. I have since seen a more positive side to this user and have decided not to take the issue any further at this stage. Robert Currey talk 16:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I hope things work out, in reviewing MakeSense64's actions I saw a lot of good but some bad, but had hope that there could be some common ground you could find. -- Atama頭 16:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hello Atama, how are you? Since I have auto-imposed restrictions on myself, I was wondering if you could do me a favor and keep a look-out (your watchlist) on the article Rafael Carrión, Sr.. You see, a certain User has twice added information without citing nor providing reliable verifiable sources to back up his/her claim. I reverted the additions twice with an explanation of my actions, plus I left a message on the User's page: Vmarxuach, but I would like to stay clear of any conflicting issues for now and that is why I have come to you. Thank you, Tony the Marine (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist, I'll look closer into matters later in regards to the editor and their edits, thanks. -- Atama頭 23:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• I want to give you an update. It turns out that the person who made the changes to the article is a granddaughter of the subject. She has complied with my request and sent me copies of the sources. I have updated the article to a certain point and provided the source from where the information was obtained. Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the update, I've been watching the progress on your talk page and at the article and I didn't see anything that required my intervention, and I'd seen her being cooperative and giving information about a book that would verify the information she wished to add. -- Atama頭 17:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sense Worldwide deletion

Hi Atama, I just noticed you deleted an entry for Sense Worldwide. Though I suspect that the original text may well have been 'unambiguous advertising' (I'm not responsible for it), SWW is a culturally significant company which has been credited as founding one of the original social networks in the late 90s as well as being a pioneer of Co-creation. There are a lot of citations in HBR, the Financial Times etc.

If you wouldn't mind undeleting the text, I'd happily have a go at rewriting it.

(No I don't work there, though I have worked with them)

0aster (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Restored to User:0aster/Sense Worldwide to allow for improvement, but if it continues to stay in its current state for long I will re-delete it. -- Atama頭 07:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• • hi, I've done a rewrite, I'm waiting for some references on other pop culture involvement, including www.a4art.com which I know had a lot written about it. I'd appreciate any thoughts you have that would ensure its survival this time :-)

0aster (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Boyd Coddington Block for Boydcoddingtonjr

Yesterday, you blocked me from editing the Boyd Coddington page because of "Possible impersonation; this editor has edited after username changed to name not matching editor's real name" What is the process for validating the fact that I am Boyd Coddington's eldest son Boyd Coddington Jr.? In the past, I have edited many entries on my fathers page because of gross inaccuracies. I continue to change the external links to www.boydcoddingtonusa.com and www.boydcoddingtons.com because those are the only sites that are up to date and, are the only sites that are keeping the legacy of my father alive with video, hot rod images, links to the friends of Boyd and press releases. boydcoddington.com was never the "official site and has not been updated for more than 2 years. In fact, the boydcoddington site is currently in tied probate, controlled by my late fathers wife and she is using it to promote a product she is representing called "Fruit Vida". Fruit Vida has never had anything to do with my father in fact, he would be jumping up and down if he knew it was up there.

I changed my username after reading in the Wikipeda user guide it was a good idea to NOT use your real name. I admit I probably edited the Boyd Coddington page making it to look like there is a "editing war", but that was not my intention. I only want people seeking information about my father to get the most updated and accurate information. The majority if not all of that information comes via the boydcoddingtonusa web site.

I will use caution with the editing I do in the future, with that said, I truly only want to make sure the information on my fathers page is accurate and up to date. I have several other posts I would like to make but have not done so because of my lack of knowledge of how to correctly post information, and the fear of posting something wrong or, deleting the page completely.

(----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.96.166 (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I might consider unblocking you on your main account (Hotroddude) if you agree to cooperate with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and make a better effort to collaborate with other editors. That would include the following:

• Sticking with a single account (that means not editing while logged out, or creating multiple accounts as you've done in the past and recently).
• If an editor reverts a change you make to the article, rather than trying repeatedly to reinsert it, you discuss the matter on the article's talk page or the editor's user talk page.

If you had done this in the past, your changes might have been accepted weeks ago, and been welcomed, rather than finding yourself blocked as you do now. You have a conflict of interest twice over, in that you stand to personally gain by linking to your commercial web site, and because the article is a biography of your late father. We don't forbid your editing of the article for that reason, but your additions will naturally be met with skepticism which means that you need to make an extra effort to convince other editors of your good intentions and the accuracy of the changes you wish to make. If you can agree to follow our policies and guidelines, however, I'll unblock you (though I will keep an eye on the situation to see that no further trouble comes about). Thank you. -- Atama頭 16:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

REQUEST

Please keep an eye on the Kamala Lopez page. There is an obvious sock puppet expanding the page and setting up a resume for the subject, rather than a legitimate encyclopedic article. Webberkenny (talk) 03:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Who is a sockpuppet of whom? Before you asserted that Owlscissors and JHScribe were the same person, but now they are warring with each other on the page. So what do you suggest is going on? -- Atama頭 06:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bending your ear for a moment

Atama - I thought I'd ask you this because, having commented on the ANI involving me and Ken keisel, you've got a sense of the context already. I'll try to be brief. You'll recall that I had blanked most of Anthony A. Mitchell, which Ken had created, as copyvio. (It consisted essentially of a very close paraphrase of the fellow's Washington Post obituary, with sentence order shuffled around a bit.) Sarek of Vulcan helpfully stepped in and restored the article to a passable and proper state. Ken quickly reinserted a couple of his paragraphs of too-close paraphrase, which Sarek removed along with a warning to Ken. Ken responded with a paragraph on both his Talk page and that of the article to the effect that facts couldn't be copyrighted, whereupon he restored the article to more or less the same state it had been in before I'd blanked it. Sarek undid Ken's edits and blocked him for a week for the copyvio. Ken (editing on his Talk page) has challenged Sarek to address Ken's claim that the reintroduced text is fine under the copyright laws.

Ken's attitude toward the whole issue seemed rather cavalier and it occurred to me that some of his prior contributions might have been similarly lifted from others' texts - he's created upwards of 40 articles. I checked and within a few minutes I'd tracked down the apparent source for one of them, Kokosing_Gap_Trail, here. Same sort of close paraphrasing. Of course it's possible that he wrote it for the country, or the county took it from Wikipedia - I know there are a lot of ways this might be okay. But also the article (like Anthony A. Mitchell) is written in a voice and tone that is strikingly different than what I've seen of Ken's contributions on Talk pages, AfDs and the ANI. It seems to go beyond the usual differences we all display in writing formal and informal prose. I think he lifted it.

I was set to flag the page but hesitated about opening this a can of worms. I suspect it's not the only instance. (Noguchi_table and Marshmallow sofa are two other obvious candidates, but those have off-line sources and aren't as easily checked.) I don't want another ANI filed, and in particular I don't want to be accused of stalking or hounding the guy, by him or by anyone else. Ken's WP interests and mine don't intersect but at one or two places and I don't expect I'll ever encounter him again, provided that when his block expires he settles down at Washington, D.C. I was annoyed by the ANI but finally I don't care. It took only a few minutes out of what I am hoping to be a long life. I'd close the door on it all except copyright is a sensitive subject, the problem seemed to be staring me in the face, and I figured if I didn't look, no one else would.

What's the right (or really, "best") thing to do? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple of things, firstly an introduction of material that is already under an incompatible copyright isn't okay under any circumstances, even if the person creating it actually holds the copyright. Not unless someone officially donates the material through the proper channels. If Ken hasn't gone through the process, then it can't be used.

You're right to be hesitant about pushing this, on your own, you've been through enough drama over this already and you probably don't want to waste more energy on it. My advice is to ask for help at WP:CCI. That page was created specifically for situations like you're describing, which has "a process intended to identify users who have repeatedly introduced copyright violations into many articles or uploaded many copyrighted images, typically over a long period of time, and to systematically remove this infringing material." And that way it's not just you against him. -- Atama頭 16:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. I wasn't aware of that forum and I'll go have a look. This is precisely the sort of advice I was looking for. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hm, second thoughts now. The WP:CCI instructions say

A CCI is a serious accusation, and doing so frivolously is a breach of the "no personal attacks" policy. In general, if you have an on-going dispute with another editor, you should avoid filing a CCI case against that editor, and seek larger input at an appropriate forum (such as the administrators noticeboard or the copyright cleanup project) instead.

As a rule of thumb, at least five instances of clear copyvios (copy/pasting of unlicensed third party material; clear derivative works) should be required to file a case.

I haven't got five, I've got two; and while I don't think I have an ongoing dispute with Ken any longer, he is blocked and I wouldn't know it if I did! I know that often the instructions on these various pages are interpreted generously and maybe that's the answer here too. I'm just wary about putting my foot smack into the middle of something when it seems I can see what I'm stepping into. Thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's up to you. If you want to take the time to dig through his contributions to come up with 5 or more violations, go for it, otherwise maybe WT:COPYCLEAN is best. I wouldn't suggest ANI or AN if you don't want a dramafest, for sure. Maybe see if anyone at Category:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup members would help you. At one time I would have recommended Moonriddengirl, she's the best copyright spotter and fixer I've ever seen, but now that she's the official Community Liaison for the Wikimedia Foundation I don't like to pester her. Still, if you look at her user talk page you can tell she's still very active in that area so if you can't find help anywhere else, she's the best person I know for this kind of thing (and she's very friendly to questions too). -- Atama頭 17:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, and thanks again. JohnInDC (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

request

I hope you can respond to my latest questions on [3]
My impression is that this case has not been handled normally, and I think it would only be fair if some other admin takes a look as well. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. -- Atama頭 17:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Request Pt.2

Atama, I have another request. I would like for you to look into the following situation because if I make a move I may be accussed of "double standard". The article of Right Reverend Bavi Edna Rivera whose nickname is "Nedi" was moved from "Bavi Edna Rivera" which is the subjects proper name and which she is most known as to "Nedi Rivera" which is not her proper name and just a nickname. I believe that the article's title should be reverted to the original one, but I have been wrong before and that is why I am coming to you. I respect your opinion. Thank you, Tony the Marine (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want my opinion on how to handle the dispute, it seems like a simple article naming dispute that happens all of the time, so you come to a compromise or ask for an outside opinion. If you're just asking me for my opinion, on what the title of the article should be, I have to look at WP:COMMONNAME, which states, Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. So my opinion is that we use what sources use, giving special preference to the sources used in the article, since that's how we're verifying the accuracy of the article in the first place. The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name. You gave the example of Abraham Lincoln, who had nicknames that aren't used for his article's title. But a more apt comparison is Bill Clinton, whose real name is William Clinton, yet we use his most common name regardless. You've asserted that Nedi isn't Right Reverend Rivera's common name, and I suggest that your case could be made if you countered Danbarnesdavies's sources with sources of your own, and again I think that the strongest sources are those in use in the article. -- Atama頭 16:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your opinion, I didn't think about Bill Clinton. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Atama, I've updated Sense Worldwide

You kindly said you'd help with editing. It'd be great to know what you think of where I've got to.

It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:0aster/Sense_Worldwide

Question about newly enacted topic ban

Hi there. I saw you recently closed the topic-ban discussion for ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs), and wanted to ask for a quick opinion. Claudio is currently rather active at eugenics in the United States, which he is attempting to link prominently to Planned Parenthood. Does the topic of eugenics movements fall within the field of "euthanasia, broadly construed"? It seems like an edge case, but one where problems will likely arise down the line. As I'm involved, at least at Planned Parenthood, I thought I'd ask your opinion upfront. MastCell ^Talk 19:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. Eugenics and euthanasia seem to only be related for how controversial they are, in practice they're very different. Euthanasia is basically a mercy killing, and I don't see that eugenics involves anything even closely related. Nor is Planned Parenthood itself related to euthanasia, the closest link would be in its connection to abortions, but it would take an unreasonable stretch to connect the two. Looking back over the discussion that led to the topic ban, I don't see either topic being mentioned, so I don't see that the ban was meant in any way to also apply to those subjects. If you could convince me or any other uninvolved admin that there should be a connection (maybe I'm missing something) then the ban could be enforced for those topics as well. -- Atama頭 19:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Claudio's editing seeks to connect euthanasia and eugenics, although I can't say I've deeply examined his contributions. The initial complaint at WP:AN/I, which led to the topic ban, stated that Claudio tried "to slant the whole page on Euthanasia to say that the Nazi WW2 extermination program, which used the euphemism 'euthanasia' to camouflage outright murder, is akin to modern euthanasia." ([4])

In other words, he seems to be editing to link historical "eugenic" movements to modern euthanasia. That's the link I see, I suppose. But I agree it's tenuous at most. MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If he does anything, anywhere, on any page that is related to euthanasia, it's in violation of the ban. So if ClaudioSantos edits the eugenics article to discuss Nazi usage of euthanasia, that's a violation. But until then I don't see that it is. -- Atama頭 21:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 22:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As the original drafter of the topic ban, I endorse this interpretation, but obviously uninvolved admins will have to make the rulings...

By the way, thanks for closing, Atama. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help, I saw that the discussion had gone on so long, the consensus was clear, and I was uninvolved so it was a no-brainer (for someone like me, no-brainers are best!). :) -- Atama頭 04:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A clarification is needed in regard to noticeboards ([5]).Novangelis (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What if ClaudioSantos thinks abortion is a form of euthanasia, and that's why he's motivated to emphasize eugenics at PP? Jesanj (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

When the community decides that an editor can be trusted to be an administrator, that administrator is given a fair number of tools that help us improve Wikipedia. Unfortunately, none of these tools give us the ability to read minds (I don't even think checkusers have that tool, though I could be mistaken). As long as ClaudioSantos doesn't actually talk about abortion being a form of euthanasia, or try to suggest as much in an article, then there's no violation of the topic ban. -- Atama頭 16:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point. =) Jesanj (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

But, at the same time, the topic ban is "euthanasia, broadly construed" and aren't we both implying that abortion could be "euthanasia, broadly construed"? Jesanj (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No more than I'm implying that alligator wrestling could be "euthanasia, broadly construed". Abortion is mentioned only once in euthanasia, and it's only mentioned to point out that the definition of euthanasia was meant specifically to exclude abortions. It doesn't become an issue until ClaudioSantos clearly links the two, either in article text or in discussions. If he does, then that would clearly be a violation. -- Atama頭 16:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Side note - The topic ban was specific to the on identified topic ClaudioSantos couldn't edit constructively based on community review. It was drawn broadly, but not so broadly that any other topic he took up with and was confrontational or combative about would be covered. That would have had to be a sort of civility parole, not a topic ban. It's attractive to attempt to apply the sanction to other stuff that's irritating people, but that's not entirely proper. A topic ban (arbcom, community, general sanctions, whatnot) is one indicator of trouble editing Wikipedia, but not an indicator of an editor unsuitable for editing Wikipedia writ large. If they're generally disruptive or combative in other areas other sanctions can be proposed.

I don't see that CS is rising to the same level of behavior in eugenics related topics. Maybe he is or will, but I wouldn't go for another sanction at this time.

Stretching the first sanction is the wrong approach. If he does push too hard, get another sanction, or uninvolved admin to respond. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Query about the AN proposal

Hi Atama - I'm not sure if it's appropriate to thank editors who have responded to my AN proposal, but I'm sure it's OK to thank you for taking the trouble you have taken to input and advise across a number of related issues. I'm impressed by your user-page comments and can see how hard you strive to be fair and supportative to everyone. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask what happens with these things on AN. If they find support do they always get actioned, or is it the case that sometimes, even with support, they get archived and slip out of view (and presumably then nothing happens)? If that is the case, can they be relisted or brought back onto the main page somehow? I am also concerned about the suggestion that this is not the only account this editor has had, and wonder if there are steps that can be taken to check that. Thanks very much for any info you can give on this. Zac Δ talk 09:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I just formally enacted a ban from ANI that was archived, twice, and brought back twice, before I happened across it and enacted it. So yes, if it gets archived, it can get brought back if the discussion hasn't been closed. Generally with a ban discussion you wait at least 24 hours after the discussion starts until the discussion is closed (even if the outcome is practically guaranteed), and then usually an admin won't close it until it seems that the ban discussion has settled, in that nobody has commented for awhile (so that nobody can complain that the discussion was prematurely interrupted). The AN board doesn't archive as quickly as ANI though, I believe that ANI threads that haven't been commented on in 24 hours are archived, while it takes 48 hours for AN. -- Atama頭 15:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You are very generous in the time you spend on these kinds of explanations. Zac Δ talk 16:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries, actually if I could explain it in fewer words I would! :p -- Atama頭 16:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Question on Topic Ban

I want to know if the topic ban covers also the discussion pages and/or any discussion about euthanasia at any place. The admin Georgwilliamherbert who proposed the topic ban, once told to Jabbsworth and me, that the topic ban included the discussion pages but I would like to confirm that I did understand it correctly. I also want to know what means exactly an uninvolved administrator. Thanks -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. Jabbsworth had pretty much the same question actually. Topic bans are different from page bans, in that they prevent you from editing or commenting anywhere on Wikipedia, even your own user talk page, if it is related to the topic you are banned from. So that definitely includes discussion pages.

As to what "uninvolved" means, the subject is covered at WP:INVOLVED, but basically it means that an administrator should not take administrator action against an editor when that administrator has been involved in a personal dispute with the person. It also means that if an administrator has been actively engaged in a substantial change of the content of an article (either directly or indirectly through discussion), they should not take administrative action in matters relating to that article.

The reason for this is to prevent administrators from abusing their tools, even unintentionally. Administrators are not supposed to be able to use their tools to enforce personal interests. Let's say that an administrator is arguing that a paragraph should be included in an article. Another editor disagrees and removes it. The administrator then puts the paragraph back and protects the article to prevent it from being edited until "the matter is resolved". In that case, they've used their tools to force their preferential version of the article to stay. Even if the administrator sincerely thought that their action was in the best interest of Wikipedia, it still has the effect of letting the administrator use the tools to make the article say what they want it to say, so their use of tools in that case would be discouraged. More obviously, an administrator in a dispute with another editor shouldn't block that editor even if the editor probably should be blocked to prevent further disruption, they should let another administrator make the judgement call whether or not to block.

Some cases are more of a grey area. If an administrator has only fixed typos, corrected links, or reverted vandalism at an article they generally wouldn't be considered involved in that article. Or let's say an administrator warns an editor not to vandalize again or they will be blocked, the editor then personally insults the administrator, and then vandalizes another time. The administrator could block the editor for vandalism despite the personal insult (otherwise any editor could simply insult administrators left-and-right to gain immunity from blocking). On the other hand, the administrator shouldn't block the editor for the insult itself, as it could look to be a block in retribution.

I hope that answers your question well enough. It's not always easy to determine when an administrator is involved in a particular situation, and sometimes lengthy debates can result from a question about a single action. It's really a subjective determination. But our policy does its best to define that for us. -- Atama頭 18:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Instead of assuming the risk, I had to prefer to ask you, due the following explicit warning:

If there is any doubt whether a limited ban prohibits any specific edit, the banned editor should assume that it does, unless whoever imposed the ban expressly clarifies that it does not. If clarification is not sought before making the edit, the banned editor assumes the risk that an administrator takes a broader view of the scope of the ban and enforces it with a block or other sanction, as explained below.

— Wikipedia:TBAN#Exceptions_to_limited_bans

-- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked and feel free to ask if you have any other questions. -- Atama頭 18:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you please requiere to Jesanj to refrain from asking me questions about euthanasia as he is well informed that I have a topic ban on that issue. Although I am constrained to assume good faith, nevertheless I also find extremely suspicious that he is attempting now to relate my alleged point of view about abortion to my alleged point of view on euthanasia, surely in order to extend the ban to other topics. First he goes to my talk page to ask if I think that abortion is euthanasia, and later he comes to your talk page to ask if the ban would apply if I consider abortion to be euthanasia. For me his intentions are obvious. I find his behaviour too provokative and a sort of harassment. He should stop. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well let me ask you this, would you rather that Jesanj ask me questions so that I could clarify the scope of the topic ban, or would it be better if Jesanj just assumes that the topic ban should prevent you from getting involved in abortion-related discussions and articles and starts reverting you and accusing you of violating the ban? -- Atama頭 16:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this is not asking. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I missed that, I'll get involved in the ANI discussion. -- Atama頭 16:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood

Could you help me at Planned Parenthood? I am working on the historic section. I have added a tag/template warning that section is under construction, precisely to avoid that other users just came to delete entirely my work. There emerged a concern on the weight of the included paragraphs, so I am discussing the thing at the talk page. Despite the thing is being discussed, and despite even two other user agreed with the inclution of those contents but suggested to compact the thing in solely one paragraph, just few minutes ago User:MastCell just came and deleted all my work, all the paragraphs. He did not even did an attempot to discuss the thing in the ongoing discussion at the talk page. Hi as usual first deleted not dicsussed. I really find this actions very disruptive and an attempt to provoke an edit warring. Perhpas it should be noticed that this MasterCell was the one who firstly asked if the topic ban for euthanasia could apply for eugenics and also for abortion. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just by way of correction, I did actually comment on my edit on talk page: [6]. As for the rest, I'll leave you to it. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you first deleted all my work, all the paragraphs and later you came into the already ongoing dicsussion. there was a concern on the weight, and one user proposed and reverted me to keep one paragraph. You just deleted all the paragraphs, thus against the current consensus of the other users. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you work on the section in your own userspace, maybe User:ClaudioSantos/Planned Parenthood History or something along those lines. Then you can make whatever changes you want without interference. You can also go back to an earlier revision in the original article, copy the information there, and paste it into your user subpage. Once you feel it's ready, my advice is to link to that page from the article talk page to discuss it. If you try to insert it back into the body of the article without discussion, you will almost undoubtedly be reverted, and with the 1RR restriction there won't be much you can do about it without risking a block.. -- Atama頭 19:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well atama, but one user accepted to keep one of those paragraphs, not even that consensus was respected by MastCell. One thing is my disposal to discuss the changes, as I was doing, another thing is MasCell coming without any discussion to delete entirely the edits. Until now MastCell have not provided one single source not made one single concret proposal to include those contents. He just delete. And at any rate, encouraging me to discsuss but allowing other users to came to delete any edit they disagree is a double standar and does not help. LKet me ask a rethoric question atam: then should I delete all the article if I do not find it is ok? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Now some parts were moved to Backgroud section. I hope it will help to resolve the thing. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Blanking out the entire article would be disruption and would probably lead to a block. It would also not even be at all equivalent to what MastCell and Binksternet did in undoing your changes. The changes you made introduced a large amount of material, see this diff to see all of the changes at once. Per WP:BURDEN, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". If you want to implement the changes, you first need to gain consensus for the changes. So far, your strongest objection to their reverts is that you are working on the information and that the reverting of your changes is disruptive to that work. That is why I suggested taking it to your user space for now. Since there is now an additional "background" section, perhaps some of your proposed additional text might be accepted there. But first, do you understand the objections to your changes? Multiple people have objected based on WP:UNDUE, in that the sheer amount of information you are trying to add unbalances the article by spending too much time discussing something of relatively small importance compared to the rest of the article.

As a totally random example, look at the article for Tiger Woods. Under the "Background and family" section, it mentions that he was raised as a Buddhist. That's a perfectly relevant point to mention in his biography. Now imagine that someone decided to expand the information so that it took up a quarter of the article space. That would be devoting entirely too much of the article to an aspect of his biography that is far less important than what he is best known for (his golf career).

Keep in mind, I'm not telling you that I personally object to what you're trying to add to the Planned Parenthood article. I'm just attempting to clarify what the objections are, so that you can better come to a compromise. I don't see anyone saying that the information you're adding isn't accurate, or has no place at all, but just that there's just too much of it. If you could possibly condense it down to a much smaller size, maybe only a couple of sentences, that could be added to the Background section, you might be able to convince others to accept it. -- Atama頭 20:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Attama, you should take a look at that discussion, to realize yourself if MastCell and other are really dispossed to find consensus. I will not try to convince you here, not even telling you that even the Background section, which was not my proposal, was reverted also, and that MastCell is now propossing to deal wiuth the content solely using a text from the own Planned Parenthood, a source from the own PP that actually I have referenced to contrast the scholars contents. And it is absurd that although finally various users agreed to keep at least one parragraph other users just delete and delte everything. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that MastCell and others are the consensus. If you're the sole person trying to make changes and every other person objects, it's not going to happen. I've been on the other side of that situation myself where the changes I wanted were not accepted by others. When that happens you have to either come up with a different suggestion or give it up. That's how things are done at every article on Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 20:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I hesitate to butt in, because I think Atama is giving you good advice, but I'm a little concerned. You said above that I proposed to solely use Planned Parenthood as a source (your emphasis). That is simply not true. As anyone can see, I listed three potential sources, including PP, The Means of Reproduction, and the NYU Sanger Papers Project. Even these three were not intended to be the Only Acceptable Sources, but rather a starting point for a source-based (as opposed to personalized) discussion. It's hard to reach a consensus, or even hold a productive discussion, in an atmosphere where one's posts are misrepresented in this fashion. MastCell ^Talk 21:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Atama, I have to demand objectivity. I am not the sole person trying to make the changes. There are 4 other users than me who agreed to keep the one (1) paragraph. The UNDUE weight also can not be used any longer as an excuse, as the thing was reduced to one single paraghraph, which mentions eugenics solely one time, between other influences, all of them solely listed. And that paragraph is referenced in an scholar work written by a well known historian Donald T. Critchlow. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well that's good, then it comes down to nitpicking about details. If the others who agree with you can't come to an arrangement with those who disagree, then you might try an RFC, or take the matter to dispute resolution noticeboard. -- Atama頭 21:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Atama: we are already in that. What I was asking you was to at least give at least similar advices to those other users, like MastCell and Falcon8765, who instead of discuss just first reverted all the other users. You as an admin can not encourage the poeple to resolve a dispute just encouraging one side to discuss while letting the other side to revert and avoid any consensus. We reduced the thing to one single paragraph but now the discussion seems absurd as their point is that even a single paragraph is UNDUE weight. So for them the nothing is the only due weight. That is absurd for an issue which is even mentioned by the own Planned Parenthood. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can actually. Per WP:BURDEN (which I mentioned before), the burden is on those who wish to add or restore information (in other words, you and those who agree with you). WP:BRD also support that assertion (where one person, such as yourself, boldly inserts new material, another person reverts it, and then a discussion occurs). I see plenty of discussion coming from those opposed to you. To be perfectly honest, you are doing an incredibly poor job on the talk page of the article. For example, you can see MastCell here suggesting a plan to include the eugenics information and agreement to discuss and compromise on the information. You follow up with this bit of nonsense which is frankly a falsehood, stating that "it seems MastCell and others wants nothing to be mentioned at all". What I see from you is a complete unwillingness to follow our usual dispute resolution procedures, to attack other editors with completely unfounded claims, and to generally disrupt what could otherwise be a productive discussion. I see no reason to give warnings to other editors at all. I think I've been fair to you, I tried to stand up for you here when others accused you of sockpuppetry, 1RR violation, and a violation of your topic ban. But I can't support what you're doing right now on the PP talk page. I think you should either make a greater effort to work with other editors properly and discuss the content rather than the perceived motives and misdeeds of everyone else, or take a break from the article while others work out the conflict in your absence. -- Atama頭 21:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well Atama you should chill out. You are not being fair, not in this question. Saying that I am doing an incredibly poor job, is completely unfair. As it was demanded for those who opposed the thing, I have looked for and provided more than 5 scholar sources and even quoted them, even the PP source was firstly provided by me, and I left aside any author claimed to be biased. The paragraphs I have added to the article was precisely an strong effort in response to those users, one of them precisely MastCell, who rejected to include a single see-also link to Eugenics, as they proposed to deal the thing directly in the article, so I did. Then they complainted because of the weight, so I have accepted the way some users reduced the thing to one paragraph. And perhaps it was a mistakle to remark MastCell, but certainly there are still some users insisting to not include nothing at all. That is not a disposal to achieve a consensus, one of this users, Roscele first rejected the inclution of the single see-also link and she asked to deal with the thing in a paragraph in the article, now that I did so, she also want the paragraph out. That is absurd and that obviously break any patience. To that you should add that I have never heard not even one minimmum comment or complaint from any body warning those users who accused other editors (not solely me) of having an agenda, or pushing their own politics, religions, etc. None word against those users suggesting that "according to our logic, we have to go to the Catholics article to include links to terrorism", etc. That sort of things are provokative and does not help. and does not help one being always the reproached despite of any effort to reason. And I repeat, that sort of things break any patience. I was just demanding you to keep an eye on this because later on it will be easy to say that I am the one not helping, but perhpas it is too late as you already told it to me. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anyone complaining about agendas in the current PP discussion except yourself. Now, I have seen a few people suggesting that you might have an agenda, and my response was that we should judge you by your actions and not speculate on the reasons for your actions. I said so on my user talk page above when people asked whether you might be violating your topic ban by participating at articles relating to abortion, Planned Parenthood, and eugenics. Whatever the reason for it, you've been very combative on that talk page and have done a lot to sabotage your position. -- Atama頭 22:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Then I will try to not sabotage my position. It was a fair job to stop those attempts to punish me atb the ANI, based on inferences on my alleged motivations and positions. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

And I will also try not to seem too "idiotic" or shall I consider to abort myself from this as I was diagnosed as such by Mrs.Margaret Sanger -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That comment from Roscelese was definitely uncivil. -- Atama頭 00:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I also find this sort of [comment referring to my alleged limited understanding of english very uncivil. This is not the first time some users use that sort of comments against some user (not solely me). It is also a way to deviate the attention from the content discussed to the editor. It must stop. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

hey i thought i was improving wikipedia by adding the third wave .. guess not. dont know wht the problem was, dont care either. thanks for deleting it. its more about making delete happy people feel good about themselves after all. ps.. what the hell is Kangaroo Island? that wasn't even on the page. have fun, i wont be adding anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freq32 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Hello Atama! I hope you enjoy this yummy treat as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Cupcakes are nomnom-able. -- Atama頭 22:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Skulls Unlimited International

I noticed you deleted it then resored it to work on it. Any its on my to do list let me know if you need any help with it.--Dcheagle 00:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd appreciate it. Basically, I deleted it because it's promotional enough to meet our deletion requirements at WP:CSD. But I had remorse afterward. It was featured on Dirty Jobs, it has a good number of references... I think it's salvageable. So I was going to try to clean up the language so it doesn't seem so fluffy. Frankly, I don't want it to be deleted. -- Atama頭 00:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I take a look and see what I can do.--Dcheagle 00:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Mactech

Can you explain to me why mactech distance education college was deleted. the template was similiar of those used on other colleges. why is me writing a artical on a college i went to advertising. can you please explain this. compare that site to that of the page of nova scotia community college. NSCC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptheriault1978 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Asking for guidance - does an indefinite ban have to remain unless the editor himself appeals it?

Hi Atama - can you take a look at the indefinite block which was applied to Bendykes account in 2009, the notice of which appears on his user page and talk page.

It seems to me that it was a very excessive action for this editor to apply an indefinite block, without any prior warning or guidance, on the same day that a new editor starts to contribute. The account shows 7 edits on one day, and on one of those (1:32 am) the new editor went over the line by trying to include the details of his website. He probably didn't realise that was against WP policy. The other edits were not too bad really, they corrected some false information and replaced links to works that are no longer available with links to his own works which had just become available. They could have been wikified quite easily, to make sure there was no tone of self-promotion.

Dr Benjamin Dykes is hugely respected for making available English translations of important historical texts that have not been available to English readers before (important Latin and Arabic works). He clearly opened an account in his own name and should not, I believe, be made to suffer the professional embarrassment of having a WP spammer warning attached to his real name for making what were probably good faith edits. With a little guidance I am sure there would have been no further problems and that his contributions would have been very valuable. The last edit shows that he was willing to contribute useful editorial information.

Dr Dykes has an international reputation for his specialist knowledge of historical astrology and I would like to create a WP page about him, and was going to email and ask him if he would provide a photograph for Wikimedia commons. Having seen this I now feel a bit awkward. I note the banning editor was not an admin and wondered if you would agree that the instant, indefinite ban was excessive. If so, can it be ended, or at least can the notice to be removed? I doesn't feel right to me - surely WP is not about slamming people down and shaming people with professional reputations who have naively failed to appreciate the benefits that come with using a pseudonym. Hope you don't mind taking a quick look at this. Regards, -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, Blueboy96 may not be an administrator today, after being recalled, but he certainly was at the time, since Blueboy96 was the person who blocked the account! (Look at the contributions of the editor to see who blocked him). The notice on Bendykes's user talk page is not a ban notice, it's a block notice, and it's for his benefit, because if he wants to be unblocked he'll have to make the request himself and the block notice explains how to make that request. As to the original block, I think it's completely valid. You said that on one edit the he went over the line to include the details of his web site, but that's not true. Every edit he made was self-promotional, take a look at his history. We have a guideline for such behavior, see WP:COS. Not only were the edits self-promotional, but from what I can see they added nothing of value to any of the articles, except for this unreferenced information (which actually removed a reference that was previously there). This edit also removed references from an article, without explanation, where he had previously added his own book as a reference. I like to think that I try to be welcoming to subject matter experts, but when a person comes to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of self-promotion, I think we can do without his contributions. If he has an interest in contributing again, he should make a proper unblock request, and explain how he will help Wikipedia and no longer simply promote himself (if someone helped familiarize him with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that might be of help). -- Atama頭 16:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's why I see it differently, looking on this from the outside but with some knowledge of the subject matter:

• Edit 1 - incorrect information is removed that states that only one text from the 9th century scholar Masha'allah has been translated and made available in English, and which includes a link to the website of that translator where the work is sold. Highly relevant information is added to say that, actually, 10 works have recently been translated and made available in English, and adds details of where the information can be found. A COI gets proposed from the start but I can't see the basis of it. This is really relevant information that belongs on the page about Masha'allah. Imagine if this were the page of Aristotle, and someone stated that only one work was available in English - obviously it would need correcting with details of the other texts available. So this edit is legit as I see it, and it was wrong to assume a COI in that.
• Edit 2 - same situation here: on the page of Sahl ibn Bishr it is highly relevant information to add that five famous historical texts have now been translated into English. Yes, I know it looks self-promotional because he mentions himself, but at the end of the day this is information that any encyclopedic resource would expect to include.
• Edit 3 - bad mistake, he adds his website info into the text. But did he understand? He is a new editor, someone should have simply reverted that and anything similar, and left an explanation on his talk page with a friendly warning.
• Edit 4 - his link was already on the page; he corrected the title and added that this (huge 10 volume) text was translated by him into English for the first time in 2007. I have a copy of this work, it runs to 1487 pages. We are not talking about someone who just did a bit of translation and wants to self-promote - the significance of the work he has done in translating Bonatti's most famous collection of works is massive.
• Edit 5 - he wiki-links his name... (OK, so he is guilty of expecting to have a page about himself ... He certainly qualifies to have one).
• Edit 6 - he removes two links to other (small) treatises being sold on another site. This looks bad from the outside, but the situation here (well known in the astrological community) is that the author of those translations, Robert Zoller, has distanced himself from that site and the company - he claims they use his materials without authorisation. I'm sure this wasn't a selfish act but the protection of Zoller's interests. They are close colleagues and Dykes promotes Zoller on his own website.
• Edit 7 - this is where you say he added information but took out an existing reference. He did this quite rightly because the information he replaced was patently wrong and based on an unreliable source. Sasha Fenton is well known as a popular media astrologer - she is not qualified to act as a source on astrology in medieval Islam! That's why the information was wrong. He replaced it with accurate information and there was no self-promotion there.

I'm not going to contact Dykes about this - it just struck me as an extreme reaction to a situation that could have been handled much better than it was. I'm pretty certain that the only thing needed here was a warning and a bit of guidance. What I don't like is to see someone with a good reputation being labelled as a spammer so publicly. Is it necessary for those notices to remain on that account now that it is obviously dead? Can I remove them - perhaps stating that I have removed notices which are visible in the history - or would it be violating a WP policy if I did that? (Sorry, to give you all this to read, BTW. I trust your judgement which is why I'm asking). Cheers, -- Zac Δ ^talk! 19:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

By coincidence, the author of these works happens to be Dykes. If you can't see the basis of the COI, let me link it again: WP:COS. We allow people to reference themselves, but not extensively (and in this case, it was done exclusively). We also ask of the editor that they "should not place undue emphasis on your work, giving proper due to the work of others". A person who only adds their own work, and removes that of others, most certainly is in violation of that guideline. Unfortunately, as great as Dr. Dykes might be in the academic world, his actions were most clearly those of an editor who was acting with a conflict of interest to promote his own work. Maybe that wasn't his intent, though the only way I can read intent when a person has not made any communication via talk pages or edit summaries is by reviewing his actions. It's a grey area whether or not we allow people to remove active block notices from their own user talk page, there is a discussion about this that didn't get a good resolution. But when it comes to removing such notices from others' pages, our guideline is clearer, we're not supposed to. -- Atama頭 19:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought the policy given on the WP:COS page made this one cloudy, given what I've pointed out; and the bottom line being (for me) that no attempt was made to warn or inform. But fair enough - it's a two year old situation and I guess I just see this from a different perspective than others hold.I'm deleting vandalism on IP edits almost daily, but always give them a first level warning even though it's clear the edit was made with the intention of being disruptive. (Also, BTW, I know it took me a while before I realised what talk-pages were for :)) Thanks for your help in clarifying the policy. I've asked - got my answer, so I can put this to bed in my head. Cheers again, -- Zac Δ ^talk! 20:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll tell you this much, if he were to return, make an unblock request, and were to show a willingness to abide by WP:COI and WP:SPAM I'd be more than happy to unblock him. I'd also make sure that he knows how and why to use edit summaries, that may have helped him before as well. -- Atama頭 20:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not sure it would be appropriate for me to contact him about this because it's a bit awkward and I don't know him, but there is an editor here that probably would know him so I'll suggest he takes a look at this discussion. Seems fair. Glad I asked because I very nearly went ahead and deleted the notice myself this morning - not realising that it had been done by an administrator and knowing how 'bold' we're entitled to be. Fortunately I hestitated ... -- Zac Δ ^talk! 20:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It might be a bit of a WP:BEANS violation to mention this, but I doubt anyone would have noticed if you had, I'm not sure how many people keep an eye on indefinitely-blocked user talk pages that haven't edited for over a year. On the other hand, if someone did, you might at least be given a stern warning. So it's best that you asked. -- Atama頭 21:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

user talk delete

your stance doesn't make much sense. The logic is that all the old edits would be deleted... but they are still on my talk page. It was moved. I just want the move to be removed, though a delete does not do that, so I'm not really sure what I do want (in terms of what you can do) but changing my name to make it look less like a real name isn't very helpful if I'm just adding a name, right? 0¹⁸ (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a bot or something that can update all my old sigs? 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope. And it wouldn't do much good if there was, honestly. People could still look in the history of any discussion that you contributed to in the past to see your old signature. That info is on Wikipedia forever, essentially. The best you can do now is just go by this identity now and hope nobody cares enough to dig into your past contributions. If you want to completely cut all connections to your former account, you'd need to follow the guidelines at WP:CLEANSTART and create a brand new account. Note that in doing so, you'd lose credit for the thousands of contributions you've made to Wikipedia, and if you continue to edit the same topics as before it's possible for people to figure out who you were. -- Atama頭 20:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the latter point and the fact that I have an established edit summary and talk page style mean that the last point makes a clean start moot. I worry more about appearing to be a sock puppet--not in the sense of getting in trouble but in the sense of being annoying to other editors. 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If anyone ever accuses you, all you have to say is that you changed your name and that should be the end of it. Lots of people change their names, even I did, so it shouldn't bother anyone. -- Atama頭 21:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert Lee King

Hi Atama,

I'm unsure why you deleted the entry for Robert Lee King, who is the director of Psycho Beach Party and the new film, Bad Actress.

Can you explain what the copyright issue is that's noted in our deletion message, and whatever may be needed to complete the listing differently in order to get it on Wikipedia? We are posting text that Mr. King has approved (essentially his bio) and linking to other names and films that are listed on Wikipedia already. Those entries (Psycho Beach Party, etc) link to him and thus he should have a Wikipedia page.

Thanks, JordanJordan.boughrum (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The copyright issues come from the fact that you completely copied from this press release. That's a copyright violation and if it's repeated, it can lead to you being blocked. That's aside from the fact that we don't allow advertisements on Wikipedia, which is all that article was, since it was literally a word-for-word copy of a press release. -- Atama頭 01:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. This is not a press release, it happens to be a bio that we wrote for Bob that was used in the press release (which we also wrote) that you sighted. This is also NOT an advertisement, Bob happens to be the director of a cult film (Psycho Beach Party) and his name is linked to a blank page on Wikipedia. This is not an ad - it's his details (the bio) of his professional career as a director. If you need us to write a whole new bio then we will, however, this is not clear anywhere on Wikipedia. I work directly with Bob King and he has granted me permission to use this bio for purposes like this. People use Wikipedia as an information resource for most things, they should be able to find information about Bob if they are looking for him and he already has a link to a blank page and we're simply trying to make that not so. Please advise me on how to move forward with this issue. jordanJordan.boughrum (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles should be written in your own words, that's implied in the link I provided above (WP:COPYVIO) as well as at the Wikimedia:Terms of use page. If you are the original copyright owner of the information you wish to add, you need to contact our Volunteer Response Team before you put it in the article, instructions on how to do so can be found at WP:DCP. However, the information that you had added before would probably not be fully acceptable due its tone; see WP:NPOV for Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. Language like "overnight cult sensation" is not considered to be neutral, and information about where his works can be viewed or purchased resembles advertising. The last issue is that you need to find reliable sources that can verify the information that you're adding, we consider this especially critical with articles that are biographies of living people. Being able to find such sources helps show that the subject is notable.

If you need general assistance in getting started with the article, I recommend that you use the Article Wizard. -- Atama頭 19:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Alberto Portugheis

Hi. You recently deleted the subject article. On its author's behalf, I would appreciate it if you would userfy it to User:Normaprocter/Alberto Portugheis and merge its history with that of User:Normaprocter (due to a copypaste), which probably wouldn't need a redirect. See also User talk:Jeff G.#Alberto_Portugheis. Thanks!   — Jeff G.  ツ 15:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Atama. You have new messages at Jeff G.'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

  — Jeff G.  ツ 15:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Mitchell Muncy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mitchell Muncy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitchell Muncy (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Soonersfan168 (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/La goutte de pluie

Dodgy. There's consensus for the topic-ban; Rfc/U -> Arb will take months, years.

This is pretty typical; it's so extraordinarily hard to get action about any admin who clearly breaches the rules. And, that position is exacerbated by the difficulty - e.g. I, personally, can't be arsed to pursue it. It does, however, add just a bit to my chagrin with the system. 01:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said there are two issues, her conduct as an admin, and her conduct as an editor. If she abused her position as an administrator, and that allegation has come up more than once by a number of people, then the topic ban won't address that at all. Going by pure numbers (which certainly wasn't the only consideration I took) it was 9 for, 5 against, which might be considered a weak consensus in some discussions but not enough on its own for me to initiate a topic ban. Also, one of the 9 supporters only supported a temporary topic ban rather than the indefinite proposal, so you might even consider it 8.5 to 5. I took my time before making the decision, and looked carefully at everything everyone said, including what was said on the rest of the page. I do appreciate your feedback, however, and I've always respected your opinion. -- Atama頭 02:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I do understand. You're quite right. It's just frustrating, because it means admins "get away" with blue murder, for years; admittedly partially because folks like myself cannot be bothered with months of RfC, months of ARB, and so forth. That's not your fault though, and I thank you for explaining.  Chzz  ►  02:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Despite being an admin myself, I've supported a number of measures to try to make it easier for the community to remove the bit when an admin steps wrong. I wish we could come up with something less clumsy than layer after layer of measures that just serve to build up a case for ArbCom months down the road. I was pleased to see recent changes that allow us to automatically desysop inactive people, and to allow crats to remove the bit, which I think at least shows that winds are changing. I even think that it will be better for admins if there is less resentment for people who have a kind of "shield" against consequences for bad behavior.

I don't know if the topic ban would have had better support if La goutte de pluie wasn't an admin. Sometimes the bit puts a target on your back, her actions may have had less attention to begin with if she hadn't also used the tools in ways that caused people to object. But maybe people who would have spoken up in the ban discussion refrained from doing so because she's an admin. I just don't know. -- Atama頭 02:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand, and sympathize, and...can we share a "meh"? I don't have answers. I just...I don't know any more. Meh. Sorry.  Chzz  ►  02:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Atama. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie.
Message added 05:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OpenInfoForAll (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Mark Lemon (author)

What's our latest policy/guideline/thoughts/whatever we call it on paid editing? The above page is written by the business agent of the subject who also used the page to promote himself with numerous links. I'm despamming little by little, but with the back and forth that happened on paid editing I have no clue what our stance is, and you're the COI guru. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The community has gone back and forth about this issue, and I believe the most concrete wording we have on the subject is at WP:PAY. This was after failed attempts to have WP:PAID become its own policy or guideline. It's now just a paragraph in the COI guideline, but since it is part of the guideline, and has been there for awhile now without controversy, it has a bit of weight. In particular, that part of the guideline states that paid editors are "very strongly encouraged to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that may make your edits non-neutral (biased)". -- Atama頭 10:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I was hoping we'd gotten stricter. I'll despam as much as I can and alert the editor to WP:PAY and if needed move it over to WP:COIN later. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the clarification re: Sockpuppetry & IPs. [7] -RoBoTam^ice 00:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It was my pleasure. Good luck with that issue, it can be difficult to deal with someone who edits anonymously and can hop from one IP to another at whim. It's like trying staple a blob of Jello to a tree. -- Atama頭 01:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Bacmac

I don't know what to think of this guy. Looking through his talk page and edit history, it looks like he stirs up trouble at least 70% of the time that he's editing. Most notably, whenever he's called out on something (adding a spam link, section blanking), he thinks/says that he's being personally attacked by the reverting editor. The history of his userpage shows some interesting information as well. I can't decide if this was intentional or not but he also copied all of COIN and pasted it in with his response effectively doubling every post (which I've since cleaned up). I also find it odd that he created an account and almost immediately jumped into nominating articles for deletion, citing WP:SOCK, WP:POV, WP:VANITY, Libel and WP:NPA on his sixth edit. He's only edited 13 times since the beginning of 2010 so I'm not sure if any action is necessary unless there's socking going on but I don't see any evidence of that right now. Any thoughts? OlYeller^Talktome 10:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I don't find it odd. He created an account because he wanted to nominate an article for deletion, and that article was probably for a rival martial art style (I assume that Bacmac is a student/fan of Choi Kwang Do). If you suspect that he showed an unusually high level of sophistication for a new editor in starting an AfD so early in his time at Wikipedia, look at how he created it. :) I see someone who spent some time looking at our policies and guidelines, enough to know to cite POV and vanity and such, but still didn't quite know how to get it started properly. Also, you won't be able to see his deleted edits, but he put a speedy deletion template on the article's talk page right after adding the AfD template to the main page. The AfD itself wasn't inappropriate, I see a number of concerns due to self-promotion and lack of notability on the deleted article's talk page for more than a year before it was deleted, and of course the AfD succeeded.

He's disruptive, but it seems to be due to a misunderstanding of how things work more than malicious intent. He hasn't put forth the energy to learn the ropes of Wikipedia and possibly wouldn't have the patience to. He hasn't stepped over the line and isn't very active so I don't see any reason to sanction him. -- Atama頭 18:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That all makes sense. I didn't really think he was socking unless he was pulling an I'm-so-good-I-seem-bad kind of socking. I just couldn't tell if he's intentionally trying to cause trouble. The edit where he doubled all of COIN seems innocent enough. The more he's around, the more I think he's just an intelligent and intense guy plowing through something he intends to do which may sound bad but I honestly don't think it's bad. I've gone through a decent amount of his contributions and the history of the pages he's edited to see if there's anything that needs cleaned up (from him or anything that he was legitimately combating) and can't really find anything. In the end, I think the articles he concerned about are OK right now which is all I really care about. Thanks for the insight. I find it valuable. OlYeller^Talktome 23:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I used to be a martial artist. I studied Shotokan as a child, and then later spent years training in Shaolin Kung Fu (my grandmaster was Jwing-Ming Yang, he trained my sifu). I know how passionate people can be about the style they spend so much time trying to learn. -- Atama頭 02:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I recently learned that I have the 9th most-watched user page on Wikipedia! I should sell space on it for advertising. Thanks for the speedy response. I really appreciate it.   Will Beback  talk  08:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I was just cleaning up the mess. Glad to help. :) -- Atama頭 09:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Potential Problem

If your still mentoring User:Fountainviewkid I'd like to point you too Talk:Southern Adventist University where hes starting run into potential problems, one being WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:BF, and other bad editing behaviors when dealing with new editors to "his" pages, and definitely not WP:AGF when it comes to IP editors. — raekyt 18:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

IP editors who could possibly be socks, I am suspicious of. I am not accusing the IP's of anything specific, but I am noting their similarities to a certain banned user. As for WP:NPA, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Raeky has made accusations about editing motivations as "marketing" and other false statements. Oh and there's no such thing as "his" pages though there are some I have "watchlisted". I have also pointed out that Rakey isn't exactly the greatest for WP:NPOV due to this admittance and WP:FRINGE accusation.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

An objective read through the comments on both sides and the ongoing ANI topic about your behavior related to this is all that is necessary to see what happened. — raekyt 04:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple of things. FVK is having trouble assuming good faith from IPs because the same IP-hopping editor who was banned from Wikipedia has been continually returning to the same articles over and over again. And at this point, I don't blame FVK at all. That doesn't give him carte blanche to attack any IP but I don't see it this way. This is why the article is currently semi-protected for months.

On the other hand, I will agree that FVK, you are letting your composure slip on the article's talk page. For example: "I'm pretty close to violating WHAT Mojo????? WP:NPA? Really?" That looks like something written out of anger. Getting upset is natural, but when that happens you have to step away for a bit to calm down before talking. Believe it or not, I have the same problem too sometimes, but I've learned to not write when I'm mad. -- Atama頭 06:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Another one

Apparently this is going to be a thing for him Coldorangeplay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) another obvious sock on the Korea Language/Russia thing.--Crossmr (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

and another on AN/I so you don't miss it. Might be worth running a CU to see if there is a common IP that could be blocked for account creation.--Crossmr (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well when I block these socks, an autoblock is included which will block the account's IP for a duration (I think a couple of weeks). The person creating these accounts is changing IPs to get around that (either intentionally or unintentionally). Due to this person's persistence, I'm going to semi-protect the article for a week (I was hoping to avoid that). -- Atama頭 16:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

I'm not FOJ. I'm telling the truth. How many people live in New Jersey? I've never lived in Montclair. I don't care that the geolocator locates to that town. This is ridiculous. I moved to New Jersey from Florida last January. You're blocking the wrong person. The entire community is against FOJ returning to Wikipedia. Not me. This is an outrage. Get your facts straight before blocking innocent people. This isn't over. I promise you that. --64.71.153.58 (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)