![]() | This is an archive of past discussions with Atama. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
< Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 > |
All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - ... (up to 100) |
jeff hardy is cool now that he is champion am i right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardyman77 ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Because it's not notable. The more notable aliases are mentioned in the main body of the article. ( Ibaranoff24 ( talk) 00:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC))
Hello. I wasn't sure if you were from the Seattle area or not, but I thought I'd add this invite to your page just in case. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.
I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided - one is April 8 (Wednesday) starting at 6 pm and the other is April 18 (Saturday) starting at 10 am. (Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration.) Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!
Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 ( talk) 04:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Please fill out the survey here. Thanks again! --Pbroks13 talk? 19:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Greetings Atama, I've added a suggestion to the talk page of the WoW article here, maybe you'd like to add your thoughts. Regards, 84.59.174.138 ( talk) 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, The Five Wits, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Five Wits. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.
Your proposed transwiki has been declined. -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 02:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, just read your proposing this artical for speedy deletion on the basis of it being wrong/hoax. Actually the contents of the artical are completely correct, and a reference can be found in the relevant section of the Central Lines main page. Hope this helps :) OutrageousBenedict ( talk) 03:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, ADVANCE Student Organization, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ADVANCE Student Organization. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Dawn Bard ( talk) 17:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Please explain in simple English why you chose to give me a big, scary "warning" on my user page for undoing edits, and gave HereToHelp - who was doing the exact same thing, except without justifying his premise with any solid statement - a barnstar? These are the most biased actions I've seen on Wikipedia to date.-- [ Dario D. ] 18:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#IPod Touch Criticisms Section and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dario D. ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Just posted an update in discussion on Original Research, explaining a bit more for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croc97 ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Atama. A recent request for Arbitration which you were listed as a party for, "IPod Touch Criticisms Section", has been rejected by the Arbitration Committee. The reasoning for the arbitrator's refusal to hear the case may be viewed at the archived version at this link. If this is still an issue requiring resolution, you are encouraged to seek out other forms of dispute resolution such as a request for comment or Mediation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. For the Committee, Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 16:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Atama, Wanted to thank you for all of your comments and personal support as we work through the Mobile Entree issue. I have posted some additional comments to the AfD page this morning and am hopeful that my colleague at the NY Times will post something before the article is deleted. On another note, I was hoping that you could offer your opinion on weather I should begin editing under a different username. The administrator Brian McNeil took some pointed personal attacks at me that you can see here. This may have a negative affect on my ability to eventually become an administrator some day with Wikipedia. Any advice that you can offer will be greatly appreciated. Respectfully -- Jason! ( talk) 14:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You might want to consider a {{ Not a ballot}} tag. My best to you. ttonyb1 ( talk) 17:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It is just me? Or, is this User:Pmlinediter person even qualified to review the article? He's only been on Wikipedia since last year. May want to check his credentials to see if he is indeed qualified, or he's just one of those who slept at a Holiday Inn Express the other night. Groink ( talk) 08:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarifikation. I do hesitate about doing that, as I am the creator and thereby naturally not very neutral, but what you say makes perfect sense. I have posted my answers on the discussions. With your solution, it would be easier also for others to provide references. My trouble is my time. I hope this will be solwed for the best!-- Aciram ( talk) 11:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I've just googled my name and it prominently brings up the COI page with two critical comments about me. This will be having an adverse effect on my academic reputation. Given I fully intend to comply with guidelines and not to further edit my own page how long is this necessary? Fauncet ( talk) 08:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I hope you're not accusing me of vandalizing the Meet the Deedles page, as it was actually Freedom Fighteer. NitroMan3941 ( talk) 20:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for volunteering your insight regarding Meet the Deedles and all the other stuff! Dabizi ( talk) 14:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a question about coin but i dont know where to find the appropriate solution to this. A user enters his name and identifies himself on a talk page and is in violation of a conflict of interest with the article he is editing. Then a discussion about COIN develops the page is nominated for deletion. After this discussion (or at least after the concerns of the page are addressed) can we blank out his name in the threads he created if he requests? Thank you for your time (I havent dealt with COIN much so i dont know if this is a good idea) Ottawa4ever ( talk) 14:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for not persecuting me on the Wiki Noticeboard. Your seemingly neutral stance is the way more editors should act; without traces of favortism. NitroMan3941 ( talk) 22:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Join the club. Almost every uninvolved editor has looked at that page and backed away warily, leaving those of us not smart enough to do likewise stuck in an echo chamber.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 02:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You know what? You're right. As long as I contribute, it's no matter that my talk page is nearly empty. At least I still have a barnstar. I can work from there. Hey, I was wondering... Where could I put in info of my novel? Tell me on my talk page. Typingwestern015 ( talk) 02:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Atama,
Thanks for you help. I agree he is an interesting character according to his Autobio and CV, it is strange no one else has dived in before now to tidy the article. Btw I have raised a query with User Talk: Ukexpat who like you knows about the world of COI as to why he did a redirect but left the article unchanged otherwise. I will keep an eye on the various articles going forward, Cheers Tmol42 ( talk) 17:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You write, "In that case, (1) name the organization and (2) give evidence that Jakew is associated with it." It's possible Garycompugeek was referring to CIRCS, www.circs.org, of which User:Jakew is the founder. See this fragment for Jakew's explanation as to why his organization, CIRCS, chose to publish more articles judged to be pro-circumcision and fewer articles judged to be anti-circumcision, in relation to the collection of all available articles on circumcision. I believe Jakew demonstrates clear bias, unabashedly claiming that anti-circumcision groups are deceptive on his user page, and has carried this bias to Wikipedia, has enforced this bias in circumcision and all circumcision-related articles (including female circumcision), and has had the constant assistance and unanimous support of certain administrators, also biased on the topic, namely User:Jayjg and User:Avraham -- allowing him essentially to dictate the contents of all circumcision-related articles, often in the face of multiple editors in opposition, clamouring for what they claim is a more neutral treatment. Less zealous editors, perhaps; editors who perhaps have better things to do than incessantly argue with the circumcision organization founder in question. Thanks for your interest in this situation, I hope the above was of some use to you. Blackworm ( talk) 05:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Civility Award | |
For remaining civil, if not downright cordial, when caught in the middle trying to explain issues to editors with strong feelings on either side. -- Avi ( talk) 01:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC) |
Hi. I was encouraged to become part of the campaign again systematic bias (see my talk page). On 18 July editor Quibik reversed links by me to 'Royal Canberra Hospital' in the 'Royal Canberra Hospital Implosion' entry on the basis of 'overediting.' (see history of edits) But the links were in separate paras and so (I felt) not contrary to the policy and I wrote this up on the article discussion page. There has been a campaign by the ACT government to downplay the public angst felt about its demolition of this much loved hospital and I accused this editor of possible bias in explaining my undo. Now this editor as added notifications to both the article about me (which has now been through many editors hands and which I haven't touched since requested not to) and that of my father Marcus De Laune Faunce (whwre I acknowledged neutrality issues immediately). This motivation of Quibik in doing this seems clearly related to my accusing him/her of potential bias and I suspect him/her may have some COI related to the Royal Canberra Hospital and my father's opposition to its closure. In relation to myself my reading of the Wiki policy was that opposing 'harrassment' and 'outing' was supposed to take precedence. I wish the edits of Quibik on those two articles taken down as flowing from COI or harrassment. Should I do that myself? Should I report him/her to the COI page? Fauncet ( talk) 07:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the PROD. I found the article via my daily check here and added what refs I could since it was an unreferenced BLP. But what's there is all I could find. I very much doubt it would survive an AfD. If the article's author/subject can't provide anything more in the way of recordings, reviews, journal citations etc. I don't know who else can. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 04:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Please address the comment - reprinted below - from the Clive Fiske Harrison AfD page. He has been extensively quoted and referenced in the media over the years. I think a failing of this process is that people do not realise that notability in certain areas does not always spill out into celebrity. This is why the lead financial columnnist for the London Times said "one person whose views I respect." and why he is the goto for quotes by the City editor of the Evening Standard which is the newspaper of the financial community in London-- Fiskeharrison ( talk) 09:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment. It is easy to find vast amounts of mentions in the newspapers. E.g. Highbeam research shows entries for The Independent, Evening Standard, Sunday Business and Investor's Chronicle see here -- Fiskeharrison ( talk) 22:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Atama, in your opinion Libs' warning was wrong and, as such, a separate reply for Libs on his own talk page would've been better. Regardless, the warning was fine but he used the wrong template. The user seemed to be genre trolling and the correct template for that would be {{uw-genre1}} et al. Just thought I'd clear up any confusion you were having. You can reply here if you wish as I don't know if the IP talk page bug still exists or not. Thanks. 86.3.61.125 ( talk) 16:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Atama - I have added a COI statement to the end of these articles and to my user page. I pointed out that the Neurography article was reviewed for this issue when it was first posted. It is worth knowing, in terms of real conflicts, that thousands of patients have these imaging studies in hundreds of locations quite unrelated to me (e.g. Johns Hopkins, UCSF, etc). I have a long history of well regarded academic publication in this field. I'm not sure who put the banner: This page contains many passages with clear conflict of interests. Please refer to( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#diffusion_MRI) for more information. at the top and if it needs to be there, then I certainly encourage it - but is that a standard for Wikipedia? The other article that CogitoErgoSum101 drew attention to is the Diffusion MRI article. In this case there are thousands of publications and image centers involved all of which have no affiliation with me. The banner makes it sound as if the article is riddled with misleading statements and that certainly is not the case. I don't think there is any specific dispute about any of the content. I did file a patent with the first images in this field with a lead of several years on other groups and this work was immediately praised and promoted by the leading scientists in MRI at the time (which is documented in the article). I understand that this was the conclusion of your review but again, is that banner necessary? I have worked on various pages in the Wikipedia and if there is going to be a "scarlet letter" posted in broad banner over every article I work on, it seems that I will harm any subject that I touch. We don't know the identity or conflicts of the person pursuing this agenda. It seems that we should be able to resolve any specific factual difference. I don't feel someone with an agenda should be able to drive me off of Wikipedia just because I am a creative productive person who also likes to write and teach. I am a huge fan of Wikipedia and believe I can do a great job. The Diffusion MRI article was in very preliminary condition, made up mostly of puzzling complex mathematical formulas (several of which had errors). There are thousands in this field who never took the time to touch up the article. I do think it is a much better article now although there is room for improvement. It gets 300-400 visitors per day so there is definitely a lot of interest in this subject. Afiller ( talk) 05:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank for merging the Irekei article into the main one. I just wanted to let you know that when you merge something, you should link the title of the article that it comes from in the edit summary. ("Merging in material from [[Irekei]]"). In this case I think the summary you left is probably good enough, but for future reference be sure to link it. Also you should put a {{ R from merge}} on the newly redirected page. (I went ahead and did so.) These two steps ensure that proper attribution is possible, and that the redirected page won't be deleted (which would break attribution), as required by our licensing agreements.
Thank you for your consideration and have a nice day, ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for tackling this. I tried to help out and I think Zulualpha has some valid points but I couldn't get past the ramblings on the talk page. Rees11 ( talk) 23:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments Atama. I am just trying to add to the page in a constructive and helpful manner. I have since sourced the correction I was attempting to make and will be adding more great facts about this artists with sources. All the best. Lktmgmt ( talk) 06:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi fellow editor, thanks for your comments here. I will leave the WP:NPOV report for now to see if the user in questions adds the valid sources I added (which he deleted). I am still a little concerned about comments on his talk page (which I highlighted on his talk page):
There seem to be elements encouraging edit wars. I am also concerned about the use of weasel words in the commentary, and lack of assumption of good faith by the editor. Any advice would be welcome. Thanks-- Sikh-History 14:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, how to proceed? Should I strike through the content and repost on ANI? Please advise.-- Kbob ( talk) 19:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, cool. I didn't look too hard for notability because the original text also included "All the lifeguards there are competent and knowledgeable in water safety. Some have super powers." That didn't give me a lot of confidence to research very far. Good call. Cheers, Pigman ☿/talk 18:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
For your information. SilkTork * YES! 22:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Atama, welcome to the TM page and thanks for your comment. This quote that you mention also has source issues and is currently being discussed in the TM page talk section called: Proposal to Remove Paragraph, Off Topic, Unreliable Source. This questionable source is being cited in multiple places in the article. If you would like to read that section and make a comment there it would be welcomed. [3]--Kbob (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Concerning Bob Taggart you wrote:
The United Kingdom is the state in which he lived. The nation in which he lived is Scotland. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It's true that he was not the oldest person in the UK. What's not clear is whether that's what matters.
Sometimes the term constituent country is used, and in the term Six Nations Championship, the six "nations" are England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, France, and Italy.
But it is certainly not only in the UK that such terminology is used. See nation. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Atama, where can I find info and/or tools to customize my user name/signature with colors or font like you have done? Many thanks.-- Kbob ( talk) 18:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Got it, it works!-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
This is for your most eloquent explanation on User talk:UkFaith I am very impressed with how you did that in the manner you did. You explained everything that needed to be covered! Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 00:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC) |
Am editing from PSP via a McDonalds in South France so cant saY much. But OK wont AfD it i agree is notabLe but was unsourced BLP. thanks 4 improving. SockofSpongefrog ( talk) 10:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Good Friend Award | |
For always assuming good faith until proven otherwise and in particular, for rescuing an editor from apparent self destruction, thereby moving Wiki one more step forward on its path to greatness. -- Kbob chat 00:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
Your exemplary work and dedication at WP:COI/N has been recognized and appreciated. :) œ ™ 05:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Half Barnstar | |
For cooperating with other editors on Talk:Vivek Kundra Falcon8765 ( talk) 21:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC) |
Kundra has moved beyond this and gone on to dedicate his life to public service. This is more than what most people can claim… To punish him again (and all his family members) publicly thirteen years later when a Judge with material facts deemed it to be a misdemeanor should not be supported. This is in direct contradiction to the disposition that the judge (the law) intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.128.243 ( talk) 02:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
As an attorney and objective observer, I would have to strongly agree with the previous unsigned comment about the appropriateness of including information on this incident. Legally, Kundra was never convicted of anything--in Maryland, probation before judgment (or PBJ) is not a conviction and can be expunged from a person's record within three years. A person receiving a PBJ could honestly and legally say that he/she was never convicted of anything and does not have a criminal record. In fact, the whole point of a PBJ is to prevent people from having the "black mark" of a misdemeanor follow them for life. While Kundra's information is now out there on some blogs and a few publications, that does not mean it SHOULD be out there. Moreover, given the tone and purpose of his Wikipedia page (i.e. to provide information on his professional background and responsibilities of the CIO), it seems completely inappropriate and almost partisan in nature. For example, why is the theft that President Bush committed as a twenty-year-old not on his wikipedia page when it was covered by publications such as the New York Times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 ( talk) 16:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Atama, do you know anything about the Resolved template? (like the one being used on the COIN page) Can it be used on User Talk pages? Can anyone editor use it? Sometimes on the TM page there are some many threads its hard to know what's completed and sometimes threads that are ongoing go unnoticed because they are far up the page. Any experience with this kind of thing?-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
not sure if you saw my return comment or not. Anyway are you aware of this handy little tag?-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello there. I have a quick question: When nominating an article for re-deletion ( this page) how do I ascertain the exact number of times it has been deleted previously? User Ultra-Loser says the above article has been " deleted several times" but I can't find any trace of past discussion. Thank you. Dynablaster ( talk) 12:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Stumbled upon this at AIV, so I figured I'd come to you and see what's up. I'll be talking to the user in question, but I'm here to know your side. I've also notified Ronz. Cheers, Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 08:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
About my edit on Mauritius : I'm from the Indian Ocean and I know English is NOT a vernacular language in Mauritius. Most of people are very prophicient but in everyday life they use French and Creole. Mitch1981 ( talk) 20:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't intend to start an edit war, so I'll let it go. But what's the point of an encyclopedia which doesn't care about reality ? England took Mauritius from the French in the early 19th century but they did'nt try to wipe french culture off the place. So when the locals took their independance in the late 1960s, they were still strongly influenced by french culture. They kept English as an official language for merely practical reasons but they speak French and French-based creole in everyday life. Just go and tour the place, so you'll see by yourself. Besides, it's a lovely place. Cheers Mitch1981 ( talk) 17:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at Nederlander Organization? There was an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nederlander Worldwide Entertainment that resulted in "merge" but no one ever did the merge. I took a stab at it, and think I got it right, but it's my first merge.
In particular, during the merge I discovered almost the entire target article was copied verbatim from the company web site. I deleted the copied text, but it may have been licensed CC, as was the source material for the merged-from article.
You had commented about the copied material during the AfD discussion which is why I'm asking your opinion on this. Thanks! Rees11 ( talk) 02:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought this was over, as the AfD and PROD both concluded, but two of the other articles have come back, so I have raised a joint AfD here. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 17:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I am researching the connection between these two contemporary writers and noticed there is concern posted about the objectivity and verifiability of both as they appear on Wiki. Because I have a great deal of background material on these writers, I am not neutral in my opinions and so would not wish to edit on or add to the respective articles myself, in any way, but rather express my analysis on these topics in my own publications, fully attributed. However, I will be watching this wiki UserTalk:Atama page to see how the improvement of the articles progresses. My own position is that I want to be able to rely on Wiki as a reliable source, and not have that mixed with feedback of my own thinking. Thanks. Checkers winston ( talk) 00:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Philbox17 is now using the accounts User:PatrioteQc and User:Québécois101. Can you have the admins block these one's too. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 ( talk) 09:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yikes! - Feels like seeing a bridge out, and coming into town to see the train boarding... and the Engineer swears the bridge can't be out, the map is RIGHT HERE and it shows the bridge. It ain't gonna be pretty. - Sinneed ( talk) 22:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC) PS - I am watching so if you want to reply, I'll see it here, and if not, no worries. Just a "Yikes, that's gonna leave a mark!" moment. - Sinneed ( talk) 22:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Atama i valued your input on COI pages and i was wondering if i could get your opinion on another matter?
"The article for
Sungazing was edited 22 times by User:Skinwalker in a one hour period. During which he/she removed any explanation of the practise itself, ie. when to do the practise and any safety guidelines stated by known sungazers. With this done, the way has been paved for the article to take on his opinions of a practise that he seems to know little about (ie. safety guidelines, the actual process of what to do and when to sungaze etc...) As is seen with the statement "The practice of sungazing is dangerous". this is then followed by criticism of the practise with out any explanation of the process itself.
He/she has taken out entire sections of the process of how to sungaze saying 'wikipedia is not a how to section', yet on the page for
Driving, room is given on how to instruct somone to drive, optimising driving performance. The same is true with sungazing, the safety lies in the proper process, with that removed any opinionated view can be propogated. No one drives 90mph out of their drive way and the same goes with sungazing, there are safety guidelines and limits...
Another example of the opinionated editing, User:Skinwalker writes, "it has undergone analysis - staring at the sun is bad for you". i agree that staring at anything is bad for you, but if the practise entailed "staring at the sun" it would be called "sun staring".
It seems this editors opinion comes first and then the rest of the article is to follow.
i would like to note that the criticism section has went untouched.
There is almost nothing left of the original article, and its current state does not allow for any genuine and legitimate information on the process and practise of
Sungazing."
(i cut and pasted most of this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Sungazing as i have already sought some help but am unsure if it the right forum)
i was thinking to undo his edits but as i go the references were already deleted leaving big red writing everywhere... so in order to procede i'm guessing i would have to undo all his edits... any advice on how to procede (or how to stop these edits) is most appreciated.
Thanks.
J929 (
talk)
16:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, would you please have the admins shut down yet another sockpuppet account of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Philbox17 this time it is User:Québécois1837. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 ( talk) 20:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if you know this IP user at all, but I noticed that they are considering leaving WP partially because of something I said to them. While I stand by my statement that it was an edit war, I know that this IP was trying to do the right thing in the wrong way. They've stated in a couple places that they are considering leaving, and that would be very disappointing. If you know this user at all and can change their mind, WP would be a better place for having them around. Thanks! Frmatt ( talk) 23:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello again!
Saw the message you left for this user. Is this a confirmed sock? I saw that the edits they made to the page in my userspace are definitely not NPOV and I'll be reverting them, but will monitor this user's contributions if they're a confirmed sock. Thanks! Frmatt ( talk) 22:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up that I've created an ANI here. Frmatt ( talk) 05:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I've replied on the prod talk page. BTW, I'm a dude and you can call me "he." :) youngamerican ( wtf?) 23:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Check your userpage. youngamerican ( wtf?) 00:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I changed my vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bob the Wikipedian to supportm, in view of a further explanation he gave. Thought you might like to know. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
First, thank you for your candor regarding your comments. But, if I came across aggressive, it's was because it's obvious that everyone editing was better at detailing the possible rules failed than being proactive and giving advise on how to improve the article. Clearly, as a new Wikipedia contributor, it's difficult enough learning this "wikilanguage" (not sure if that's what it's called), let alone dealing with seasoned vets in Wikipedia who are more than willing to rip your eye balls and feed them back to you- simply because they can. This abuse is what bothered me most. While I chose to write an article which can could be considered a WP:BIOGRAPHY OR WP:ATHLETE, since a NATIONAL CHAMPION in POST COMMUNIST CUBA, while politically unpopular, never-the-less was significant in the time. One thing my mother taught me was to always attempt to be part of the solution and not the problem. I may have become inadvertently part of the problem on this, but I guarantee you that it's not my nature. I'll try to continue editing articles to gain more experience, but like Robert Frost I will chose the road less traveled and offer solutions rather than Criticism of someones well intentioned article. Again, thank you for your remarks.-- Agames ( talk) 04:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
No, thank you! keep in touch.-- Agames ( talk) 05:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You do a lot of Noticeboard stuff, and I was thinking of nominating you for Adminship. Would you agree to go through vetting beforehand, so that I can get feedback about that idea? Irbisgreif ( talk) 04:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Just letting you know because you've had a role in the earlier SPIs...there's a new sock of Philbox17...the SPI is here. Frmatt ( talk) 05:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I took a look at this editors contributions, he/she is editing the RRQ article and related articles heavily. I suspect this person is either another sockpuppet or an RRQ member that lacks a NPOV. I will need help to deal with this editor to avoid 3RR. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 ( talk) 14:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that, it was my mistake. I typed in wp:conflict which is not the same as WP:CONFLICT and does not redirect to WP:COI. My mistake, sorry! ReformatMe ( talk) 21:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions with Atama. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
< Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 > |
All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - ... (up to 100) |
jeff hardy is cool now that he is champion am i right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardyman77 ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Because it's not notable. The more notable aliases are mentioned in the main body of the article. ( Ibaranoff24 ( talk) 00:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC))
Hello. I wasn't sure if you were from the Seattle area or not, but I thought I'd add this invite to your page just in case. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.
I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided - one is April 8 (Wednesday) starting at 6 pm and the other is April 18 (Saturday) starting at 10 am. (Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration.) Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!
Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 ( talk) 04:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Please fill out the survey here. Thanks again! --Pbroks13 talk? 19:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Greetings Atama, I've added a suggestion to the talk page of the WoW article here, maybe you'd like to add your thoughts. Regards, 84.59.174.138 ( talk) 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, The Five Wits, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Five Wits. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.
Your proposed transwiki has been declined. -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 02:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, just read your proposing this artical for speedy deletion on the basis of it being wrong/hoax. Actually the contents of the artical are completely correct, and a reference can be found in the relevant section of the Central Lines main page. Hope this helps :) OutrageousBenedict ( talk) 03:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, ADVANCE Student Organization, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ADVANCE Student Organization. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Dawn Bard ( talk) 17:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Please explain in simple English why you chose to give me a big, scary "warning" on my user page for undoing edits, and gave HereToHelp - who was doing the exact same thing, except without justifying his premise with any solid statement - a barnstar? These are the most biased actions I've seen on Wikipedia to date.-- [ Dario D. ] 18:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#IPod Touch Criticisms Section and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dario D. ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Just posted an update in discussion on Original Research, explaining a bit more for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croc97 ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Atama. A recent request for Arbitration which you were listed as a party for, "IPod Touch Criticisms Section", has been rejected by the Arbitration Committee. The reasoning for the arbitrator's refusal to hear the case may be viewed at the archived version at this link. If this is still an issue requiring resolution, you are encouraged to seek out other forms of dispute resolution such as a request for comment or Mediation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. For the Committee, Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 16:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Atama, Wanted to thank you for all of your comments and personal support as we work through the Mobile Entree issue. I have posted some additional comments to the AfD page this morning and am hopeful that my colleague at the NY Times will post something before the article is deleted. On another note, I was hoping that you could offer your opinion on weather I should begin editing under a different username. The administrator Brian McNeil took some pointed personal attacks at me that you can see here. This may have a negative affect on my ability to eventually become an administrator some day with Wikipedia. Any advice that you can offer will be greatly appreciated. Respectfully -- Jason! ( talk) 14:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You might want to consider a {{ Not a ballot}} tag. My best to you. ttonyb1 ( talk) 17:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It is just me? Or, is this User:Pmlinediter person even qualified to review the article? He's only been on Wikipedia since last year. May want to check his credentials to see if he is indeed qualified, or he's just one of those who slept at a Holiday Inn Express the other night. Groink ( talk) 08:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarifikation. I do hesitate about doing that, as I am the creator and thereby naturally not very neutral, but what you say makes perfect sense. I have posted my answers on the discussions. With your solution, it would be easier also for others to provide references. My trouble is my time. I hope this will be solwed for the best!-- Aciram ( talk) 11:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I've just googled my name and it prominently brings up the COI page with two critical comments about me. This will be having an adverse effect on my academic reputation. Given I fully intend to comply with guidelines and not to further edit my own page how long is this necessary? Fauncet ( talk) 08:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I hope you're not accusing me of vandalizing the Meet the Deedles page, as it was actually Freedom Fighteer. NitroMan3941 ( talk) 20:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for volunteering your insight regarding Meet the Deedles and all the other stuff! Dabizi ( talk) 14:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a question about coin but i dont know where to find the appropriate solution to this. A user enters his name and identifies himself on a talk page and is in violation of a conflict of interest with the article he is editing. Then a discussion about COIN develops the page is nominated for deletion. After this discussion (or at least after the concerns of the page are addressed) can we blank out his name in the threads he created if he requests? Thank you for your time (I havent dealt with COIN much so i dont know if this is a good idea) Ottawa4ever ( talk) 14:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for not persecuting me on the Wiki Noticeboard. Your seemingly neutral stance is the way more editors should act; without traces of favortism. NitroMan3941 ( talk) 22:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Join the club. Almost every uninvolved editor has looked at that page and backed away warily, leaving those of us not smart enough to do likewise stuck in an echo chamber.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 02:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You know what? You're right. As long as I contribute, it's no matter that my talk page is nearly empty. At least I still have a barnstar. I can work from there. Hey, I was wondering... Where could I put in info of my novel? Tell me on my talk page. Typingwestern015 ( talk) 02:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Atama,
Thanks for you help. I agree he is an interesting character according to his Autobio and CV, it is strange no one else has dived in before now to tidy the article. Btw I have raised a query with User Talk: Ukexpat who like you knows about the world of COI as to why he did a redirect but left the article unchanged otherwise. I will keep an eye on the various articles going forward, Cheers Tmol42 ( talk) 17:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You write, "In that case, (1) name the organization and (2) give evidence that Jakew is associated with it." It's possible Garycompugeek was referring to CIRCS, www.circs.org, of which User:Jakew is the founder. See this fragment for Jakew's explanation as to why his organization, CIRCS, chose to publish more articles judged to be pro-circumcision and fewer articles judged to be anti-circumcision, in relation to the collection of all available articles on circumcision. I believe Jakew demonstrates clear bias, unabashedly claiming that anti-circumcision groups are deceptive on his user page, and has carried this bias to Wikipedia, has enforced this bias in circumcision and all circumcision-related articles (including female circumcision), and has had the constant assistance and unanimous support of certain administrators, also biased on the topic, namely User:Jayjg and User:Avraham -- allowing him essentially to dictate the contents of all circumcision-related articles, often in the face of multiple editors in opposition, clamouring for what they claim is a more neutral treatment. Less zealous editors, perhaps; editors who perhaps have better things to do than incessantly argue with the circumcision organization founder in question. Thanks for your interest in this situation, I hope the above was of some use to you. Blackworm ( talk) 05:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Civility Award | |
For remaining civil, if not downright cordial, when caught in the middle trying to explain issues to editors with strong feelings on either side. -- Avi ( talk) 01:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC) |
Hi. I was encouraged to become part of the campaign again systematic bias (see my talk page). On 18 July editor Quibik reversed links by me to 'Royal Canberra Hospital' in the 'Royal Canberra Hospital Implosion' entry on the basis of 'overediting.' (see history of edits) But the links were in separate paras and so (I felt) not contrary to the policy and I wrote this up on the article discussion page. There has been a campaign by the ACT government to downplay the public angst felt about its demolition of this much loved hospital and I accused this editor of possible bias in explaining my undo. Now this editor as added notifications to both the article about me (which has now been through many editors hands and which I haven't touched since requested not to) and that of my father Marcus De Laune Faunce (whwre I acknowledged neutrality issues immediately). This motivation of Quibik in doing this seems clearly related to my accusing him/her of potential bias and I suspect him/her may have some COI related to the Royal Canberra Hospital and my father's opposition to its closure. In relation to myself my reading of the Wiki policy was that opposing 'harrassment' and 'outing' was supposed to take precedence. I wish the edits of Quibik on those two articles taken down as flowing from COI or harrassment. Should I do that myself? Should I report him/her to the COI page? Fauncet ( talk) 07:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the PROD. I found the article via my daily check here and added what refs I could since it was an unreferenced BLP. But what's there is all I could find. I very much doubt it would survive an AfD. If the article's author/subject can't provide anything more in the way of recordings, reviews, journal citations etc. I don't know who else can. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 04:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Please address the comment - reprinted below - from the Clive Fiske Harrison AfD page. He has been extensively quoted and referenced in the media over the years. I think a failing of this process is that people do not realise that notability in certain areas does not always spill out into celebrity. This is why the lead financial columnnist for the London Times said "one person whose views I respect." and why he is the goto for quotes by the City editor of the Evening Standard which is the newspaper of the financial community in London-- Fiskeharrison ( talk) 09:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment. It is easy to find vast amounts of mentions in the newspapers. E.g. Highbeam research shows entries for The Independent, Evening Standard, Sunday Business and Investor's Chronicle see here -- Fiskeharrison ( talk) 22:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Atama, in your opinion Libs' warning was wrong and, as such, a separate reply for Libs on his own talk page would've been better. Regardless, the warning was fine but he used the wrong template. The user seemed to be genre trolling and the correct template for that would be {{uw-genre1}} et al. Just thought I'd clear up any confusion you were having. You can reply here if you wish as I don't know if the IP talk page bug still exists or not. Thanks. 86.3.61.125 ( talk) 16:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Atama - I have added a COI statement to the end of these articles and to my user page. I pointed out that the Neurography article was reviewed for this issue when it was first posted. It is worth knowing, in terms of real conflicts, that thousands of patients have these imaging studies in hundreds of locations quite unrelated to me (e.g. Johns Hopkins, UCSF, etc). I have a long history of well regarded academic publication in this field. I'm not sure who put the banner: This page contains many passages with clear conflict of interests. Please refer to( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#diffusion_MRI) for more information. at the top and if it needs to be there, then I certainly encourage it - but is that a standard for Wikipedia? The other article that CogitoErgoSum101 drew attention to is the Diffusion MRI article. In this case there are thousands of publications and image centers involved all of which have no affiliation with me. The banner makes it sound as if the article is riddled with misleading statements and that certainly is not the case. I don't think there is any specific dispute about any of the content. I did file a patent with the first images in this field with a lead of several years on other groups and this work was immediately praised and promoted by the leading scientists in MRI at the time (which is documented in the article). I understand that this was the conclusion of your review but again, is that banner necessary? I have worked on various pages in the Wikipedia and if there is going to be a "scarlet letter" posted in broad banner over every article I work on, it seems that I will harm any subject that I touch. We don't know the identity or conflicts of the person pursuing this agenda. It seems that we should be able to resolve any specific factual difference. I don't feel someone with an agenda should be able to drive me off of Wikipedia just because I am a creative productive person who also likes to write and teach. I am a huge fan of Wikipedia and believe I can do a great job. The Diffusion MRI article was in very preliminary condition, made up mostly of puzzling complex mathematical formulas (several of which had errors). There are thousands in this field who never took the time to touch up the article. I do think it is a much better article now although there is room for improvement. It gets 300-400 visitors per day so there is definitely a lot of interest in this subject. Afiller ( talk) 05:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank for merging the Irekei article into the main one. I just wanted to let you know that when you merge something, you should link the title of the article that it comes from in the edit summary. ("Merging in material from [[Irekei]]"). In this case I think the summary you left is probably good enough, but for future reference be sure to link it. Also you should put a {{ R from merge}} on the newly redirected page. (I went ahead and did so.) These two steps ensure that proper attribution is possible, and that the redirected page won't be deleted (which would break attribution), as required by our licensing agreements.
Thank you for your consideration and have a nice day, ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for tackling this. I tried to help out and I think Zulualpha has some valid points but I couldn't get past the ramblings on the talk page. Rees11 ( talk) 23:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments Atama. I am just trying to add to the page in a constructive and helpful manner. I have since sourced the correction I was attempting to make and will be adding more great facts about this artists with sources. All the best. Lktmgmt ( talk) 06:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi fellow editor, thanks for your comments here. I will leave the WP:NPOV report for now to see if the user in questions adds the valid sources I added (which he deleted). I am still a little concerned about comments on his talk page (which I highlighted on his talk page):
There seem to be elements encouraging edit wars. I am also concerned about the use of weasel words in the commentary, and lack of assumption of good faith by the editor. Any advice would be welcome. Thanks-- Sikh-History 14:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, how to proceed? Should I strike through the content and repost on ANI? Please advise.-- Kbob ( talk) 19:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, cool. I didn't look too hard for notability because the original text also included "All the lifeguards there are competent and knowledgeable in water safety. Some have super powers." That didn't give me a lot of confidence to research very far. Good call. Cheers, Pigman ☿/talk 18:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
For your information. SilkTork * YES! 22:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Atama, welcome to the TM page and thanks for your comment. This quote that you mention also has source issues and is currently being discussed in the TM page talk section called: Proposal to Remove Paragraph, Off Topic, Unreliable Source. This questionable source is being cited in multiple places in the article. If you would like to read that section and make a comment there it would be welcomed. [3]--Kbob (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Concerning Bob Taggart you wrote:
The United Kingdom is the state in which he lived. The nation in which he lived is Scotland. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It's true that he was not the oldest person in the UK. What's not clear is whether that's what matters.
Sometimes the term constituent country is used, and in the term Six Nations Championship, the six "nations" are England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, France, and Italy.
But it is certainly not only in the UK that such terminology is used. See nation. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Atama, where can I find info and/or tools to customize my user name/signature with colors or font like you have done? Many thanks.-- Kbob ( talk) 18:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Got it, it works!-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
This is for your most eloquent explanation on User talk:UkFaith I am very impressed with how you did that in the manner you did. You explained everything that needed to be covered! Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 00:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC) |
Am editing from PSP via a McDonalds in South France so cant saY much. But OK wont AfD it i agree is notabLe but was unsourced BLP. thanks 4 improving. SockofSpongefrog ( talk) 10:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Good Friend Award | |
For always assuming good faith until proven otherwise and in particular, for rescuing an editor from apparent self destruction, thereby moving Wiki one more step forward on its path to greatness. -- Kbob chat 00:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
Your exemplary work and dedication at WP:COI/N has been recognized and appreciated. :) œ ™ 05:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Half Barnstar | |
For cooperating with other editors on Talk:Vivek Kundra Falcon8765 ( talk) 21:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC) |
Kundra has moved beyond this and gone on to dedicate his life to public service. This is more than what most people can claim… To punish him again (and all his family members) publicly thirteen years later when a Judge with material facts deemed it to be a misdemeanor should not be supported. This is in direct contradiction to the disposition that the judge (the law) intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.128.243 ( talk) 02:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
As an attorney and objective observer, I would have to strongly agree with the previous unsigned comment about the appropriateness of including information on this incident. Legally, Kundra was never convicted of anything--in Maryland, probation before judgment (or PBJ) is not a conviction and can be expunged from a person's record within three years. A person receiving a PBJ could honestly and legally say that he/she was never convicted of anything and does not have a criminal record. In fact, the whole point of a PBJ is to prevent people from having the "black mark" of a misdemeanor follow them for life. While Kundra's information is now out there on some blogs and a few publications, that does not mean it SHOULD be out there. Moreover, given the tone and purpose of his Wikipedia page (i.e. to provide information on his professional background and responsibilities of the CIO), it seems completely inappropriate and almost partisan in nature. For example, why is the theft that President Bush committed as a twenty-year-old not on his wikipedia page when it was covered by publications such as the New York Times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 ( talk) 16:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Atama, do you know anything about the Resolved template? (like the one being used on the COIN page) Can it be used on User Talk pages? Can anyone editor use it? Sometimes on the TM page there are some many threads its hard to know what's completed and sometimes threads that are ongoing go unnoticed because they are far up the page. Any experience with this kind of thing?-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
not sure if you saw my return comment or not. Anyway are you aware of this handy little tag?-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello there. I have a quick question: When nominating an article for re-deletion ( this page) how do I ascertain the exact number of times it has been deleted previously? User Ultra-Loser says the above article has been " deleted several times" but I can't find any trace of past discussion. Thank you. Dynablaster ( talk) 12:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Stumbled upon this at AIV, so I figured I'd come to you and see what's up. I'll be talking to the user in question, but I'm here to know your side. I've also notified Ronz. Cheers, Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 08:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
About my edit on Mauritius : I'm from the Indian Ocean and I know English is NOT a vernacular language in Mauritius. Most of people are very prophicient but in everyday life they use French and Creole. Mitch1981 ( talk) 20:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't intend to start an edit war, so I'll let it go. But what's the point of an encyclopedia which doesn't care about reality ? England took Mauritius from the French in the early 19th century but they did'nt try to wipe french culture off the place. So when the locals took their independance in the late 1960s, they were still strongly influenced by french culture. They kept English as an official language for merely practical reasons but they speak French and French-based creole in everyday life. Just go and tour the place, so you'll see by yourself. Besides, it's a lovely place. Cheers Mitch1981 ( talk) 17:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at Nederlander Organization? There was an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nederlander Worldwide Entertainment that resulted in "merge" but no one ever did the merge. I took a stab at it, and think I got it right, but it's my first merge.
In particular, during the merge I discovered almost the entire target article was copied verbatim from the company web site. I deleted the copied text, but it may have been licensed CC, as was the source material for the merged-from article.
You had commented about the copied material during the AfD discussion which is why I'm asking your opinion on this. Thanks! Rees11 ( talk) 02:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought this was over, as the AfD and PROD both concluded, but two of the other articles have come back, so I have raised a joint AfD here. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 17:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I am researching the connection between these two contemporary writers and noticed there is concern posted about the objectivity and verifiability of both as they appear on Wiki. Because I have a great deal of background material on these writers, I am not neutral in my opinions and so would not wish to edit on or add to the respective articles myself, in any way, but rather express my analysis on these topics in my own publications, fully attributed. However, I will be watching this wiki UserTalk:Atama page to see how the improvement of the articles progresses. My own position is that I want to be able to rely on Wiki as a reliable source, and not have that mixed with feedback of my own thinking. Thanks. Checkers winston ( talk) 00:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Philbox17 is now using the accounts User:PatrioteQc and User:Québécois101. Can you have the admins block these one's too. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 ( talk) 09:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yikes! - Feels like seeing a bridge out, and coming into town to see the train boarding... and the Engineer swears the bridge can't be out, the map is RIGHT HERE and it shows the bridge. It ain't gonna be pretty. - Sinneed ( talk) 22:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC) PS - I am watching so if you want to reply, I'll see it here, and if not, no worries. Just a "Yikes, that's gonna leave a mark!" moment. - Sinneed ( talk) 22:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Atama i valued your input on COI pages and i was wondering if i could get your opinion on another matter?
"The article for
Sungazing was edited 22 times by User:Skinwalker in a one hour period. During which he/she removed any explanation of the practise itself, ie. when to do the practise and any safety guidelines stated by known sungazers. With this done, the way has been paved for the article to take on his opinions of a practise that he seems to know little about (ie. safety guidelines, the actual process of what to do and when to sungaze etc...) As is seen with the statement "The practice of sungazing is dangerous". this is then followed by criticism of the practise with out any explanation of the process itself.
He/she has taken out entire sections of the process of how to sungaze saying 'wikipedia is not a how to section', yet on the page for
Driving, room is given on how to instruct somone to drive, optimising driving performance. The same is true with sungazing, the safety lies in the proper process, with that removed any opinionated view can be propogated. No one drives 90mph out of their drive way and the same goes with sungazing, there are safety guidelines and limits...
Another example of the opinionated editing, User:Skinwalker writes, "it has undergone analysis - staring at the sun is bad for you". i agree that staring at anything is bad for you, but if the practise entailed "staring at the sun" it would be called "sun staring".
It seems this editors opinion comes first and then the rest of the article is to follow.
i would like to note that the criticism section has went untouched.
There is almost nothing left of the original article, and its current state does not allow for any genuine and legitimate information on the process and practise of
Sungazing."
(i cut and pasted most of this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Sungazing as i have already sought some help but am unsure if it the right forum)
i was thinking to undo his edits but as i go the references were already deleted leaving big red writing everywhere... so in order to procede i'm guessing i would have to undo all his edits... any advice on how to procede (or how to stop these edits) is most appreciated.
Thanks.
J929 (
talk)
16:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, would you please have the admins shut down yet another sockpuppet account of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Philbox17 this time it is User:Québécois1837. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 ( talk) 20:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if you know this IP user at all, but I noticed that they are considering leaving WP partially because of something I said to them. While I stand by my statement that it was an edit war, I know that this IP was trying to do the right thing in the wrong way. They've stated in a couple places that they are considering leaving, and that would be very disappointing. If you know this user at all and can change their mind, WP would be a better place for having them around. Thanks! Frmatt ( talk) 23:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello again!
Saw the message you left for this user. Is this a confirmed sock? I saw that the edits they made to the page in my userspace are definitely not NPOV and I'll be reverting them, but will monitor this user's contributions if they're a confirmed sock. Thanks! Frmatt ( talk) 22:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up that I've created an ANI here. Frmatt ( talk) 05:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I've replied on the prod talk page. BTW, I'm a dude and you can call me "he." :) youngamerican ( wtf?) 23:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Check your userpage. youngamerican ( wtf?) 00:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I changed my vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bob the Wikipedian to supportm, in view of a further explanation he gave. Thought you might like to know. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
First, thank you for your candor regarding your comments. But, if I came across aggressive, it's was because it's obvious that everyone editing was better at detailing the possible rules failed than being proactive and giving advise on how to improve the article. Clearly, as a new Wikipedia contributor, it's difficult enough learning this "wikilanguage" (not sure if that's what it's called), let alone dealing with seasoned vets in Wikipedia who are more than willing to rip your eye balls and feed them back to you- simply because they can. This abuse is what bothered me most. While I chose to write an article which can could be considered a WP:BIOGRAPHY OR WP:ATHLETE, since a NATIONAL CHAMPION in POST COMMUNIST CUBA, while politically unpopular, never-the-less was significant in the time. One thing my mother taught me was to always attempt to be part of the solution and not the problem. I may have become inadvertently part of the problem on this, but I guarantee you that it's not my nature. I'll try to continue editing articles to gain more experience, but like Robert Frost I will chose the road less traveled and offer solutions rather than Criticism of someones well intentioned article. Again, thank you for your remarks.-- Agames ( talk) 04:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
No, thank you! keep in touch.-- Agames ( talk) 05:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You do a lot of Noticeboard stuff, and I was thinking of nominating you for Adminship. Would you agree to go through vetting beforehand, so that I can get feedback about that idea? Irbisgreif ( talk) 04:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Just letting you know because you've had a role in the earlier SPIs...there's a new sock of Philbox17...the SPI is here. Frmatt ( talk) 05:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I took a look at this editors contributions, he/she is editing the RRQ article and related articles heavily. I suspect this person is either another sockpuppet or an RRQ member that lacks a NPOV. I will need help to deal with this editor to avoid 3RR. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 ( talk) 14:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that, it was my mistake. I typed in wp:conflict which is not the same as WP:CONFLICT and does not redirect to WP:COI. My mistake, sorry! ReformatMe ( talk) 21:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)