Revision as of 07:58, 20 July 2009

This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Atama.

Userboxes

*Category:Proposed deletion

		The Minor Barnstar
		For the precious help you give us, poor admins, by adding the {{prod2}} tag to proposed deletions I, lucasbfr award your this barnstar -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

		The Missing Barnstar
		As you are long overdue for a barnstar due to your work on proposed deletion maintenance. Vikrant 09:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

About Me

As a Wikipedian I try to be fair and unbiased in my work on articles. I have improved articles on subjects that I dislike, and I have argued to delete articles about subjects that I admire.

I always try to consider the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, most especially the need for articles to be notable, which is verified by reliable sources. I firmly believe that the burden for proving such notability lies with those who wish for the article to be included, not for those who wish the article to be removed. I try to judge an article based on the subject of the article, not on how it is currently written nor on who has created or edited the article or who is advocating the article.

I don't believe there is a limit to the size of the encyclopedia, but I do believe that for the encyclopedia to function it must have articles that are encyclopedic, even as Wikipedia redefines what an encyclopedia is. I am neither an inclusionist, nor a deletionist, and find myself defending as many articles as I try to remove. I try to judge each article on its own merits rather than on any greater agenda or philosophy.

I do not have a problem with single-purpose accounts, depending on what that purpose is.

I try to be courteous to other editors and assume that they mean well even when I disagree with them, until they give a clear indication that they don't. I especially try to be kind to a newcomer, as they are the most likely to make honest mistakes. When a person's initial impression is negative they are unlikely to return, and Wikipedia can't survive without drawing new editors. However, a person must show a sincere desire to contribute positively to the encyclopedia, and not simply be a vandal or advertiser.

I can, and do, change my mind if someone gives me a good enough reason. I can, and do, make mistakes and I acknowlege that.

Proposed Deletion Patrolling

I've been a proposed deletion patroller for some time now. I have learned quite a bit about what requirements an article should satisfy to merit inclusion, and I've also learned how to be fair with articles. I generally focus on articles whose deletion proposals are about to expire, and I've "rescued" quite a few. Just recently, one article I came across looked to be in terrible shape, but just doing a tiny bit of research I found that the subject was a concept that had been a notable part of history. I removed the proposed deletion tag and defended it in a later AfD. Other editors expanded the article during the AfD discussion, and a week later it ended up on the front page as a "Do You Know" fact! So proposed deletion patrolling can definitely help Wikipedia.

Here is my personal procedure when I'm looking at proposed deletion articles:

The first thing I do is to see if the article is even eligible for the proposed deletion (prod) process. I check the talk page of the article to see if anyone has said that they object to the deletion. A prod must be non-controversial; if anyone clearly opposes the deletion it cannot occur. The proper way to oppose the deletion is to edit the page and delete the tag; anyone can do so, and assuming the tag wasn't deleted by a vandal that tag removal is an official declaration that they want the article to stay. At that point the article must be taken to AfD if it is to be deleted, unless it is also a candidate for speedy deletion. However, an editor may not realize that they can remove the tag, so if they object by any other means (such as adding a "hangon" tag, which is only supposed to be used for speedy deletions) you can consider the deletion controversial.

I will then check the history of the article. I look to see if there was a prod added previously and then removed, or if there was an AfD for the article. Either of those also makes the deletion controversial. The last thing I will do is check to see who the article creator is, or to see if there is someone who has significantly contributed to the article (especially if they have done so recently). I will then check their talk pages to see if they have objected to the deletion. The reason I do so is because it's usually polite for the person proposing a deletion to leave a notice on the talk page of the article creator or significant contributors, and more than once I've seen a person replying to that notice on their own talk page. If I see an indicator there that they don't want the article deleted, I will also remove the prod tag.

Assuming that the deletion isn't controversial, I will look at the article itself. I will see if the article has reliable sources to establish verifiable notability. If the article seems to meet those requirements, I will remove the prod tag. If it doesn't, I will generally do a Google search and especially check Google News to see if the article has significant coverage. If it does, I will remove the prod tag and either improve the article directly or explain what I did on the talk page, including links to references I have found. I will also place a watch on the page in case the article is brought to AfD, or in case someone tries to restore the prod tag.

If I have removed the prod tag because it is controversial, but I feel the article still merits deletion, I will start the AfD process myself. Otherwise I will leave a message for the person who proposed the deletion on their talk page, generally using a template at the proposed deletion patroller's page. If I haven't removed the prod tag, I will instead leave a {{prod-2}} tag, and I always try to add a little bit more about why the article deserves deletion. Sometimes I will even disagree with the original proposer's reason for deletion, and will explain that I do so, but will offer an alternative reason why the page should be deleted.

I've found the proposed deletion patrolling process to be a very interesting one, and it has led me to get involved with articles I normally would have had little interest in. I have a handful of articles that I have expanded considerably, and only because I had initially "rescued" them from deletion.

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 I've found the proposed deletion patrolling process to be a very interesting one, and it has led me to get involved with articles I normally would have had little interest in. I have a handful of articles that I have expanded considerably, and only because I had initially "rescued" them from deletion.
-== Harrassment ==
-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. 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? This is harrassment of me and is deleterious to my academic reputation[[User:Fauncet|Fauncet]] ([[User talk:Fauncet|talk]]) 07:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)