User talk:Atama

jeff

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)

I have no clue what you're talking about, sorry. -- Atama^chat 16:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Kool Keith

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))

• Why do you insist that I am trying to start an edit war? Are you trying to start an edit war? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group

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)

WoW

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)

AfD nomination of The Five Wits

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)

Richmond Extension

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)

Replied on your talk page. -- Atama^chat 15:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

iPhone Beta Change

Whoops, I honestly didn't see the download link on that page. I apologize. Thanks for catching that. marzman8000 (talk) 10 June 2009.

AfD nomination of ADVANCE Student Organization

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)

Why No "Warning" For HereToHelp?

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)

Replied on user's talk page. -- Atama^chat 18:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

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—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dario D. (talk • contribs) 21:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WoW

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)

Arbitration request rejected

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)

Mobile Entree

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)

Replied on User's talk page. -- Atama^chat 17:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kairos society

You might want to consider a {{Not a ballot}} tag. My best to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion! -- Atama^chat 17:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

iPhone article review

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)

Replied on user's talk page. -- Atama^chat 23:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:

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)

I have a question regarding this. I seem to remember, that articles nomnated ford eletion are deleted if the problems are not solwed within seven days after the have been nominated? I will not be able to alter them until that time limit have passed. I do not have access to the references right now. However: you have suggested that they be renamed to be about the phenomena in itself rather han about a specific case. I have no problem with this. In that case, anyone can expand and add references to them before that time limit is up on the 31th, even though I could not find the time within that time limit. I do not know when it is okay to rename them, if this is decided.--Aciram (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I see, that's a relief! Thanks for your replies and clarifications! --Aciram (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

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)

July 2009

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)

Dabizi or anyone else can't keep me from making any helpful contributions to the page if theres ever one thats needed, but overall the page looks better. I was rude to other users like Dabizi's world news states, but i felt i was treated with rudeness from them aswell. He sent me an extremely long paragraph explaining the premise if Wiki editing, and at the end maybe added a few of his own words, so naturally i wasn't going to read it all. 90% of this with he and i was user conflict, the other 10% if that was edit conflict NitroMan3941 (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

How can i call one vandalism and not the other? Easy, my edits were not vandalism, i legitimately thought pot smoking was in the movie. I'm glad you're not shy about sending generic templates, i've been getting several since Dabizi started complaining about me to the rest of the users. NitroMan3941 (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i was just misinformed. As you probably realize, if i were a vandal i wouldn't be trying to improve pages on here, and i would be banned by now. I make no attempt to justify my uncivil actions, but its nice to know you could see it was both of us and not just me. Let me know if theres anything i can do to improve the page during this time; finding proper links, ect. NitroMan3941 (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

How can i get involved in a WikiProject, like for example WikiProject Cannabis? I'm interested in working on cannabis related projects, thats actually how i ended up on the Deedles page. NitroMan3941 (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for volunteering your insight regarding Meet the Deedles and all the other stuff! Dabizi (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor query about COIN

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 the advice. Ive posted some requests with some admins. So will see if the edit is a good idea. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Noticeboard

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)

Thanks, and good luck to you aswell on any future projects you might get involved in. Currently i'm not doing anything on that WikiProject, i'm pretty much taking my time and still deciding on what on there i would work best in. NitroMan3941 (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost talk page

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)

About What You Said...

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)

J.E.S. Lawrence

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)

Note

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)

Sorry you had to be dragged into this, Atama. Blackworm, unfortunately, may be guilty of projection here. Blackworm has been counseled about his edit warring and lack of POV editing in the past, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Blackworm. It would serve his purpose well to misrepresent Jake. What Blackworm has not told you is that he is a zealous believer in genital integrity, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision&diff=prev&oldid=142854571 and try and find anything remotely as extreme in any of Jake's edits. Blackworm is a big fan of CIRP, a website that goes out of its way to push anti-circumcision philosophy, to the point that they will use HTML to highlight portions of articles that support their position and ignore the portions that do not. Their mal-distribution of papers on the subject is why I believe Jake started collecting scientific papers to begin with. I do not know if Blackworm is associated with CIRP, as Blackworm has never revealed his real-life identity. Jake has never, that I know of, pushed CIRCS as a source, and on the circumcision artile, we try not to use either source for papers unless we have no choice, and there is a notice at the top of the reference section. So, I request that you compare the edit histories of Blackworm and Jake, and then decide who has the more extreme POV, and who may be trying to place the other in disrepute. -- Avi (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen Jake promote his website (it's not an organization--he's one person), and, as I said, we try to link to neither site for papers unless there is no other freely available source. I agree that while there are strong POV's on the article, I do not think anyone, or I should say I have neither evidence nor reason to believe, that anyone has a conflict of interest on the article. Thank you for your time and patience! -- Avi (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I take the repeated accusations of my having psychological issues as a direct personal attack, part of a pattern of harrassment. Blackworm (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Blackworm, on this page nobody has accused you of having psychological issues. So please relax. I'm not interested in having my talk page be a battleground between the two of you. -- Atama^chat 23:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I could argue that psychological projection, as was linked to above, is a psychological issue. It gives "blaming others for one's own failure" as an example. I'm sorry that this ongoing conflict has spilled onto your talk page. Blackworm (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The lead to that article says, "A modern view of projections is that they are prerequisites for normal social functioning." I've never heard of "projecting" being considered a mental illness, ever. It's something everyone does now and again. My interpretation of what Avi said is that you are assuming bad faith in Jakew because you have been acting in bad faith. I assume that this opinion has derived from a long-standing dispute that has been going on at circumcision and probably elsewhere, and I'm not taking sides; you can call each other whatever you want and it's not going to sway my opinion one way or the other. In any case, I do appreciate the courtesy of your reply, and I have to say that I don't hold any ill-will toward either of you; I think you've both been civil to me even when discussing what are obviously heated matters and I thank the both of you. -- Atama^chat 00:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Atama, thank you for reply, but I didn't say mental illness, I said psychological issues. You said, "nobody has accused you of having psychological issues." Now you switch to mental illness, which I didn't discuss. You're right, he hasn't accused me of mental illness to my knowledge. Psychological projection however seems a failing by the example given (blaming others for one's own failures, which Avi directly accused me of the first time he said I was "guilty of projection:" "You, however, seem to need to focus on attacking the person of those who disagree with you, as opposed to discussiing issues"[1]). Psychological projection may indeed be a common failing, but it's a failing that Avi has directly accused me of twice now, and which I deny and resent in both instances, hence my response. He talks about marginalization while marginalizing others, and apparently leading you to believe such marginalization is the motive for the COI claim, and arguments. I ask you to consider if that's possible, and perhaps review the discussion and better explain where the error of those arguing that a COI exists is made. Blackworm (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Atama: Re: this message, I don't believe it is clear that promotion of his website is the criteria defining a COI. WP:COI states [emphasis in original], "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Promotion of a website is clearly not the (sole) interest of www.circs.org; that organization clearly has other interests. The discussion between Jakew and myself I referred to in my earlier message above, in my opinion, makes clear that the interest of circs.org is to provide authoritative material on male circumcision, carefully selecting such material in order to present the practice in a more positive light than, say, a large random collection of these authoritative sources would -- that stated aim specifically being to serve as a counter-point to sites doing the same, from an "anti-circumcision" point of view. A kind of affirmative action for points of view, perhaps. But that interest is in direct conflict with the interest of Wikipedia to serve as a neutral source of information, which is not a brochure for a point of view. Jakew may claim that his outside interest, as founder of CIRCS, to counter anti-circumcision groups he accuses of deception, and provide a picture of circumcision that is more favourable than a large random collection of authoritative sources would provide, is not advanced by any of his actions here, where his interest supposedly instantaneously switches to providing a complete, balanced picture. I believe the source of dismay from several editors stems from a belief that these interests are indeed in conflict, that Jakew does not change interests like a switch when he logs into Wikipedia, and that Jakew's presence here does de facto advance this interest of CIRCS, as evidenced by the character of his edits and his arguments for those edits. So the question is, what is CIRCS? Is it Jake's personal website, or is a website for and funded by people who share his point of view? If the latter, then I believe an argument for WP:COI can certainly be made. In any case, COI or not, several editors believe that WP:NPOV is not being served by his edits, especially combined with the terse and indignant expressions of support and editwarring of his edits into the articles by a couple of other editors apparently sharing his views. Blackworm (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. You're quoting part of the lead of WP:COI and taking it out of context. It later defines examples of what constitutes "advancing outside interests" and simply violating WP:NPOV isn't included. You're essentially saying that Jakew was jaywalking because he stole a lady's purse. You might have a legitimate WP:NPOV claim, you might not, but you don't have a COI claim here. Honestly, what I see is that everyone in the dispute is biased, and that's okay. It's fine for one side to have a POV, and for the other side to have the opposite POV. Hopefully what that would result in is a balanced article, where each side keeps the other in check. That only happens if both sides work together. But that's obviously not happening in that article. I have no interest in getting in between the two sides there, my only interest was giving an opinion about a COI. If you can't show Jakew actively promoting CIRCS, then you don't have any basis for the COI accusation according to the guidelines. Honestly, what you have is a content dispute and I'm not interested in getting into that. Thanks -- Atama^chat 23:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I never made a direct COI accusation, actually, since the guideline isn't that clear to me. The guideline does state that "Campaigning: Activities regarded by insiders as simply 'getting the word out' may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest." User:Jakew states: "In 2003, I became aware of the deceptive activities of many activist groups opposed to neonatal circumcision. My research has continued and intensified since, and I now consider myself something of an expert on the subject." I can see how this may cause some editors to argue that a COI exists, whether a consensus would agree or not. I attempted to explain why they may see it that way. Blackworm (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict $\times$ 2) I was going to point out that I don't agree with Blackworm's interpretation of what Jake wrote [2] etc. but never mind; thanks for giving an outside opinion, Atama. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Blackworm, the COI guideline can at times be unclear because all it does is give recommendations, it isn't a very firm one. Jakew doesn't seem to be campaigning, as you've quoted yourself, campaigning is "trying to get the word out" about an organization, but he's not getting the word out about CIRCS. I understand perfectly why some people think that he has a COI, and it's due to confusion between COI and POV. Having a POV does not automatically mean you have a COI, even being a member or founder of a group that has a POV on a subject does not mean you have a COI. -- Atama^chat 00:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Campaigning may also be for an idea. When they talk about editing articles and "engaging in advocacy in that area," well, Jakew is editting articles, and the organization he founded is engaging in advocacy in that area. That may be read as a COI, per my reading of that policy. Now maybe that indeed is not what the spirit of the policy is -- but it's unclear. How about we get outside input; and move this discussion to WT:COI? Nothing is to be lost and I'm honestly curious as to what the consensus would be on it. It seems an important issue warranting outside attention. Blackworm (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If "campaigning for an idea" could be a COI then COI would be redundant, any time you make an edit that is slanted toward a particular POV, you're "campaigning for an idea", so what would be the difference between WP:COI and WP:NPOV? COI is specifically for someone editing to the benefit of a person or organization that they are tied to, that doesn't include someone editing for the benefit of an ideal. Simply put, it's along the lines of a McDonald's CEO editing the McDonald's article and writing "McDonald's is great according to most people" in the lead. But, if you still think that Jakew has a COI despite all that I've said, that's no problem, I'll remove the "resolved" tag because clearly the issue isn't, and you can bring up any arguments you like there. I don't think I'll participate any longer because I believe I've said all that I have to say on the matter. Thank you. -- Atama^chat 00:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done

		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)

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 (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)