User talk:AtomikWeasel

Welcome!

Hello, AtomikWeasel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 05:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Greene

Good job! It's starting to look a lot better! --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 05:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I got involved precisely because I happened to look up Ellen Greene and felt the entry could use a bit of work. As I said, I'll worry away at it over time. Thanks for the encouragement. AtomikWeasel 05:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you stick around and help improve Wikipedia. You really did a lovely job with your first effort here! --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 18:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The compliment is appreciated. AtomikWeasel 19:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Hellmer

Hi. You hit the nail right on the head: notability has to be at least asserted in order for an article to survive speedy deletion. Moreover, even if it is asserted, the article can be deleted through other processes if the assertion is not backed up by citation to reliable, independent sources that significantly discuss the subject. Notability is not inherited, so an agent would not automatically be notable just because the agent had notable clients. If you believe Hellmer was sufficiently notable to warrant an article, you should include citations to reliable, independent sources (like books or newspaper articles) that significantly discuss him. Good luck and let me know if you have further questions about how Wikipedia works. -- But|seriously|folks 04:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is demonstrated by reference to other sources that significantly discuss the subject. It's not whether we think the subject was notable, or whether he was objectively notable in the sense of being "famous". In my view, a reference that someone acted as agent for a writer does not satisfy WP:N. If there was a book written about Hellmer, that would support notability. If he was a subject of newspaper accounts (not just mentioned by them), that would support notability. If you take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people), you will get a better sense of what is required. -- But|seriously|folks 03:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Margaret Mercer

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Margaret Mercer, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Margaret Mercer seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Margaret Mercer, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 02:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content Moved From AtomikWeasel User Page

Hi AW,

I hope I'm responding correctly -- I've never used Wikipedia as a BBS or messaging service before.

Sure, I have a couple of thoughts on that topic, but I'm not sure of the methodology of putting in my $.02 worth. Do I just [edit] and type beneath the other comments?

JimFreund 19:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

←-------------→ I take no offense at your missing whatever salient comments I may have. ;) My question about responding was more of a technical nature than about the WP Protocol. I know from a number of friends and Web community people about the frustrations of the people who endeavor to do The Good Work at WP. My brother-in-law practically camcelled his ISP in frustration at having articles deleted. And if you know anything about the volatile and political nature of WBAI and Pacifica Radio, trust me when I say I've seen some of the worst behavior in people -- particularly in democratized situations where some set themselves as more equal than others.

If you do see this, can you point me to a primer on the tech side of these back pages? Not protocol or shortcuts or the like, but (for example) when someone like you writes me on my user page, how do I respoond? With anothe rparagraph on my own page? Or starting an entry on their page (such as I'm doing with you)?

Regards, JimFreund 17:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Preceding Moved by AtomikWeasel 19:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Hellmer

Now THAT's an article. Well done! -- But|seriously|folks 01:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Preceding Moved by AtomikWeasel 04:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to congratulate you for the grace you have shown during this whole affair. As relative new comer, you quite innocently stumbled into one of the long running, behind the scenes controversies here. It must be quite bewildering to find yourself amongst people who seem to be talking a private language. I would not have been surprised if you had decided that we are all insane here and left for good. I am quite glad you stayed, as editors with your type of interest are, in my opinion, especially valuable. Given then nature of the project we have technical and current pop culture down cold. We do less well on more obscure topics. We are aware of the problem, but every editor with interests out of the main should be treasured. I hope you stay around a long while. Dsmdgold 14:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

an > a

Thanks for fixing my article in the will rogers article. I should pay more attention when I'm editing. TheMightyQuill 20:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy James

Hi, well I had a look and I can't find any information, at all, regarding the childrens books written by Wendy James and animated by Tony Hart's nephew. I read it The Times, that it was a sucessful series of books. I think we'll need it out unless their is references found. scope_creep (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Ashbery

Hi AtomikWeasel. Sure. I've keep in the extra ref detail and replaced your copy edit. It's a wise decision. Late night twitchy fingers on my part here in England. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Spanglej, glad you understand my concern on the whole BLP thing. I understand the 'late night twitchy fingers', believe me. Have a good one, and best wishes to you as well :) AtomikWeasel (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Lynn Singer

I have nominated Lynn Singer, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Singer. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ravenswing 02:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Louis Schalk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page F-100 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected it – thanks, bot.

Nomination of Manoli Wetherell for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manoli Wetherell until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that at this point the entry should either be deleted or reconstituted as a minor entry for the comic character, cf AfD discussion. AtomikWeasel (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Silverman

Dear User:AtomikWeasel, thank you for your message on my talk page. I would encourage you to add more reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of Aaron Silverman in that article. If you feel that you have addressed these issues, you are free to remove the template from the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walter O'Brien

As someone who has been active on the talk page, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter O'Brien. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, AtomikWeasel. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, AtomikWeasel. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Margaret Mercer for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Mercer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, AtomikWeasel. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, AtomikWeasel. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quote Whore listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Quote Whore. Since you had some involvement with the Quote Whore redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]