This is a Wikipediauser 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Atama.
For the precious help you give us, poor admins, by adding the {{prod2}} tag to proposed deletions I, lucasbfr award your this barnstar -- lucasbfrtalk 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)
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)
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)
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. --Kbobchat 00:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar
Your exemplary work and dedication at WP:COI/N has been recognized and appreciated. :) Ϫ 05:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Yet another barnstar for your work on PRODyoungamerican (wtf?) 00:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The Newyorkbrad Dispute Resolution Barnstar
Thank you for your mediation efforts. You did a great job of serving as a neutral intermediary and helping to resolve disputes. Will Bebacktalk 03:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The Guidance Barnstar
Because I can, and you deserve it. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence
For your recent diligent work at WP:COIN (which I had not visited until today): thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Belated thanks for the diplomatic approach towards the previous issues at Vivek Kundra and University of Queensland-Reconsider the static (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence
The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded for extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service, especially in regard to mediation.
Awarded by PhilKnight (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
For guiding me and countless other users, through very considerate, patient and knowledgeable comments, and in impossible looking situations. Before I met you, I never imagined that an evening on the net could be so invigorating. Being in the same thread as you was an honor. If I know what is good for me, I shall learn from the experience, and it shall remain with me forever. MWℳ 10:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar
For dealing with my stupidity in using PROD templates with poise and understanding. Achowat (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The Hitting the Nail on the Head Award
You have received this prestigious award for your way with words on ANI: "… that the lack of a block is tantamount to an endorsement of their behavior" — exactly, just what I was shooting for, but you put it a lot better! Bishonen | talk 20:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks a ton for clearing out the worst backlog since late 2013 nearly singlehandedly. NativeForeignerTalk 18:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar
For all your good work at AN/I recently. I nearly always find your contributions pithy, thoughtful and clueful. John (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
You are the McDaddy of peaceful resolution, and I envy you your patience and persistence. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Wiki Attack Dog star
I give this long overdue award to Atama for all her anti Vandalism work! Keep up the good work and keep editing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Happy_Attack_Dog (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence
Humbly awarded to you in recognition of your combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service.
This is the third time you attended a noticeboard case in which I am accused with a mixture of COI, sockpuppetry, paid editing, etc. – well, the accusers where always in such hurry that couldn't make up their mind as to which – but always, you dedicated a lot of time and effort to analyze and dissect the claim without showing a sign of taking sides. You amaze, inspire and scare me.
The Admin's Barnstar is awarded to an administrator who made a particularly difficult decision or performed a tedious, but needed admin task.
This barnstar seems to apply: "tedious" more than describes wading through a recent AN/I report and still being able to offer calm, well-tempered, and sage advice. You are to be commended and thanked for your patience and professionalism. -- Winkelvi ● ✉✓ 00:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you atama! SAS81 (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
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 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 acknowledge that. That wasn't intentional irony, I actually made a typo in that sentence. My point is made.
I am occasionally prone to unplanned Wikibreaks and a look through my contribution history will show gaps in my editing patterns. This is due to issues in my personal and professional life that at times reduce either my ability or interest to contribute to Wikipedia. For anyone inconvenienced by that behavior, I apologize. I always try to respond to messages left on my talk page, however. Also, I tend to be more active on weekdays (when I am closer to a computer), and less active on weekends, so I may be slower to respond to messages or react to changes that take place at pages I am watching.
I keep an eye on proposed deletions that have expired, or are close to expiring. I will decline the proposed deletion of any article that has had a proposed deletion objected to in the past, or has survived a deletion discussion, or where an editor has clearly expressed an opposition to the deletion (yet hasn't removed the tag). All of those situations make a proposed deletion invalid, as proposed deletions must be uncontroversial. Also, if I determine that the article is worth keeping, I will decline it personally and usually explain why on the talk page of the article.
If I have deleted an article you want restored through proposed deletion (prod), then just ask me to restore it, and I will. Proposed deletions are uncontroversial and can be restored by anyone's request. I'll also restore proposed deletions that someone else has deleted. I will not restore articles deleted through other means, Deletion Review is where you should go if you feel a deletion was wrong. If I have deleted an article through speedy deletion (CSD) and I made a mistake (it has happened before), if you can point out where I made a mistake, I'll restore the article. I won't do so if another administrator was the person who deleted the article, again in that case you should try Deletion Review (or talk to that other administrator).
If I have restored an article that was deleted through proposed deletion, keep in mind that it's not necessarily "safe". I evaluate every article before deleting it, and if I deleted something then there was a reason for it. If I restore a proposed deletion, but it meets one of our speedy deletion criteria then I may delete it per that rationale (in which case it can't be easily restored). The article may also be taken to Articles for Deletion to be deleted (either by myself or someone else). In most cases, an article is deleted because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, and the best way to show that an article is notable is showing significant coverage in reliable sources.
.svg){kind=small}
