User:Atomician/Archive 1

Qwyrxian
Hi, I deleted that page (and salted it, so that it can't be recreated, at least under the same name). As a small point, G4 only applies when the previous page was deleted by a deletion discussion (AfD). If the page was deleted via speedy deletion, you have to use one of the other criteria.

Have you edited before under a different username? Your contributions show a remarkably high knowledge of some intricate Wikipedia stuff that I wouldn't normally expect from a new user. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the deletion. Yes, I edited here for over a year. Looking to get back into anti-vandalism (I used to use Huggle), but I'm too new for Twinkle. Hope to see you around? Atomician (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds great, and welcome back. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...
Thanks for the dupe warning deletion. Twinkle didn't see it when it was dropping it in... guessing with only 3 seconds apart, it hit the database lag. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 19:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite alright. Atomician (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandal
Thanks warning that vandal for me, was just about to do it when I saw your warning. --   Luke      (Talk)   02:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's okay, I've reported him to AIV, vand-only account. Atomician (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Jweiss11 (talk)
Thanks for the image tagging you've done of late for WikiProject College football. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's quite alright, I might do some more later. Atomician (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

TSVP
Isn't customary to keep the content intact, and only place the CSD tag, when CSD tagging an article. Jab7842 (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be right, but I don't remember reading that (not that it might not be true of course, just I'm probably too ignorant for it). However it probably would have been better to put an edit summary explaining your re-adding the content. Atomician (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the content should be kept intact, because it might help the administrators to make a decision by reviewing the content. Jab7842 (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably an administrator will go through the history anyway, but yes, I suppose you're right. Atomician (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Rollback
You know lots, it seems, but I don't know how much, so ignore this if I'm suggesting the obvious. Have a look at Rollback feature--you might find it useful. You can request it here, Requests for permissions/Rollback. Best, Drmies (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello there, I've just requested there funnily enough. Thanks for the kindly message though. Atomician (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that works out nicely then. Permission granted. Don't abuse the tool. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Won't and thanks. Atomician (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not too put too fine a point on it (level 3 is level 3), but this was really racist vandalism, in my opinion, not just blanking. I usually skip a level (or two) for racism. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I had never heard of coon toons... perhaps it's an American thing? Vandalism at such an advanced level! Thanks for the advice, I'll step up a notch or so for the heavy stuff (that I recognize), Atomician (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See Coon at wiktionary. It's also short for "coonass", a derogatory term for Cajun. I once had a (white) Dutch friend visit me in the US, and his name was Koen--pronounced "coon". Of course his dumb brother had to holler his name across the supermarket--in Alabama. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ^ Made me laugh. Atomician (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

<--Giving you rollback was a mistake. Every time I click on something you've already taken care of it: a clear sign that I can go to bed. Later, and have fun, Drmies (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear #smirks evilly#, well hope to see you around. Atomician (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You may want to give Twinkle a try. It's become pretty straightforward in the latest versions and will make a lot of such work easier. Comes with a bunch of other neat features too, such as allowing you to tag documents for deletion and such (though I'd read up on WP:PROD and WP:CSD before using those). If you do decide to try it and need help either setting it up or figuring out how to use it, feel free to drop me a note. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 05:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I prefer Huggle by quite a long shot. It's far faster, far neater and I'm more used to it. Also, I can use both I think, no? Which means I can get the features of Twinkle (speedy tagging, RPP, maintenance) and then use Huggle when vandal-fighting. Atomician (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed on all counts. I haven't bothered setting Huggle back up on this machine (work machine) - dont particularly like something that quick and easy sitting on this machine, though I make occasional use of it on my home PC. And AWB for cleanup and some other maintenance things. Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 05:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Misadveture
why did you undo my edit? that was not a misadveture nor was there a refrence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbcrew4e (talk • contribs) 06:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted with this edit and undid some removal of references, the editor who reverted you last was Calmer Waters, not that I'm shifting the blame of course. You should provide an edit summary to any removal of content, especially to an article that you have previously removed copious amounts of info from. Thanks. Atomician (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Lbcrew4e, I fail to believe that you don't understand why your addition of douchebag was reverted. Calmer   Waters  06:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I missed that, don't vandalize again or you'll be blocked. Thanks. Atomician (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

thats not what i was referring to,i was referring to the first edit i did. i wrote that because i wasnt sure why the original edit i made was reverted. but i wont. sorry.
 * That's fine so long as you don't persist, you should read up on some guidelines, such as the five pillars of WP. Atomician (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Edie
Yes there was an error on the page. I am new to Wikipedia and thus I am learning. I have a question. My contribution was erased by some guy. I want to find out his reason. Now I can't find my contribution nor the name of that person. How does this work.

He claimed that Vic McLean's profile was advertising. I find his arbitrary opinion most questionable and would like to learn what motivated him. And, who is he to simply decide to erase all my work without even as much as a discussion?

What do you do? You seem polite and helpful. Thank you in advance to giving me some tips on how to navigate Wikipedia.

Edie - User:Edie Okamoto
 * To find out who reverted your edit, you should be able to go to the history page of the article and check the log. It will say Undid revision nnnnn... and then you should go to his talk page (very important, not user page) and post a message to him, don't forget to sign with 4 ~'s (or tildes). Atomician (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance! I found that it was Mkativerata I am now trying to learn what he is talking about. I just learned about the signing thing. I am interested in adding a lot of information about the independent music industry and I hope that he doesn't just keep deleting everything. There is a lot of information about established music industry experts - but why should the indie's have not room on Wikipedia - I thought it was meant to be democratic. And provide information by all for all. It is so strange - he claimed it is self promotions - when clearly I didn't even spell the man's name right the first time around. Anyway thanks for your help! --Edie Okamoto (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's quite alright and welcome to Wikipedia. Atomician (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

FourthFencer
I'm also feeling like our convo is going in a bad direction so I'm cutting it off on my talk page. Thanks for the help :) RandomAct(talk to me) 22:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's okay and I think that might be best, although he can feel free to ask me anything here. Atomician (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * On a related note, please let me deal with his continued comments on my talk page, I don't think it's technically vandalism and I think it's best considering he has access to all the vandalism policies. RandomAct(talk to me) 22:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I've redirected his user page as he asked. Atomician (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Denim edit.
Yo, I removed a reference on Denim which led to a blank page (no text, no photos, just a blank page) and I am curious as to why you reverted that edit? Blank pages aren't terribly useful when you want to check that the reference backs up the claim in the article and at my college if you knowingly referenced a claim with a blank page you would be placed on probation. Cheers. 202.171.168.178 (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Probation? What are you talking about? Thanks for telling me, I'll undo it. Atomician (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And you've already done it. Atomician (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Eh, why not. They're adorable.

FourthFencer (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 

Merrythought, Golliwogs and assumed vandalism from 82.11.226.171
Dear Atomician - please WP:AGF

Although uncited, this addition was broadly correct and was obviously sourced from this news story. Merrythought re-introduced a pair of Golliwog dolls (possibly in very limited numbers, straight to the collector market) and this, hardly surprisingly, created controversy around the Olympics. It warrants inclusion in the recent history of the company and it certainly wasn't vandalism for an IP editor to add it. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was an unreferenced sentence about golliwog dolls without an edit summary, I'd have had to have been clairvoyant to realize he was trying to add in true information. I am quite an advocate of assuming good faith and generally do, but thanks for the message and for putting the info right. Atomician (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This edit looks more of a problem. Although the original story appears to be whipped up by a bored newspaper in the first place, there's no evidence for this "unanimous support" claim.
 * Looking at the username too, user:Punkiebear is either a Merrythought bear fan (one of their bear lines is called "Punkie") or else there's a COI with the company. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's up to you, if you think the story looks dubious, you could remove it until a more reliable source appears and then add it back in? If no extra ref appears, then it isn't notable enough to be put in anyway. By the way, that edit looks as if it should be reverted because he's removed references and information. Atomician (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Nora Sumberg
Hi there, I understand why you reverted the blanking of Nora Sumberg (artist), but why did you also revert the G7 request? He/she seems to be the only contributor and has now prodded it with a slightly cryptic notice. It seems to be a decent article and it would be a shame to lose it, but does wikipedia really own it and gets to say "no, you released it to us, bad luck", or does the author retain some rights - as implied by the existance of csd-g7? I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know. The-Pope (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was working under the fact that you don't own your articles, you are allowed to speedy so long as you are the soul contributor. I could try to get rid of Bothrocara brunneum, but I wouldn't be allowed to, because it's a Wikipedia article and it's notable and deserves to be an article, there should be a vote, which means he sould afd it reather than g7. I should have notified him and actually thought I had, but obviously I forgot to, so sorry about that. Atomician (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thx
You're very kind! Tony  (talk)  02:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:86.175.4.246
I am good with rollback, but I really need to be faster with those warning templates. Joe Chill (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hah, happens all the time, just remove them, it's no biggy. Atomician (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (Additively) There is a solution. You could move to Huggle instead. It assigns the tags for you and checks if there has already been one given, overall it's far more advanced than Twinkle, it's a download job. Atomician (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I will definitely look into it. You do such a good job reverting vandalism that a vandal wanted to thank you for your hard work. Joe Chill (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I hope to build up so many more of them. I consider them my proudly-earned battle scars. Heheh. Atomician (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Stanley Stair
FYI, dead folks don't get the unreferenced BLP tag. cheers.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, cheers for reverting. Atomician (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sphecius grandis
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for lending a generous hand

 * You're a lot more than not welcome and a little more than more than welcome, Why do I say this shit, I just mean you're welcome... Atomician (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Jean Charest
Hi Atomician, Please see Talk:Jean Charest. Peter Horn User talk 16:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:Anti-Vandalism
Thanks for the message. I try to warn people when I remember, but you're right - I do sometimes forget. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
I was just wondering if you realised that this edit violates the BLP policy, see Biographies of living persons? It is an unsourced derogatory remark. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How? What I said was that the man was stupid to use Wikipedia as a first reference, he wouldn't stand up in court and that it's his fault. Nothing rude, all truthful. Bark up some other tree please, there are plenty of vandals out there that need reverting, and some useful stuff that needs to happen rather than coming to my talk page and telling me things that barely ring true at all, Atomician (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

TSVP is advertising again
The bot account, XLinkBot, reverted some edits on Oral history by TSVP for vandalism, but TSVP redid these edits. Since I don't know the warning templates, can you take action on this matter. Jab7842 (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

 * Thank you, Quadell. Atomician (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

GOT episode GAs
Please see my response at Talk:The Kingsroad/GA1. Would you also consider replacing the overall template on both that article and Lord Snow with Self-published inline for those which you specifically believe fail the WP:WIAGA criteria? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bothrocara brunneum
Gatoclass (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Dates
Just to let you know your change to the citation date styles in United Kingdom is being discussed with the possibility that your edit may have to be manually reverted. MilborneOne (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response and corrections. MilborneOne (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Warnings left on User talk:Zackaback
I have noticed that you placed a couple of warnings on the talk page of Zackaback. Please note that it is generally inappropriate to warn a user for two separate events which occurred before the first warning. It is a common mistake; however, the editor had been given a note by both myself and User:Worm That Turned. A pile-on warning could be counter productive and I will be removing them. Feel free to respond if you disagree or have questions in any way. Ryan Vesey Review me!  17:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They didn't occur before the first warning, the one I warned for after occurred after, hence its placement, please do not remove. He has also edited since his final warning. Atomician (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The user did not edit after being warned. Warning an editor for two separate edits at the same time serves no purpose.  One warning is enough.  That warning was given in a series of non-templated messages.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  17:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed one warning, I made a mistake. Atomician (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot believe you reverted my edits. I have clearly pointed out to you that he had not edited since his warnings.  Worm that turned and I left a message at 17:07 UTC, his last edits were at 16:23 UTC.  He did not edit since receiving the messages.  After the messages were left by Worm That Turned and I, you warned him twice.  He did not make a new edit before either of your warnings.  I don't think the first warning should be there either.  He had been sufficiently warned.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  17:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, take a chill pill (I've already admitted that I've made a mistake, what more do you want?) and take care of the fact that he just edited again: . Even after your and my warnings. Atomician (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ryan has got a point here Atomican. Zackaback is not doing anything particularly disruptive, though he's not actually discussing edits and they're not helpful. I think the warnings Ryan and I have left should be sufficient - especially as I'm possibly the one who'd do the blocking.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 17:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a chill pill has been taken. When I started my response you had not edited yet.  I modified the contents slightly, but not in a major way.  Anyways, I think a block could be in order now.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  17:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) What do you mean -not disruptive-? He's been told not to do it by both of you and is ignoring everyone and keeping on with his edits that are against common consensus. I left two warnings (thinking one of them was after he'd edited) I removed it realizing that I'd made a mistake. Now there is one warning from me, and he is still editing against consensus. Why is your issue with me here? Atomician (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like blocking people ;)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 17:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the comment on "not particularly disruptive" is because the editor appears to be making improvements in good faith. It is entirely probable that the editor does not understand the purpose of his talk page or discussion pages for articles.  In fact, he is probably overwhelmingly confused as to why his contributions are not appearing in the articles.  Many new editors I have found do not understand how to use a talk page, watchlist, or even how to view the history of an article.  I may have come across as a little to harsh about the warnings ou left and I apologize for that.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  17:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have filed a report at WP:AIV Ryan Vesey  Review me!  17:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pfft. I blocked him. I'm just not the fastest ;)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 17:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (Two edit conflicts, phwoar, I'm popular today) I admire your faith, but there is a large message at the top of any article he visits saying he has messages. Although the fact that he hasn't edited a single talk page is disconcerting to say the least, he must have read at least some of anyone's notes! Atomician (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Additively, would WP:ANI not be a better place? You've said yourself that it isn't quite vandalism and might require some consensus before a decision can be made...? Atomician (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While it is old news now, I believed AIV to be appropriate because it was an edit after a final warning. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  17:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, well that's done. Thanks for both of your input. Is it just me or is this the most edit conflicted region on Wikipedia right now? Atomician (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly, I have been edit conflicted 5 or 6 times before. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  18:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * We can't really cut the thing into thirds, but you deserve part too. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  18:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The $1/3$ barnstar... patent it! Thanks! Atomician (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

FAC instructions
Hi, thanks for your reviews at WP:FAC. Please have a look at the page instructions; collapsed commentary is discouraged there because the templates cause the FAC archives to exceed template limits. When you have extremely long commentary, it may be better placed on talk, or simply stated as an Oppose with examples. Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)