User talk:Atario

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Eliezer 05:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Comparison_of_file_systems
Dear Atario, regarding your rejection of my modifications at the Talk:Comparison_of_file_systems I would like to add a comment:
 * the modifications that I made were restricted to obsolete, reduntant and harmful comments, and consciously done with respect to the interests of others
 * I made them step by step, that if someone feels overruled, that person can simply reject that specifically
 * I accept that guidelines of wikipedia, but that Talk page is overloaded and partly useless, thus, the changes refer to the intention of the rules

So for constructive work I can suggest the following:
 * 1) you accept my changes and revert to the state of my modifications
 * 2) you do the work for necessary cleanup
 * 3) something else?

I do not suggest to leave the page as it, it has no quality like that ! for articles of value --Bienengasse (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be to leave it alone, as it reflects the actual history of the discussion, and changing that is tantamount to attempting to censor history. If you still feel strongly enough about it, I would suggest contacting the individual commenters and seeking their permissions for what you intend to change about their comments.  Keep in mind that if you want to change or delete a comment, you'll need the permission of the person who wrote it and the tree of people who replied beneath it (since altering an ancestor comment destroys the context for their comments too).  &mdash;Atario (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I disagree in this case. The reason therefore you can find in the changes that I made:
 * Removing disrespectful comments is according to the guideline
 * merging topics do not change the content significantly
 * removing old demands for information, that were already fulfilled (look on the timestamp)
 * a little bit of cleanup that is obviously necessary
 * So what was wrong with that? I am not willing to spend time for wikipedia to improve the quality and readability finally for nothing. Asking the writers for permission as you suggested is a punch of work and partly obviously useless. Sorry for being strong in my statement, but if you claim that work from me, do it yourself, rejecting is to easy !!


 * I decided now to revert your action. The reason is that I did nothing wrong and I followed the rules as they intended. I respect the opinion of others that have a specific place in the Talk section, but that shouldn't result in a messy, redundant, obsolete and disrespectful page. I concentrated carfully on the minimum of necessary work.


 * Feel free to do the work that you suggested, if you are convinced that this is the better choice. Check the changes as carefully as the rules.--Bienengasse (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've submitted this to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (Dispute_resolution_noticeboard). —Atario (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out this issue, finally the result is pretty the same. For me a good point to consider, that there are enough others to improve...--Bienengasse (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)