User talk:Atlan/Archive12

Color me puzzled.
I was puzzled by your oppose at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship and wondered if you, or perhaps I, have misunderstood the proposal. While I can appreciate the instruction creep concern (but think the gain outweighs the cost), I think the administrative burden is too low to be of concern.-- SPhilbrick  T  20:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm pretty sure we both understand the proposal just fine. The reasoning as I had it in my mind was: If people with less than 1500 edits have to be nominated by an administrator, that creates an extra workload for admins. I don't care that this workload is negligible as you say, exactly because it is so pointless. For 99.99% of those applicants and the requested admins, it'll just be an extra hoop to jump through to get turned down for adminship. The applicant has to go find an admin and ask (no instructions how to find an admin added, we need more instruction creep!), and the admin has to pretend he/she takes the request very seriously and figure out a way to let the applicant down easy.


 * Because that's what at the heart of this proposal: the tender and delicate souls that are our RFA hopefuls. They are said to run away crying and never return to Wikipedia, because the big bad RFA regulars said SNOW and NOTNOW to them. But does that actually happen? I get the impression they happily continue editing as little as they did before. It's the failed rfa's for experienced users that lead to heartache and that's not at all what this proposal addresses (nor should it).


 * Anyway, I think this proposal is a waste of time and energy. I hope I got you unpuzzled. :) --Atlan (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there are valid points in what all three of us have said. I only !voted 'support' for this proposal because although it's not exactly what I suggested, it might, as WereSpielChequers said, lead to the first real change we've had in five years. One small change could open up the door to other changes being more sensibly discussed, debated, !voted, and implemented. My suggestion was that a 'crat should either approve or reject all applications under a certain threshold, (I said 6,000 edits and 1 year) before transclusion. After which, the process can continue in the normal proper way. Ironically, in spite of all the talk, we get an application placed on the talk page today by a 39 year old editor who registered yesterday and has 7 edits. There's always the possibility of course that it's a joke. Kudpung (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW I'll just add that most of these SNOW and NOTNOW come from very young users, some (see User:Gobbleswoggler) who have thicker skins than we give them credit for. Their feelings would not be hurt as would mine for example, if there were a pile-on of 'oppose' because I once wrongly tagged something for deletion 3 years and 20,000 edits ago. But that's another issue - it's nevertheless the reason why there is a dearth of candidates of the right calibre. Kudpung (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree discussion for change has been in an impasse for several years. It's frustrating that nothing can be decided upon, but that's what you get when you give everyone equal say. That said, I don't think minimum requirements are the way to go, simply because RFA is ultimately about individual opinions and not set rules. What about your minimum requirements? I have over 6000 edits, it took me more than 8 years to accumulate them. Will you support because I meet your minimum requirements, or will you oppose because I'm not active enough (other reasons left out of the equation for the sake of argument)? I'm sure plenty of people will oppose based on that, which makes even such high minimum requirements pointless.--Atlan (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

User page protection
I've semi-protected your user page, which will keep the IP vandals away. Talk page protection was done in error, but has been undone. Mjroots (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I hope that will motivate them to use the one course of action left to them, which is discussion.--Atlan (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I did try using discussion. Then, my comments were deleted and the Shenmue page was locked. Please, explain to me the rationale behind that? urem2 —Preceding undated comment added 07:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Where are your comments deleted? They are still right there on User talk:65.255.147.183. It ended with your declaration to continue edit warring and calling me or Golbez a "douche", remember? The Shenmue article is locked, obviously, to prevent you from edit warring further with ever changing rationales. Rationales that continue to make very little sense.--Atlan (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Where are they? Remember when I said they were deleted? Also, do not accuse me (user Urem2) of "warring" or calling anyone a "douche". Please, check who did what before accusing me of anything. As I recall, others before me have made an argument against your usage of "killer app" only to be shot down. Urem2 —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC).


 * What? You're not making any sense. Are you trying to say you are not the same person as User:Uwright2 and all the IP's? Because it's rather obvious that you are. None of your comments are deleted, you were edit warring, you vandalized my user page and articles I have created, and you called me or Golbez a douche. Everything is clearly documented in page histories. If you have nothing pertinent to the Shenmue issue to add, we are done here.--Atlan (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

My user page
I have made the request for a little more contribution from the Wikipedia community before making changes to my user page. I think my request is reasonable and isn't earth shattering to keep the status quo until I see more points of view on this issue. I'd ask for some agreement on this since my request is reasonable. I'd like to check back by the end of the weekend and we can go from there. Anber (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems events have caught up with your message while I was asleep. I could have told you beforehand however, that you would not get that much time to settle it anyway.--Atlan (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the consensus over the number. I'd like to make other unrelated changes. Can my page be unprotected please. Anber (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's let the discussion at ANI run its course and go from there.--Atlan (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIV
Could you please clarify this edit. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, please read the thread below this one, the talk page of the user in the thread below this one and the link in the thread below this one.--Atlan (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I must say, your revert is quite the knee-jerk response.--Atlan (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * AGF please. I wasn't sure what were you doing, thus asked: you said you're removing 1 report, but removed 3; two others were blockable. There was also an odd change in . I thought it was because of a software glitch, which happens, but not that often, and expected some reply of that sort. Whatever it was, please do not remove reports from AIV which are not yours - ask the reporter to do so. Happy editing. Materialscientist (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I hadn't noticed I screwed up the removal. Sorry about that. Anyway, good faith on your part was assumed of course, knee-jerk reaction or not (I now realize not).--Atlan (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: AIV & Notice Board Discussion
Thanks for your help on that issue, I wasnt too sure wheather to raise the alarm or not but on closer look I could see that it was indeed a false alarm, however it was too late. I appreciate your assistance, Also I'm just having a littrle bit of trouble finding the discussion in regards to user Jckrgn600. Just wondering if you could point me in the right direction.

Thankyou  James ' ööders 12:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. The discussion is at Administrators noticeboard.--Atlan (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, just trying to learn my way around, thanks for your help
-- Difficulties getting started-- Yes, that is what I was trying to do. I am trying to create a new page for that information. I am very much trying to get the hang of the site. Jolumba (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolumba (talk • contribs)

What the hell, man?
You have me blocked for three months just because I reverted your edits. That was unnecessary and pathetic. This isn't over, my Dutch friend. That's a promise. Also, John Ramirez is NOT my real name. It's the name of a Syphon Filter 2 character. I don't know why everyone keeps using that name. Tell the guy you contacted that I said hello. --69.172.205.142 (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is being a general nuisance that gets you blocked all the time. User:JohnRamirez is the name of the sockmaster account. No one implies that this is your real name. If you don't want to be blocked all the time, ask for an unblock there instead of leaving me empty threats.--Atlan (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet there are always ways to get around blocks. You can't win. Spare me your empty threats on my talk page. You are not an administrator. Tell the guy you contacted that I said hello again. --69.64.92.185 (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't seek to "win" anything. But please tell me, in what way do you win? Getting blocked on sight hardly seems like winning, no matter how many IP's you edit through. Btw, I was never on your talk page.--Atlan (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you were.--79.170.93.174 (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I replaced the block reviews that shouldn't have been removed, I didn't post any message of my own.--Atlan (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Dariusburst
"Dariusburst" is the name of this game, "Darius Burst" is a typo. Just because that typo spread does not mean it should ever be used. We have other articles with the same situation. This has nothing to do with "stylization", unless you wish to fight a war over those other articles because of this (great examples being Deathsmiles, Thunder Force). When the game was announced for its German release, every source I saw then did not use the typo (for obvious reasons). That the game has no Western release is simply icing on the cake. I understand that a lot of websites have taken this typo up, but Wikipedia has never necessarily adhered to such. I have no problem with telling whatever sites I can about the issue. I don't know why you fight a typo so strongly, especially when there's zero consistency to the fight. Consensus simply doesn't cut it when it comes to serious factual errors that can easily be debunked. Despatche (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then show me a source that says it's a typo. Right now, I only hear you say it, which places that assertion firmly in the realm of WP:OR.--Atlan (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nearly every single Japanese source ever? "DARIUSBURST"/"ダライアスバースト" (more appropriately "Dariusburst", which has also been seen anyway) is how Taito, Japanese sources, and Japanese gamers have always used it, with the exception of the search tags on the main site (why this is so should be obvious); just look at the Japanese wiki article. And you want to see (most) of these, of course (joystiq is weird): 1 2 3 4.


 * It was a typo that spread heavily, because literally no one cared. I'm very surprised Deathsmiles managed to escape this here even before its localization. Despatche (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't care about the Japanese sources as they have a quaint way of writing English. But check the English source I left at the DB talk page and go from there.--Atlan (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Seriously Atlan, this was a pointless debate. I think you really missed the problem here. This is why Wikipedia has became a laugh as of late. Congrats to you for coming in, giving this troll a podeum and letting him walk all over me. I quit Wikipedia. Devilmanozzy (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You would quit over a naming dispute of such minor significance? Seriously, why does this even bother people this much? Look, the page was moved by Despatche before I had anything to do with it, I simply moved it back and gave you and anyone else just as much a podium as I did Despatche. This isn't going away by being angry at each other.--Atlan (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I sent him a message, but I don't think he's going to read it. Anyway, I'm not sure what to do about Dariusburst; do we move or no?


 * Sorry, I take "pedantry" seriously. Someone has to. Despatche (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand you take it seriously, but really there's no rush here. If the move is contentious, and it obviously is, then it's best to talk it out before moving it again. Maybe list it at WP:RPM to get some outside views in.--Atlan (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

AN discussion
You may be interested in this AN discussion.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  05:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll take a look.--Atlan (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

8 Eyes
Sorry for waiting months for this; I didn't catch things being reverted back then. Anyway, you may want to take a look at the talk page again. Despatche (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note
Hi Atlan - I saw that you had been updating the BGplc page; can I please ask you not to undo my recent edit of the BGPlc page and email me at jo.ross@britishgas.co.uk for any further discussion. Kindest regards, jo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jros444 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

My ANI report on Jotamar
I wasn't trying to create a duplicate copy of my report. I honestly couldn't find it despite the fact that I had made many searches using key words. However, you gave me an idea. I'm going to use your suggestion of unarchiving it for further comments. I wasn't aware I could do that. By the way, how did YOU find it? Lechonero (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I was aware that you honestly couldn't find the thread in the archives. My suggestion to not suspect foul play so quickly was nothing more than well intentioned advice. I found the thread in the archives simply by going through the 2 most recent archives. I guess you just overlooked it.--Atlan (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

ani about ds
I think your comment was spot on but should go at the end of the section about wheel warring. You added it to the hand-wringing about the merits of the duck test. Toddst1 (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I didn't see the sub-sections when I edited the thread. I moved my comment up.--Atlan (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Azeztulite and such
Just for the record, I am one person who is a photographer zoom-edia9, not a group or corporation! I would appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of something that's not true.

Anyway about the article Azeztulite why not merge it with crystal healing since it is just used in that field? How would you suggest it be written to include the metaphysical side along with the history of the name? Other articles on Wiki talk about the religious origins of things without this many problems. Even if you do not believe it is a religious belief ( metaphysical properties of crystals and healing) what else is it, what would you call it? It's a spiritual belief I don't expect you to understand it or agree with it but it is real and practiced by millions of people. The name is only used by those individuals that believe in this, so it should be included in the article just logically, or just merge it with the article crystal healing where it belongs. Let me know what you think. Thanks Zoomedia9 (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am unsure about a connection to www.zoomedia.com, a website about healthcare. But I'm quite sure that you are this without a doubt, so the conflict of interest is apparent. Why would you even try to deny it?
 * You can believe whatever you want, I'm fine with that. That doesn't get you or the article any special treatment. Whatever religious properties you attribute to azeztulite must still be reliably sourced just like any non-religious fact. I already said you need to read up on WP:RS and WP:V.--Atlan (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

== Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ==

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoomedia9 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

User talk:SergeWoodzing
Haven't looked in to the specifics here, but if another editor asks you not to post to their talk page, it is considered rude to do so unless you have a need to contact them. While they cannot ban you from their talk page, posting with the purpose of disruption (which is likely to result if they do not want you to post there) is of course not allowed. Prodego talk  22:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know. Maybe you should have looked into the specifics so you could've saved yourself the time to post this.--Atlan (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying you did anything wrong, just advising that if another editor doesn't want you to post to their talk page that often the best path is to not post to it. Since he has said that now, this would certainly hold in the future. Prodego  talk  22:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks. Like I stated on your talk page, I'll respect his wish. But of course, Serge must also realize that when he continues to address me and my edits on his talk page (in this case implying that they are slanderous), I will not sit idly by.--Atlan (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That is understandable, a condition of him not wanting you to post there is that he should not be posting about you. Prodego  talk  22:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I'd rather you tell him that than me. He's already decided he will not take my word for anything, no matter how much sense I make.--Atlan (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, done. Prodego  talk  23:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)