User talk:Atlan/Archive3

Afd discussion on ANI
I thought it would be a show of good faith to make edits to improve a page that I put up for delete for the reason that I fixed on my own without any real understanding of the topic like the others who posted on the topic seem to have. Isn't it also good to try and compromise? I don't understand why people are so aggressive on the internet for something that doesn't really matter. NobutoraTakeda 15:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just voiced a legitimate concern that it is odd for a new user, such as yourself, to start out with nominating articles for deletion. Nothing more to it. If you have a good explanation as to why this is the case, it's fine by me.--Atlan (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Atlan
Whats going on friend? --EveryDayJoe45 02:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing much.--Atlan (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice. --EveryDayJoe45 23:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits
What are you doing here on this page? Acalamari 23:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply and explanation. After looking though Jimblack's talk page and block log, I can see why you did it, but even so, it's not really appropriate. However, if Jimblack continues his disruptive edits, you won't have to worry about the userbox, as he will end up getting blocked indefinitely, and his user page will get deleted. Acalamari 23:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I see
You seem to have removed the image, but why have you removed it? If you explain a good reason, I'll revert my edit to last version by yours.--Willy, your mate 03:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hecatonchires
I checked out your article "Hecatonchires". Interesting article, but I note there are only four footnotes in the entire article, so the vast bulk of your statements are unsourced. So I presume you won't mind if I delete all the ones that don't have a source.

If you do mind, why?

I'll make a point of following this up. I want to know why you criticize others for not sourcing their statements, but you don't source your own. Can you give me any good reason why I shouldn't delete all of your unsourced statements?

Sardaka 09:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, I created that article in August 2002, and haven't edited the article since. Absolutely nothing I contributed to it is left unaltered and whatever is now unsourced is not my doing. Like I said before, check the edit history and you'll see for yourself. Besides, it's not my article, it never was. I don't have a lasting responsibility for its quality just because I created it 5 years ago.
 * Frankly, this lazy approach of yours, in which you refuse to do any research before you come complaining with a post like that, is making you look bad. For someone who is apparently digging for mistakes on my part, you do an exceptionally poor job. You have only succeeded in indirectly calling me a hypocrite on poor grounds. I'm not going to be dragged into these inane discussions where you make completely frivolous and false claims. You're welcome to continue a normal discussion about sources or other things Wikipedia-related with me, but please stay away if you only come here with this nonsense. --Atlan (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's all fair enough. It just makes me angry when I see people deleting other people's work unnecessarily. In this case, there was no reason not to leave the "Citation needed" tabs there. There's no time limit on them as far as I know, and the info was useful. You can either take a hard line and delete, or take a softer line and leave it there; someone might fix it some day, and in the meantime the info certainly isn't doing anyone any harm.

I see this unnecessary deletion going on all the time, especially by a certain person whose name I won't mention, and especially with the SY articles. I work on plenty of articles on other subjects and I don't see this unnecessary deletion stuff going on elsewhere. Mostly just at the SY articles.

It's so easy to delete things instead of doing something constructive. It would be nice to see these people making a contribution instead of deleting other people's contributions.

Sardaka 13:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, regardless of your feelings towards deleting other people's contributions, they are still subject to the various policies Wikipedia has established over the years. If they fail compliance with those policies, then something has to be done with them, be that deleting the information, altering it, or supplying sources. That's how things go on Wikipedia. Also, realise nothing is lost forever, and you can easily put the deleted bits back and source them. Even my Hecatonchires article the way it was 5 years back can still be found in the edit history.--Atlan (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess, but if you stand by what you just said, you should give Hecatonchires the same treatment that Shree Muktananda Ashram got.

Sardaka 09:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I was not the one who deleted anything from the Shree Muktananda Ashram article, I merely discussed it on the talk page. I don't feel like editing the Hecatonchires article right now, but if I did, I can assure you I will treat that article the same way I treat every other article on Wikipedia, which is in accordance with established policy.--Atlan (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have thought about what you said about my being lazy for not checking the history before I sound off. I take your point and I'll be more careful from now on. However, I'd like to say that my failure to check the history isn't as significant as you might think. With the Ashram article, the history could tell me who made the deletions, but that wasn't the issue. The issue was whether they should have been done at all.

With Hecatonchires, the history tells me nothing because most of those people didn't say what they did, and obviously it's impossible to work out who was responsible for which unsourced statement.

However, I can see that I seem to be the only person who gets upset over these deletions, so maybe it's time I pulled my head in.

Sardaka 11:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message
Thanks for the nice message; I am back. I think I need to learn better coping skills on here. --David Shankbone 13:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

reply
It's all in good fun...what's the use being on wikipedia if you can't joke every now and then...I knew you were kidding. BTW could you add a subject heading to that coment on my tal page for archiving, please.-- Ho rn et ma n16 (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Ok.-- Ho rn et ma n16  (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Smile
 Hello Atlan, Isis4563 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * I just wanted to give a smile to people I believe are certainly good editors. The name Atlan is familiar. I might have been reading talk page disuccsion or something...--  Isis4563   (   talk   ) 14:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Page about me
Hey -- you wrote "That's all fine by me, but I wouldn't just go ahead and edit a deletion archive. There isn't really a rule for this, other than the message "Do not modify it". Also, it's the archive header that's most difficult to change (requires at least a page move), which is exactly what a google search will find first." I'll worry about the header later, can I at least replace my name as suggested - I'm sorry if I'm proceeding wrong but I'm really confused as to how to do this properly. Anber 13:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Harassment?
You deleted my message from the Surfdude talk page, but I'm afraid I can't agree that it was "borderline harassment". There are obviously a few people who believe that A Certain Person is doing the wrong thing in various ways, and we have the right to compare notes and discuss the issues. Are you saying we don't have the right to do this? If there is a policy statement somewhere that says people don't have the right to compare notes and discuss problems, please tell me about it.

Sardaka 10:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Me again
I am taking these things through the proper channels, as people rightly told me I should. If I seem to be holding on too long, it's only because the proper channels take a long time. Naturally, I'd rather clear it up faster, but it's not possible. I still maintain that I have legitimate grievances with A Certain Person; if you can't agree, that's fine. We don't have to agree on everything, but if I think I have legitimate grievances, all I can do is go through the channels.

Sardaka 07:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Angry Nintendo Nerd section under Screwattack
How about "exchanged" replacing "replaced" in my edit, to meet with your assertion that he switches back and forth occasionally (although I've only noticed him drinking Yuengling since the Spiderman episode)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.234.11 (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, please place new posts on my talk page at the bottom, not the top. Not a big deal, but just easier for me to navigate that way.
 * Now about the beer. I thought I saw him drink Rolling Rock at least once after the Spider-Man review, but I could be wrong. Whether I'm right or wrong, doesn't matter though. Saying he switched beers because of Spider-Man's complaint is original research (albeit a somewhat plausible one from a story-telling point of view). There's no way you can source that statement. Stating he drinks both beers (without saying he switches) is both true and the most likely statement not to be subject to change in the future. For further reference, check the talk page discussion about the beer we had a few months ago.--Atlan (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Tsovinar
Hey, thanks for the reply, at the moment his edit made sense thats why I reverted. But now after double checking all of the sources say that she was a fire creature, so I reverted myself. I have totally forgotten about this article, it's probably a good time to expend it, before I forgot about it again. Happy editing or catching vandals :) VartanM 01:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)