User talk:Atlan/Archive7

RE5: Shiva Alomar
Shiva Alomar has been referred to as a West African B.S.A.A. agent in various sources including this Wikipedia article for some time now. I guess you hadn't noticed. I didn't realize it myself for a while that's why I just recently made note of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamagishi (talk • contribs) 10:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Where are those sources? I haven't seen them. Also the Wikipedia article itself can't be used as a source, obviously.--Atlan (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Chris Redfield works for the American branch of B.S.A.A. and it's up to you to prove that Shiva is not an agent of the West African branch of the B.S.A.A. considering this is information that has been established on Wikipedia for months. Yamagishi (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to an IGN article that clearly identifies Chris as an agent of the American branch and Sheva as an African born agent of the West African branch. http://ps3.ign.com/articles/887/887351p1.html Yamagishi (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. The source says (and other sources do too): "Born in Africa, the setting of this latest RE title, Sheva is an agent in the West African branch of the B.S.A.A.". It says she is born in Africa, not West-Africa. User:StarScream1007 already added it properly to the article. Since I never contested that she worked as an agent for the West-African branch of BSAA, I don't have to prove anything.--Atlan (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a bogus source
In this edit, in the Justin Bruening article, you called an abc.com reference a bogus source. I just wanted to let you know that it's not a bogus source. That was his original abc.com biography. Just because it is no longer online does not stop the fact of what the source conveyed, which thus does not make it bogus. The reference bot saved that reference, just so you know, seeing as it is used for other facts in the article. But I did leave the lead as you altered it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I noticed that myself after while, but thought it best to keep the lead as is.--Atlan (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Re wowwiki links
''Correct me if wrong, but I believe interwiki links qualify as external links and should therefore go at the end of an article (despite their intrawiki-style links). Maybe you know? I for one don't like to be unwittingly linked to a different Wiki project like this. I have reverted myself in the meantime.--Atlan (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)''


 * You are correct in your interpretation of the rules at first sight, I'd say. However, if you had read the link I provided in the edit history, it would have showed you that we did this so as to be able to keep the cruft down until we can spin out a proper races of Warcraft article, and to get readers the information they want. Perhaps this would be served by a "races" interwikilink at the bottom of the article, perhaps not. In short, we broke the rules, we know we broke the rules, but we're really thinking of the readers here in breaking them.


 * Perhaps we should explore the pertinent sections of WP:EL#AVOID here, as well. I'd say #12 is most pertinent. In which case, WoWWiki's been around since 2004 or 2005, and has the stability required. #2 I'd also say applies, but EL:MAYBE #4 I'd say overrules it; your interpretation may be different. As you brought up in the edit summary, WP:MOS comes into play here also, and I'd say WP:MOSLINK is most representative. Which essentially defaults to WP:EL. >.<.


 * This is all moot, of course, if we also consider that none of it is referenced anyway, wherein you could remove the information completely due to WP:V. The only consequence of which I can conceivably think of to be reverted by the anons, in part or in full. The cruft creeps back in, and this is our chosen method (at present) of keeping it to two paragraphs a race, rather than the 10+ paragraphs on each race that WoWWiki goes into.


 * Did any of that make sense? --Izno (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

DMZ tour deprodded
It looks like 88.178.86.103 deprodded DMZ tour (which you had proposed for deletion) without leaving a reason. Thought you might like to know. Maethordaer (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll list it at AFD when I have time.--Atlan (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

suspected sockpuppet
I agree with your conclusion. Saw your note at Simple. Do you want to do anything about it? --Matilda talk 00:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So far, he hasn't edited enwiki after he read my note. No need to follow up on this if he does stop editing here now. Let's just wait and see.--Atlan (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * let me know. While I understand PeterSymonds's note on Simple, I don't like the fact 72.187.232.224 apparently lied in his response to you.  Another user told a similar lie to me the other day and as a result I am feeling a little more snarky on the subject than I might otherwise. --Matilda talk 00:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all surprised by the lie. That's standard socking prodecure, apparently. I'll notify you the next time he edits here (either with this ip or otherwise).--Atlan (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to let me know as well, and I'll be more than happy to hardblock his IP's. Daniel (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage. Reliable♪Forever (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Whyd you edit RE5 Demo info?
Hey, I'm the IP that added info about the downloadable 360 demo for re5. (I mentioned that, users can now download the game and burn it onto a disk and play it on a NON modded 360.)

Whyd you delete that? Thats valuable info. It was sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lythinca (talk • contribs) 02:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, suggesting people where to download leaked demos and how to get them to work. If Capcom releases the demo to Western audiences, we can update the article accordingly.--Atlan (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Jamaico-Liberians
You guys need to stop doing that, for real. Why didn't you watch that Liberia movie that was released on VHS and DVD. Of course Jamaicans immigrated in Liberia. Please watch the movie if you have time, then if you understand about those Jamaican Immigrants Immigrating to Liberia, then can you please put it back on. It's not a lie. PR Dece/28th/08' 10:42 PM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekin Republican (talk • contribs) 03:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said in my edit summary, I'm sure there were and are Jamaicans emigrating to Liberia. I doubt that this group is classified as "Jamaico-Liberians" though, as I've never heard of this description and Google comes up with zero hits for it.--Atlan (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, I just wanted to thank you for reverting vandals in the Serbs article. --93.86.132.10 (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)