User talk:Atterion/Archive 1

I’ve had it up to here with Wikipedians assuming something is unconstructive without even checking, see intelligence of Capuchins. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The edits were unconstructive because you did not cite references. "New World Capuchins" are not notable, and should be cited, if they exist. If they don't it is considered a hoax. Hoaxes and uncited references will get reverted.

 Atterion (Talk |Contribs ) 18:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Koontz House
Are you really related to that house, and is it really called Green leaves? 71.87.245.70 (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I am...I know that's hard to believe but I am! I can be found there in the spring and fall, and help with tours of that house. But I don't live there. I do know for sure it is called Green Leaves, and was previously called the Koontz House, cause of the guy who bought the house of my ancestry (George Koontz), up until 1926, when somebody in my family changed the name because of the leaves and plants.
 * Just for your info, what made you look at that article? Nothing wrong, just curious.

 Atterion (Talk |Contribs ) 22:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Careful with "vandalism" edit summary
You reverted an edit of mine at Jews with this edit summary:

(Reverted 1 edit by Jd2718 (talk) previously identified as vandalism by the last revision by Jayjg)

I strongly object to my edit being characterized as vandalism. I rearranged the content of the section to make the flow more chronological, and changed a sentence about Yiddish to focus on the loss of speakers. How is that vandalism? And you wrote that it was previously identified as such? By whom? How? And you've put the charge of vandalism in the edit summary, where it can't be erased.

I am restoring my edit. I do not expect an apology (although it would be the right thing to do). I do expect that you read edits before reverting, and that in particular that before you revert this edit, that you come to the talk page. Jd2718 (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The edit to Jews was not bad vandalism at all. It was not really that much of vandalism. But previous edits similar to yours with "yiddish" in them have been vandalism. That's what led me to think they were vandalism. Also you did not provide references, and edits with a new subject to the article, as you added, need references. The article appeared not to have anything to do with what you added, so I think you might be wrong. But if I'm wrong, please let me know and I'll see what I can do.

 Atterion (Talk |Contribs ) 17:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. My edit was not vandalism at all, not "previously identified" and not "not really that much of vandalism." 2. I rearranged; I did not add anything requiring citation.  3. please read edits before identifying them as vandalism. If you do not understand an edit, templating a user is a bad idea. Asking a question might be appropriate. Jd2718 (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Calling Saturn V launch vehicle a "booster"
Why did you revert my last edit to Saturn V without discussion, or at least an explanation in the description? According to the dictionary, the term booster refers to only the first stage of a launch vehicle, or else to a strap-on rocket which burns in parallel to the first stage. The term has not been used technically to refer to a complete launch vehicle since Project Mercury, quite early in the US space program. By the time of the Apollo program, the term launch vehicle was in universal use.

I don't think it can be said that a community consensus exists yet about usage of the term. I'm attempting to start one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight. You are welcome to weigh in there. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You are right about something. A booster is usually referred to as the first stage of the rocket or smaller strap-on rockets according to a dictonary. You do not have to discuss that kind of thing, but that edit might confuse people, because the edit might have led them to thing the whole rocket was known as a booster. That is how you put it. And it might be a good idea to provide references to those kind of edits, or else they are very likely to get reverted. If you think I am wrong about any of this please let me know.

 Atterion (Talk |Contribs ) 17:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ??? "... that edit might confuse people, because the edit might have led them to thing the whole rocket was known as a booster. That is how you put it." ???
 * That makes no sense; I did not add the link to Booster (rocketry) or call it a booster; I am the one who changed it to launch vehicle. Is this a case where you were too busy and got confused? JustinTime55 (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I should of clarified. I must of clicked the wrong revision, 'cause it looked like you'd added the link to booster (rocketry). I promise I'll be careful from now on.

Also, for more info, you'd probably like to check my recent activity subpage--- you'll find out more there.  Atterion (Talk |Contribs ) 18:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Helpful tip
If you want to link a plural word, you don't need to do this:

rabbits

Instead, do this:

rabbits

The whole thing will become blue, including the "s".

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What the hell a lot of users disrespect that and those edits get reverted, usually, but not always.
 * Also, it depends on what article, I think, you should do that on.

 Atterion (Talk |Contribs ) 18:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What edits? Depends? What? I must say, your choice of words is very ambiguous. I've seen a few of your other edits. Please try to be clear in your meaning. Thanks and happy editing. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
That's odd...Sadads hasn't even answered to that long discussion yet. Atterion (Talk |Contribs ) 15:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hay isnt alternateve account sockpuppetry?
Hay isn't having another account sockpuppetry. Your using more than one account is sockpupppetry. You will probably get blocked for it because you have two accounts, Atterion and AtterionAlternative. plus, what do you even use the alternative acccount for? I just dont understend!!!!! 16:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.68.159.83 (talk)


 * No there is a difference. Sockpuppetry is using one or more account to abuse Wikipedia, usually after the first user of the operator gets blocked.
 * Having an Alternative Account. Is used mainly for editing on public computers. That is what I use AtterionAlternative for, when I'm on a trip, usually, and when it starts, at school. But I do use Atterion at work, because I have a lot more time to do that. However, using an alternative account can be considered sockpuppetry if the operator uses the alternative account abusively (so can the main account), which I don't do.

 Atterion (Talk |Contribs ) 16:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok goood, I think i understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.68.159.83 (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: TN SR 60
Hello Atterion. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of TN SR 60, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Is a plausible, useful redirect or is not a redirect at all. Thank you. Courcelles 17:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's okay, I just thought it should be deleted because no other Tennessee state highways had redirects like that. Another redirect to that article, Tennessee County Route 60 I tagged for deletion because I thought it was a misnomer and no other article by that name existed, but it did get deleted.

 Atterion (Talk |Contribs ) 16:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination declined
I've declined your CSD nomination of BTD (disambiguation) because CSD criterion A3 is not applicable to disambiguation pages. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism claim
Dear Atterion, It appears that you have marked the edit I made to the article Public toilet as vandalism. I do not believe that the edit was vandalism, as it was simply a change of wording which made the article more fluent. Please reconsider the edit. I did not mean to damage the article in any way. I apologize for any disturbance I have caused. Thank you and enjoy your day. 69.121.229.41 (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a note that this is not vandalism. Atterion, please take a moment to read WP:NOTVAND. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all there was no need to change the words, since they meant practically the same thing. But I often click what appears to drop down, as I type in the words (in this case reverted.) So that probably happened. Also other edits you made were vandalism, and edits by users that have vandalized before will usually get reverted and get a vandalism edit summary. Second of all, I'd recommend you create an account to avoid future conflicts like this, especially if your IP address is a shared.  Atterion (Talk |Contribs ) 00:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The IP address has not vandalised any pages in the last four months. Please do not revert edits as vandalism when they are not vandalism. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I have created an account as you asked. Also, I don't understand what you mean by "I often click what appears to drop down as I type in the words."

Demiurge1000, you are right. None of the edits I have made were vandalism. Gpk109 (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

More vandalism claims
Dear Atterion, it appears that you have flagged me as a vandal. While it is true that I am not good at all when making pages on Wikipedia (obviously!), there is a difference between detrimental but well-intentioned edits and vandalism, such as posting random stuff and attacks. It also appears that I am not the first one you have mistaken as a vandal. :( Anyways, I have learned from my previous mistake(s) (remember what happened with Fran?) and I suggest we both stay cool. XD By the way, I trust that you will do a better job from now on and become an admin! Good Luck! FlashingYoshi! 16:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlashingYoshi (talk • contribs)


 * Some of your edits were not needed and, I realize, were not intended as vandalism. And, yes I was hoping you would improve in your editing (as I talked to some admins). Also, I did not mistake you as a vandal ;you used to be a vandal, technically, but now you are not. And I did not think you were an experienced editor. Also, the Bloons articles do need improvement, and you can contribute, but I'm advising you not to create numerous redirects, and not to turn redirects into articles, as you did at Bloons. Also, if TIMbomb09 is a sockpuppet of your account, I'm strongly advising that you stop and use your account only, because sockpuppetry is blockable.

 Atterion (Talk |Contribs ) 21:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for distinguishing! Wait a minute... who is Timbomb09?! Oh well, he's blocked anyways. :-D But I can understand why you thought I was he (we both edited Bloons-related articles) I guess I could post ideas on talk pages and let better editors do the job. As of this post, Bloons TD has no information whatsoever on the original Bloons series. The two, besides the characters, are totally different series! (I'm suspecting a Wikijaguar -- kidding) I looked on the talk page of Bloons TD and a few people had already proposed a separate article for Bloons. People are now proposing to delete the Bloons TD article anyways. :-( And yes, thinking about it, I was a vandal for a short time. Sorry about the inconvenience caused by that nonsense... FlashingYoshi! 23:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlashingYoshi (talk • contribs)

Yoshi! 96.255.187.103 (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Message Reply
Well, for starters, the welcome is a little late, considering i've been here since September. And that edit wasn't intended to be vandalism, merely a misunderstanding of malarkey's meaning.  Rusted AutoParts  (talk) 21:48 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, it just appeared to be vandalism (like you didn't like the game, or whatever.)

 Atterion  Talk •Contribs   21:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hallo
Hallo Atterion, I see what your doing. I need help with wikipedia and an weird user.68.113.75.18 (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * help me with something else too, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.75.18 (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can help you with Wikipedia. But what exactly do you need help with on Wikipedia? And who is this weird user you're dealing with?

 Atterion  Talk •Contribs   23:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Green Leaves
Please, do not ever do a move like that again. Instituting a move that "loses" 1600 characters to suit your COI POV is underhand and not acceptable. If you have a problem with the article then talk through it at Talk:Green Leaves. - Sitush (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Bloons TD
What exactly was "unconstructive" in my edits to Bloons TD? It looks like you removed the italics from the game names. See MOS:ITALIC for that. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All of, or a least most of those edits you made. The italics were not needed in the title; italics in titles only are for articles with remote titles, such as vulgarisms. Atterion  Talk •Contribs   13:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the manual of style (MOS:ITALIC) and see numerous proper video game articles (WikiProject Video games/Featured content). Video game names are italicized in prose, be it together with the boldfaced first mention or any subsequent uses. This applies to any article from groups (books, films, genera, etc.), whose names are italicized. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Bloons TD has never been a featured article. Atterion  Talk •Contribs   07:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with an article being featured, see any video game article that has been formatted properly. Video games names are italicized, and your change is against manual of style and long established consensus. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)