User talk:Atif.t2

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2009/October/Thu; 2009/October/Mon; 2010/June/Wed;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Law & Order episodes (season 1) The Torrents of Greed (part 1)

I removed the list of episodes in the top-right corner because: 1) it is already contained in the "list of Law & Order episodes (season 1) page, and; 2) I have not seen such a list in the top-right corner of any other episode page.

I am certainly open to feedback. Thank you.

Hi Jdlankin, please mention the Article name or the link. Also please sign your talk by typing four tildes. Atif.t2 (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Militia

I removed that stuff from the Michigan Militia page because it is spam. Do you even look at what you're complaining about? It is information that is not part of the organization that was the michigan militia in the 90s. One person keeps spamming the article with their links and info on their own small militia group. WTF.65.23.82.10 (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you could please check the article it has been reverted to your version already.

Also please clearly mention what are you doing in your edit summaries.

PS don't forget to check your talk page. Atif.t2 (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted, reported, rewarded

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You beat me to a revert and a WP:AIV report. For speedy reaction to vandalism, I speedily award you this barnstar. Take care! --Delta1989 (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the star! Atif.t2 (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my edit in the khalistan movement article,the edit was justified as the operation was at night and the pilgirms were not praying.Though i fully agree with the death of pilgrims as mentioned in various articles and books they were not killed while praying.Secondly it was not a military embaressement as the army captured the place by morning of 7th october.It was a political embaressement.Please go through the refrences already give and you will find that no new refrences are needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.112.73 (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit you had removed mention of civilians caught in the crossfire which should be there.

In your edit please include the line unless you can provide such refrence. Atif.t2 (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, finally got someones attention. Please remove all names from the recent mos eisley edit summaries. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.209.20 (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please contact an admin for this request. They will be able to help you further. Follow the link [[1]] Atif.t2 (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my fault.I will do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.112.73 (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're fast! Thanks for reverting on The chaos faction. That seems to be being over-vandalized for some reason. --Delta1989 (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment Atif.t2 (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AmeriHealth revert

A reply to your note left at User talk:208.81.184.4 has been made, and a response has been requested. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response has been provided. Atif.t2 (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laplace's Demon revert

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laplace%27s_demon&action=historysubmit&diff=318764616&oldid=318764582 I just put that there because I didn't know how to do one of those 'this needs evidence/a reference' tags. Why not just change it for me? It's kind of disheartening when you make a contribution and it gets taken away instantly...

Ok will do if the article needs it. Anyway keep on editing constructively Atif.t2 (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In future please follow this link [[2]] to provide tags to a page which needs citation. Atif.t2 (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cat meat

I removed some overstated cultural assertions from cat meat because they are incorrect and hyperbole based on ref. The edits are constructive. 59.167.45.107 (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thanks for the info Atif.t2 (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montes de Oca (county)

Please can you delete it, I have a mistake when a translate it from spanish (comarca -> is shire, not county -> condado). Sorry for the mistake. Montes de Oca (shire) was the correct title. thanks in advance --Autrigón (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You can rename the page title by clicking here [[3]]. Atif.t2 (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot but I need to rename Montes de Oca (county) into Montes de Oca (shire) and in this way I lost all I have write in Montes de Oca (shire). Can you delete Montes de Oca (county)

Thanks --Autrigón (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only admins can delete a page. You will have to request them for it. [[4]]

By the way by renaming the page, only the title will change. The article will remain the same.

Atif.t2 (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BEC

Hi, I didn't know what you mean, until I looked. Not a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.136.93 (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this unconstructive?

Has wikipedia gone the way of the Nazis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.93.190.31 (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just want to know if you had some ref or valid reason to change it. Nothing was also provided in your edit summary about the edit. Atif.t2 (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK that works.

OK that works. I just thought fucker sounded better.

Glad it worked out. Atif.t2 (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Programmer13

I am Programmer13, shoot! also, I believe now my I.P address changes! I have a new I.P every month or so! also, my first warning, I never wrote "test". (Programmer13 and Programmer103) 74.233.101.35 (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Maybe your IP address is of a proxy server. In that case the editing may have been done by another user but the warning will be given to the ip address talk page. Please login with your id so that this issue does not come again. Atif.t2 (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Problem, I forgot my beloved password. (74.233.101.35) Programmer103 (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry for the confusion) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Programmer103 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure was all mine. Atif.t2 (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

criteria are very scientifical

I was changing a very important sentence with a complete other meaning

criteria are very scientifical must be criteria are NOT very scientifical —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdboeck (talk • contribs) 22:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response has been provided at your talk page. Atif.t2 (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dice

Please don't revert my correct edits. Dice is the plural form of the word die. (80.57.192.180 (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Thanks for mentioning it in the edit summary. Your edit has been restored. Atif.t2 (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

particle board

Since I do not have a log in it should not bee seen by yourself as reason for you to 'shout' vandamilsm. To state und=constrcutive when clearly I have stated an update i.e. the latest WHO standing on formaldehyde's carcinogen stance and also added additional value to the IKEA text who by the way use more MDF than particleboard and finally my edit mentioning the standards to which modern resins are produced is by iteslf totally constructive and the whole point of Wikipedia - I will not edit the text again as i consider your acts as vandalism and ask that for the sake of wikipedia that you edit back my text into the page.

good day mr vandal consider your self excused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.187.77 (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but it would have gone a long way to help if what you are writing now, you would have put it into the edit summary while editing. Edits without a summary or refrences make up the bulk of vandalism. Atif.t2 (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you now feel the points are now relevent and your reason for deletion was that they weren't - I think and only my opinon, that you should be reading more carefully and be less trigger happy with that delete button. Also funny, well relatively speaking, is how quick you are to delete i.e. seconds after i had altered the text - just maybe i forgot to add a comment and did not expect a jimmy cricket like you to be so damn quick at deleting!!!!

I accept you apology and feel you will have learnt your lesson - for your information this page on particle board is very basic shows little background to the product, growth, forecast growth, producer detail, resin technology, machine technolgy - all of which i have the capacity to develop but will leave it for you to do since you love this page so much and with the growth of particleboard in india at 20% per annum with 1Mn m3 per annum you can start to look at this mr Atif —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.187.77 (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for reverting of your edits was that they were without an edit summary and without citation or refrence. They looked like a random vandal work. Please continue editing but with an edit summary and information backed by refrence. Thanks Atif.t2 (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atif, please take note - your work has good intentions but you really must realise that YOUR actions are verging on vandalism and you should take a step back and look at how you go about your work. 1)The speed at which you deleted was unacceptable - i explained that you need to give time for people to finish editig and add citations and edit summarys - For your infoimration i would give 6 hours. However, 2) Simply seeing an article lacks edit notes or citations is not a reason by itself to delete. For you to decide requires from you to read the new article and make an informed decision AND YOU must then give relevent edit history; which by the way is what you demand for new entries yet double standards seem to be in place for yourself as you offered no edit history when deleting my changes. Without the edit history added to your deletes it would be easy for your actions to be seen as VANDALISM. I undertsnad that you are acting in good intentions and this may be an oversight. I hope you now understand you errors - don't delete so quickly, give people a chance to edit, Don't just delete without adding a edit summary yourself as this is vandalism - Remember these two rules ATIF and you will be a better Wikipedian. If you feel you need claification or if you wish to thank me or say sorry please feel free to contact me.

Big Luv ME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.187.77 (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand that while editing in an existing article an edit summary is provided so that others can understand what has been changed. As you know the changes are instant many others readers of wikipedia can get wrong information if the artcile has been vandalised. For this edits which look like vandalism has to be reverted instantly. FYI I have reverted your edits not deleted them.

Edit summary are provided there and then when the page is saved. They cannot be added later.
Agreed citations can be added later, but it is better if you add them there and then as you have demonstrated good knowledge of the article above.
My actions were solely to protect the integrity of the article from vandalism. How can they verge on Vandalism. For more confirmation you can see my contributions.
To be a better wikipedian start following the above basic rules and remember to sign your comments.
Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you need help.

PS while reverting your changes edit summary was provided. Also a message was posted on your talk page if you check. Atif.t2 (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atif - you clearly don't link the speed of your response with action verging on vandalism - i feel for you and hope one day you will have the compassion to look at this from a newbie's point of view. i.e. i am new to wikipedia, i don't understand signing, i don't quite know how to make hyperlinks, citations, and to be honest i only recntly found the edit history box, does this mean i am a vandal - well of course not as this is all down to what i post - and what i posted was relevent aqnd accurate. To be accused as a vandal is not nice. Yes, I accuse you of vandalsim but this is open to opinion and therefore i have to daste stated you are verging on vandalsim. Your decision to revert does in essence delete my work so i simply stated it was deletion and as mentioned the speed at which you act does not allow newbies like myself to have the time and opportunity to finish their work and as mentioned previously i no longer have the desire to put this below par article into shape - all becasue of your action! you sir verge on vandalism. putting the little people down, making the newbies feel inferior - you are a bully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.187.77 (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier edits which may harm an article are reverted when noticed there and then. There is no timeframe for them as the changes are instantaneous and are read by the world. You must understand the harm it may cause if the article is false. I am not accusing of Vandalism nor do i say that i know all. Simply put i saw your edit, thought the additions did not belong to the page nor was there an edit summary to inform me what your intention was in changing the article so I reverted it. I would have been more than happy to help you if you would have asked. Remember I have erased the Vandal notice from your talk page. But you again and again in the above posts call me a vandal and make personal attacks against me. I am going to let it go. If as a newbie you want more information I am providing the links below. Happy Reading.

For any help go here
For editing, formatting help go here

Atif.t2 (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atif, i dont accept that articles must be changed ASAP and have highlighted the problems this causes. I tahnk you for you links. I understand that you have erased the vandal notice but do see you as the vandle in this instance. This is open to interpretation and will not follow on this further. No need to follow up - Lets both agree we can both improve. Happy Reading —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.187.77 (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reverts done if an article is edited in compliance with Wikipedia policy so no problems are caused. Speedy reversion of vandalism is what keeps the artciles consistent. You may not agree, everyone has the right not to. I agree, lets put it to rest. Hope you may have learned valuably from this talk. Atif.t2 (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for admin help

User:Locutus0fLegi0n, whom you warned a few minutes ago, is a vandalism-only account and, if I'm not mistaken, a sockpuppet of multiply-banned User:Hdayejr. Check out the slurs on his discussion page. That alone should qualify for an immediate block. Thanks.174.96.47.231 (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not on admin. Just a normal editor. Please report it here [[5]] Atif.t2 (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Account creation request interface

Hi, I have requested access to Account creation request interface. Atif.t2 (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to advise you that your application was approved. Please read the guide and take your time while working on the interface.

For the moment you'll be limited to creating six accounts per day and you won't be able to create accounts with a name similar to that of an existing account. If you find yourself hitting these limits regularly, request the accountcreator permission at WP:RPE. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Get lost. The fact about McAteer and Blacking was indeed a wicked rumour. John has spoken to me about it. You don't know him so please don't accuse me of vandalism. It is no wonder why you are single you loser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.104.122 (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really. You may face blocking for using obscenities in your edits. Atif.t2 (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait sorry you weren't the one who warned me about Blacking and McAteer. Oh crisis I am actually really sorry. You were very polite in your warning to me. It was the other user who was rude to me. I am so sorry for any offence or upset caused. No, Chloe McShane is a very famous baker in Slough and Noel Edmonds is a regular at McShane's Bakery. The Jesus part was loyalty to my Catholic faith. McShane is a very strong Catholic. She is well known for her church going ways. Again, I apologise for my mistaken rudeness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.104.122 (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad everything worked out. Atif.t2 (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that.

Thanks for saving my page again, keep up the good work. Good fortune to you always, ^(C/SSG)G2sai_(talk) 22:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Pleasure, Thanks for your kind words. Atif.t2 (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for you

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Almost every time when I am about to revert vandalism from some article, you have already reverted it. You are really fast against vandals, and you really deserve this barnstar! Ilyushka88 (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my changes??

Legitimate, referenced changes. Please undo YOUR vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.120.41 (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though you were refrencing an article your tone in the hyperlink "Nationwide is awesome" is far from neutral tone of an encyclopedia. Please adopt a neutral tone while voicing a fact otherwise the article may look like an advertisement. Atif.t2 (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you just have asked me to change it instead of getting rid of the whole thing?? I've now changed what you didn't like, hope that is more of a neutral tone for an encylopedia for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.120.41 (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could have reverted my edit with just a undo button. Anyway thanks for keeping up with wikipedia views. These rules were created with consensus, not by me. Atif.t2 (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This User is accusing me of something

User Talk:Jasepl is accusing me of being a Sockpuppet of some banned user. What should i do. I can't let some user accuse me of something which is false. (Marcosino Pedros Sancheza (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Please contact an admin here or you can contact the arbitration commitee for dispute resolution. Atif.t2 (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hey. Thank you very much for the barnstar. (My first one) Ilyushka88 (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NHL Atlantic Division rivalries

Um. Was there a point to the revert-revert you just did? If you'd like to come help establish some consensus, that'd be most welcome. –ConkblockCity (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well when the changes were done to the article by Commandr Cody, i thought it was vandalism so I reverted the page but on second thought I undid my revert to the revision done by Commandr Cody. I did this so as this can be discussed by Commandr Cody on the talk page about the thoughts he gave in edit summary. Atif.t2 (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why are you doing this to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.100.143 (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but Vandalism in an article like "penis juice" has to be removed. Atif.t2 (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undid Revision to the Cimbri

The article is NPOV and very messy with unsourced claims, my revision helped address that issue so I reverted your revision of my edits. I gave the explanation for my revision and there is no way they can be seen as non-constructive; please clarify. 86.131.245.64 (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the notice from your talk page. The edit was done without an edit summary involving a major blanking of the article, that's why it was reverted. Thanks for reverting me. Please continue developing the article. Atif.t2 (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How much did the contractor pay you for messing up with Wärtsiläs Wikipedia entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.218.121 (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually none. You seem to have a stream of notices warning you to stop. Atif.t2 (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my apologies for leaving a blank edit summary, I intended to write one but forgot. As for Wärtsiläs, well I'll leave that for you two to sort out. 86.131.245.64 (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you understand. Well Wärtsiläs was an actual case of vandalism. It has been sorted out already. Thanks Atif.t2 (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you, Atif.t2, for watching out for my userpage. It's been continually vandalized by the same individual for the past few days. I very much appreciate your vigilance! Basket of Puppies 22:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Pleasure. Atif.t2 (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the!

You are a poopy head. i didnt do vandalism. mark teixera took steroids and his nickname is the fat man. i follow baseball —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.168.252 (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go here and see for your self if it is vandalism or not. Atif.t2 (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Legend

This game is a Hoax and IS not. I was not vandalizing the page by telling others that it was not a real game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_Legend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.88.231 (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not blank the article and leave comments on it. Develop a consensus on the article in the articles talk page or better if you are very sure mark it as a hoax so that the admins can delete it. Atif.t2 (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunglass Church

Thanks for the message. Just delete the article please .--80.47.27.83 (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please get in touch with an admin for deletion requests at WP:AN/I. Atif.t2 (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why the edits were unconstructive. Yes there was an error in linking to another article (wrong keys used) but apart from that there didn't seem to be anything wrong with them. NtheP (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please mention the article on which the edits were reverted. I couldn't find anything about a notice from me either. Atif.t2 (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of Odin page

Excuse me? I posted on the talk page 5 weeks ago asking for citations proving the notability of those instances of his appearance in modern culture. The response was overwhelming silence. As such, I removed them. I don't want to fight an edit war over this, but since I have been so kind as to actually use the talk page to post a justification for that content's removal, and have given others plenty of time to respond, it would only be civil if you would at least respond there. Your undo is as such unwarranted, but i'll give you at least 24 hours to justify keeping those items before re-modifying the page.

And a template 'you don't know what you're doing' message when i've used the talk page to justify changes is kind of insulting. Clearly I know what I'm doing. --69.209.68.87 (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please tag the lines on which you think citation is needed with {{{citation needed}}} tag instead of blanking the whole paragraph. Even if then you do not get your citations you can remove it. By the way a quick google will reveal half of those claims to be true. Many people on reading the article see the request for citation and provided it. The visibility of the talk page is rather low. It is nothing personal against you. I am removing the notice from your talk page. Atif.t2 (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'true'. I am not disagreeing on the *facts* of the claims. I am disagreeing on the *implicated claim* forwarded by their being included on the page. To whit: that these appearances of Odin are noteworthy as appearances of Odin. Making such a claim without citation is OR, and their appearance on a page about Odin is making exactly that claim.

Further, a citation needed tag fails to express the problems with these listings adequately, because what i'm asking for is not a factual citation but a citation proving their notability. I mean, Odin appearing in American Gods is trivially cited (which is what you'd get) - That appearance of Odin being notable as an appearance of Odin is a lot harder to cite. Worse, getting the first type of citation makes editors more complacent about leaving such material because 'its cited', even if the citation has nothing to do with the claim being forwarded, and thus the citation needed tag does more harm than good if users aren't reading the talk pages. So, is there a way to ask for such a thing in-line? Because otherwise the talk page is the only recourse.

--69.209.68.87 (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citation tag has proved helpful in the past on many articles. You can also collaborate directly with the projects which are handling the page to discuss your issues. If we continue to remove any and all content without tags we may very well clean out the whole encyclopedia. My whole point is that develop a consensus on the information provided. Involve the projects mentioned on the talk page and then very well you can edit the article as per the consensus. Also please register with wikipedia so we may be able to talk with you on your static talkpage as IP changes often. Thanks, Atif.t2 (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except the deleted content was a 'modern influences' section, which is generally cruft anyway. No loss of real information was incurred. I'm not advocating taking an axe to everything without citation, but a stronger line needs to be drawn with modern influences sections because they invite accumulation of useless references that are not at all notable with respect to the page they're on.

And your response doesn't really adequately respond to my objection. I'm sure the citation tag is great when you're looking for factual confirmation. But when the claim you want cited is *implicit* rather than explicit, you're going to get citations for the explicit facts rather than the implicit claim that those facts are notable.

Also, the relevant community appears to have spoken on the matter. See the Thor page's handling of 'modern influences'. I was merely bringing the Odin page into conformation with that standard.

--69.209.68.87 (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I could not find the section in the talk page or in the archive you mentioned which shows consensus. Secondly the refrence could also be provide the implicit refrence that you think are necessary. I am just implying that the information currently being removed must be given a fair chance by involving the community instead of one persons point of view. The refrences to Odin that are provided seem to hold weight only the missing point is refrences. You should take this issue up with the projects and I am sure both explicit and implicit refrences can be found. I am sure that both implicit and explicit refs are provided in other similar articles also. Atif.t2 (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5 weeks is not a fair chance for involvement? I didn't realize such elaborate measures had to be done to (1) remove apparent OR and (2) make a page conform to another well-known instance. --69.209.68.87 (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the content you are removing does not appear to be apparent Hoax or spam. Secondly articles are not the sole property of anyone and are written and maintained by the community, so yes everyone participating in the article has to be involved in a major change. The content was there because it was written and reviewed. Once again please either seek a review from another editor or contact the projects to get a consensus. I may not revert the article but it may happen that someone involved may revert your changes. So why not involve the projects maintaining it. Atif.t2 (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your standards are unreasonable. Its not a major change, its the 'modern influences' section. That automatically makes nothing done to it major because it barely relates to the topic. And a stance against removing useless or trivial information (because it is neither a hoax nor spam) means pages will just accumulate unnecessary text and no one will be empowered to remove them without excessive discussion - which someone will almost certainly oppose because they added the useless text. Yes, some fanboi added mentions of their favorite usage. So what. Its a page about Odin the mythological figure and the only deleted mention that even plausibly belongs on that page is the American Gods one - but i'm still not convinced Neil Gaiman's book is an important portrayal or retelling of Odin. --69.209.68.87 (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Modern influence of Odin is an important section as it gives information what has been attributed to Odin in recent and present time. If a character in any book or article has been made on Odin, it is not necessary that it has to be an accurate historic version of Odin then it may merit a mention here. Remmember the section is about influence not on an accurate representation. Consensus is the answer to your question. The fanboy may return and add the information again but if a majority of editors agree that it is reasonable to remove then without doubt you can remove it. The discussion does not has to be lengthy and no one gets veto rights. Maybe the project members may decided to shape the influences section on Odin on a new page and make this page just for info on mythological Odin. Atif.t2 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I respectfully suggest you consider the first point of WP:NOT#DIR. My stance is merely that such mentions need to be *significant* in the context of depictions of Odin (or whatever the page topic is). Such significance needs to be documented or such listings should be subject to immediate and summary deletion. --69.209.68.87 (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information you are removing does not seem to me "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". I consider the potrayal of Odin or a character based on Odin (doesn't have to be accurate to historic Odin) important to the topic as the section clearly mentions Modern Influence. That is why I am asking you again and again to develop a consensus by including the projects involved. If you sure that the content does not belong there then develop a consensus. If you can wait for 5 week then why not a day. Maybe the projects can document and cite the statements, if not then you may delete it. Thanks Atif.t2 (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the message on my talk page…

Someone else placed a speedy delete template on that page, and when the creator placed the hangon template he also removed the deletion template. I saw that and I readded it. What's the problem with that? -99.255.188.158 (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion template was removed by another editor not the author and are allowed to do so in case of conflict. Please see WP:AFD. Atif.t2 (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember, but I automatically assumed that they were the same because the creator never edited after that and the edit that added the hangon template was the same that removed the speedy deletion template. Out of curiosity, how come people other than the original creator can add a hangon template? Regardless, thanks for the information. -99.255.188.158 (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible for an editor other than the creator to add a hangon template if they feel the article is of value, though it should be done by the creator. Anyone can edit, so anyone can remove or add content on unprotected pages. Atif.t2 (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You beat me in reverting vandalism more than five times (even if it is not your intention). Merlion 444 05:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watch who you're reverting and reporting

First off, you're doing an excellent job against vandalism. Second, try to be a little more careful on what is and what is not vandalism. Unless it's clear vandalism, don't revert, because you may end up causing more harm than good if you mess up. Thank you, MuZemike 05:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but the User was also involved in blanking refrenced article in the two examples quoted in the report. Also the info he added had no clear refrences as i searched for it. After giving sufficient warnings i reported him. He did not even took heed of my repeated warnings. Atif.t2 (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Good morning, O my there was a lot of Vandalism on my talk page and on my user space. I saw that you keep reverted the Vandalism. I just wanted to thank you for doing this.--Zink Dawg -- 16:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure was all mine. Atif.t2 (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nia Lyte/Wikipedia

Hello Atif,

I email you a request please read it and feel free to contact me. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinca (talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your email has been replied to you regarding the request. Atif.t2 (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Clock

I am in Love with your Clock, although currently I can not change it to my Time zone, in fact I don't even know what System you used. If you could just edit in the time zones for EST, United States.

My local time:

November 2024

8

Friday

3:39 pm IST

Just format it to EST. Thanks.

Rttam (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Glad you liked it. I use IST time zone. I am posting two clocks in EST time zone. One is with Daylight Saving Time and the other is not. Pick the one you want. Thanks Atif.t2 (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My local time:

November 2024

8

Friday

5:09 am EST

With Daylight Saving Time

My local time:

November 2024

8

Friday

6:09 am EST

Atif.t2 (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey Mate, it seems that the Clock has stopped, I last edited it at 6:44 PM (My Userpage, now redone) and I just checked, it was still there. - I had to re-enter the code, in order for it too work. Rttam (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the clock seems to work fine on both my user page and the talk page. Maybe your browser didn't refresh the page. Anyway if it still doesn't work leave me a message and I will see what is the issue. Atif.t2 (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the page has to be refreshed to display the current time. If you just leave your page the time will not change. This means whenever anyone will check the page the time shown will be your current time. Atif.t2 (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally you can purge the clock to show the current time by clicking on the date shown in the clock. Atif.t2 (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your clock seems to work fine now since I have purged it. Atif.t2 (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks, Atif.t2. And thanks for the help. :) Rttam ^TN_C 17:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

== Law & Order Articles and Article Additions --

Thank you for the feedback. I see what you mean by the Simpsons articles.

I started by noticing on the List of Law & Order episodes page that even shorter articles had already been created with only the six main cast members and the short summaries. Since these shorter articles had been created and not challenged, I added guest cast to them and then created other articles by following the same pattern.

Now that at least some of my additions have been reversed, these articles remain in their originally shorter form. I will add more detail to my future submissions. But I'm not clear as to why these originally skeleton articles were created or remain unchanged.

````Jdlankin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlankin (talk • contribs) 05:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]