User talk:Atarr

Agassi's last two years

AfD Nomination: Agassi's last two years

I've nominated the article Agassi's last two years for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Agassi's last two years satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agassi's last two years. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Agassi's last two years during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. Dugwiki 17:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger

If tigers are the largest species, then they would be bigger than blue whales, assuming that you don't go beyond the animal kingdom. "largest cat species" is clearly correct. Please don't change it. - Banyan Tree 19:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are totally correct. I apologize for the mistake. - Banyan Tree 19:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's use preview button

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. --Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 15:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. --Scorpios 02:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Grossman tripping over his own feet.

Hi Atarr,

But on the next play, Grossman tripped over his own feet and was sacked for an 11-yard loss by Anthony McFarland.

Please, if you remove an edit, don't remove the comment as it provides others with further information for them to establish the validity of the edit.

Placing comments within the Edit Summary are nice, but very ineffective. Please use the talk page and try to achieve consensus.

Your statement asking for citations is not really applicable, as this entire section is comprised of commentary on what was viewed and heard as well as the play-by-play in written format.

If you would like to change it to reflect that Grossman tripped over his own feet, while trying to get away from McFarland, that is a better compromise than just making it disappear.

Thanks for reading my thoughts. I will hang up and listen for your answer. :-)

Take care,

Larry Lmcelhiney 19:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

funny, I was probably writing to you the same time you were writing to me. Check your page... Atarr 19:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "An accurate but irrelevant statement"

Do you think so? It's true that this incident is already in hidden message, so I can't argue that removing it from the Super Bowl article removes it from the encyclopedia. Why do you think it's not relevant? Λυδαcιτγ 20:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also in an article devoted to that web page, which should really be sufficient by itself. It's not relevant because it's not newsworthy, as evinced by the fact that no major media source has picked up on the story. Furthermore, it is at best extremely tangentially related to the article subject. One does not need to know about this to understand Super Bowl XLI. - Atarr 21:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Megafauna

I saw your editting out of the Seven-Armed Octopus from the Megafauna article. While I feel that it should be made clear that the status of a giant octopus is questionable, it is reported and should be mentioned. This got me to thinking. What do you think about adding a section on "Questionable Megafauna"? A brief description of the section and then a list? I've started a section on the talk page about it. Cheers. --Scorpios 02:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giant animal

We've had a rather sudden,. undiscussed revert to the Giant animal page. I've started a proposal on the talk page and will be contacting the reverter in order to negotiate. Just thought you should know, in case you've unwatched the page. --Scorpios 02:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Megafauna

There was a very large amount of edits to that page yesterday. I can't tell if they are good or bad. Also posted this to User:Scorpios. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giganticpehtoeecus

Not sure how to spell it. I've a couple edits that've been wiped out by an edit conflict, were you finished on the page? Otherwise I'll wait until you've finished, then add them to the page. Could you drop me a line here to say you're done? Thanks.

WLU (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias, I'll drop you a line when I'm done so you can look 'em over. WLU (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dyson sphere

Not to be too picky, but do you have a source that specifically states what you added to the article (via these edits)? I've been trying to keep it rather well-sourced, and any effort you could make towards that end would be appreciated :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:LgstPlant39 sgl BGv2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:LgstPlant39 sgl BGv2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by formation dates

Hi Atarr, just wanted to say thanks for putting in additional info to that article, but also noted it was sometimes done several times within a short period of time. I would advise to do what you can all at one time, then use the 'Show preview' button to see how it looks & once it looks fine, then hit the 'Save page' button. It helps other see the edit(s) faster that way. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to thank you for your work on that article! I did want to take issue with your statement "Nothing wrong with having the same date twice, if the state never existed before." - mainly because you only repeated the date for one country, Botswana. When I did my major update of the list a few months ago and added in about 90% of the countries (including, by the way, Botswana), I came across many like Botswana (in similar situation: never have existed before, carved out by the "imperial masters", attaining independence (usually in the 1960s) and have lived a quiet life since) but just left the other field blank if covered by "date of independence". Botswana isn't even unique in the fact that it existed as Beuchanaland as a colony and a different name as independent, nearby Lesotho (formerly the colony of Basotholand) was the same situation. I really didn't want to spend the bulk of words on this comment as a criticism, as I really want to convey my appreciation for your recent efforts to the article, but I did want to make my thoughts on Botswana (and other countries you might consider doing that to, now that I pointed out there are many other "Botswana"s there) known. --Canuckguy (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm well aware that the same idea would apply to many countries. It's a question of whether we want to fill all the fields, or leave many of them blank. Both are reasonable. - Atarr (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of the article

User:An Siarach has removed Athelstan from the article without changing any other countries dates. Just thought I'd let you know since I've already done 3 reverts today. TharkunColl (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by formation dates

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article List of countries by formation dates, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of countries by formation dates

An editor has nominated List of countries by formation dates, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by formation dates and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Reggie Love

A tag has been placed on Reggie Love requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Birth tourism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Birth tourism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birth tourism. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Speedy deletion nomination of File:LgstPlant39 sgl BGv2.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:LgstPlant39 sgl BGv2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:LgstPlant39 sgl BGv2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:LgstPlant39 sgl BGv2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --ww2censor (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LgstPlant39 sgl BGv2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:LgstPlant39 sgl BGv2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Reggie Love for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Reggie Love is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reggie Love until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bjerrebæk (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Atarr. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Atarr. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]