User talk:Atif.t2/Archives/2010/June/Wed

Account creation request interface

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

Dunglass Church

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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