Talk:Atlantis/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Remove "Despite its minor importance in Plato's work"

I would remove that phrase from the second paragraph. Atlantis most definitely is not of minor importance as it is the main subject in one dialogue (Critias) and a major focus in another dialogue (Timaeus). Also there is no cited source for the phrase, which is essentially an opinion as opposed to an undisputed fact-based statement. 173.66.105.5 (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

That is one work, he wrote a lot more than one work. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Richat structure/eye of Sahara, in the now 2020’s has been proven.

Atlantis was a non-fiction civilization in our prehistory, spanning the majority of Northern Africa. When the great flood happened at the end of the last ice age it was temporarily submerged and destroyed. A dozen asteroids hit the Greenland ice shelf vaporizing millions of gallons of ice causing this flood around 11,900 years ago. The “atlas mountains” were north of the city. The first king of Atlantis was atlan. Also the first king of Mauritania, which is where the eye of the Sahara is located which is the circular city depicted by Plato’s descriptions. How is this not on the wiki as fact in 2022? Is this a joke lol. 2600:4040:A120:AB00:E974:9DB2:2B93:A953 (talk) 08:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

It does not matter that you are satified with what you heard and that you do not have a shadow of a doubt. We will write that into the article as soon as virtually all historians agree with you and say so. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

What do relevant wp:rs say on the matter? Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

This is mentioned on the Location Hypothesis page. This theory is mostly a geographical proof. It has circles. It is near the Pillars of Hercules and the Mountains of Atlas. But there is not much else, there, ie Timeline, context clues from the story, Archaeology, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58B:E7F:8410:98CD:A0BE:C671:CB8 (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Personal opinions are not wp:rs and not allowed in Wikipedia. Where has this been discussed in a wp:rs by third parties? Paul H. (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

allegory?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why does the article say that this was written by Plato as an allegory? Plato is explicitly clear in the text that he is recording a person who believes themselves to be making a statement of fact. From the translation on mit.edu - "Then listen, Socrates, to a tale which, though strange, is certainly true, having been attested by Solon" ... "And what is this ancient famous action of the Athenians, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be not a mere legend, but an actual fact?"

Of course this does not mean the story is true, he may have been mistaken or deceived, but to state Plato's *motive* as being allegorical when the writing itself says that the intention is to relay a historical fact, is simply to lie. The language around this point is unambiguous, unless you want to contest the translation.

To re-iterate, I am not asserting that the story is true, I am asserting that the claim that it was meant to be an allegory only, in other words that even Critias and Plato themselves did not believe the story to be true, is an outright lie that is directly contradicted by the words of the original source text. 76.93.169.54 (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The Flashman books claim to be real, they are fiction. It is a common writing trick. So went with what wp:rs say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I do believe I said that twice, just because the author claims that it is true does not mean that it is. However that does not change the fact that the author of the text does in fact claim that it is true, and writing instead that his motive is allegorical, in direct contradiction to what the author of the text writes in the actual text, is a lie.

By all means, note that some/many/most/all historians believe that it serves only as an allegory. But there is a chasm of difference between a story being believed to be fictional and interpreted as an allegory by readers, and having been written as an allegory by the author. The latter is a claim about the motive of the author and is directly contradicted by what the author themselves wrote in the original text.

Weird to predict this exact response, pre-empt it twice, and still get it anyways, but let's try a third time I guess 76.93.169.54 (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Ultimately this is a matter of accurately representing the content of the text. Nobody would read the opening to this article and expect to find such quotes as I referenced above within; the claims of the author should be made clear, even if their truth is doubted. 76.93.169.54 (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows what the reliable sources say, and they say that it is in allegory. It isn't up to us to use our personal judgment to overrule that. MrOllie (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not suggesting to overrule those sources, I am only saying to also make it clear what the content of the actual text is, in addition to how those sources have interpreted it. This only source I am relying on for the actual text is the mit.edu translation, are you suggesting that is not a reliable source and therefore cannot be included in the article? 76.93.169.54 (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The author does not claim it is a true tale, only a character, Critias, in the dialogues does. Hypnôs (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the author claims to be "recording a person who believes themselves to be making a statement of fact", as I said. And the article ought to represent this, but does not, and instead merely includes an allegorical interpretation of the story, and leaves out the (evidently relevant) point that you just made, that the character telling the story claims that it is a true tale.

To hopefully clarify further why I believe this is misleading, even if only to myself, as after what appear to me as three consecutive non-sequiturs I am seriously doubting my understanding of the English language -

The article for the allegory of the cave states

'Plato's Cave is an allegory presented by the Greek philosopher Plato in his work Republic'

and the text reads,

"Socrates: And now allow me to draw a comparison in order to understand the effect of learning (or the lack thereof) upon our nature. Imagine that there are people living in a cave deep underground."

This is exactly what you would expect, having read the description - it is acknowledged by the character in the dialogue that he is going to be speaking of a fictional scenario.

Meanwhile, Atlantis is

'an allegory on the hubris of nations in Plato's works Timaeus and Critias'

where the text reads,

"Socrates: Very good. And what is this ancient famous action of the Athenians, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be not a mere legend, but an actual fact?"

This is the exact *reverse* of the previous case, where now, the character speaking in the dialogue claims that it is factual. And yet identical descriptions are given to both, without further clarification to prevent readers from being deceived as to what the text actually says.

I don't see how it could possibly be argued that this is anything other than misleading and that no further clarification is needed to distinguish between a self-admitted fiction and a proclaimed fact which is generally thought to be a fiction. But I must be an absolute fool, because the only other alternative here is too depressing to consider. 76.93.169.54 (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This is all original research based on the primary source, which is against policy here. If you want to get the article changed in this fashion, you'll have to provide a reliable, secondary source that makes this point. MrOllie (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Wait, what the actual literal original text, written by Plato, about Atlantis, is not a valid source for an article on Atlantis? It's against policy to tell the truth about what the text says? That is absolutely WILD my dude. 76.93.169.54 (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hold on, does he say it is true, or does he say someone else said it was true and he was repeating what they said? Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I attempted to make this clear in the very first line, and second sentence, that I wrote about the subject. I accept that my communication is imperfect but nonetheless I would appreciate seeing some indications that my words are actually being read before they are replied to. 76.93.169.54 (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

So no then Plato does not say it is true, he says the person he is recording thinks it does. So then as he does not say he believes it, he attributes it, we treat this as nay other second-hand account. Now I suppose we could say "But Plato claimed Critias believed it", but really why? Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Because as it stands, the article states that Plato was making the allegorical point. So I am glad that you agree that further clarification on what the text is actually saying, given this diversion into the fact that it is Critias saying it and Plato recording his words. Second, even Critias himself is not saying that he is making an allegorical claim, but a truth claim, albeit one which has been interpreted allegorically. The article does not represent either of these facts. 76.93.169.54 (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I should clarify - the article says the island is "mentioned in an allegory on the hubris of nations in Plato's works", which could be read as Critias coming up with the allegory. The source noted for this first sentence says "Plato also wrote the myth of Atlantis as an allegory". Neither of these statements accurately describes the situation, hence the discussion we currently find ourselves in. 76.93.169.54 (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

No, as it was written by Plato. And no I do not agree we need "further clarification on what the text is actually saying". We Please drop this now, you do not have any consensus and will not get any. Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Where your interpretation conflicts with that of the experts, we can't use it here. This is like citing Gulliver's travels to state that Jonathan Swift was reporting facts about a land of people who were 6 inches tall. If you find that 'absolutely WILD', so be it. MrOllie (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I am sure that you have only been tangentially paying attention to what I have written and so are not intentionally gaslighting me, and clearly I am a poor communicator, but I have already directly addressed that many times. Nonetheless, I will again - I am not claiming that the story is true because the text says it is true, I am merely claiming that the character in the text claims that it is true.

This is not a question of my interpretation, and the claim is not that the story is true because the text says it is true. The issue is that the wording of the article suggests that, as in the case of the cave allegory, the character in the dialogue is only making an allegorical point. In fact, the character in the dialogue is claiming to be telling a true tale, about which an allegorical interpretation has been made. This is an objectively and verifiable true fact about the content of the text, which is not made clear by the article, and is a point which, after having been repeated by me at least 5 times now, has still not even been attempted to be refuted by 3 different people in 6 different replies. 76.93.169.54 (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

A character in a fictional movie saying "this is a true story", does not make the movie factual.

As to your point of Critias claiming the tale of Atlantis to be true, it's already in the article: "Critias mentions a tale he considered to be historical". Hypnôs (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

"A character in a fictional movie saying "this is a true story", does not make the movie factual."

Oh, it must be intentional then. Cheers 76.93.169.54 (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

RS seem to think it is, yes. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

"I am not claiming that the story is true because the text says it is true"

"and the claim is not that the story is true because the text says it is true."

Like, I literally say exactly that twice, just in that one comment. What more do you want me to do? 76.93.169.54 (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

At what point is this no longer considered good faith, because that is absolutely insane. 76.93.169.54 (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

When three users tell you you are wrong. Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Surely the above interaction makes clear that this user did not even read what they were replying to. 76.93.169.54 (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

You do understand that Plato's dialogues are works of fiction, right? He might've borrowed the names of historical people, but he is not recording actual conversations or things they said. MrOllie (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I have one person asking me to clarify whether the claim was from Plato or Critias and now another criticizing me for making exactly that distinction. Incredible.

Yes, I understand. The issue at hand is about *how* he describes the story in the dialogue. He does not say, "let us take a hypothetical situation for the sake of comparison" or some such, as in the Allegory of the Cave. He says instead that "this is not a mere legend but an actual fact". Again, this does not mean it actually is, it simply means that is what he wrote, and it should be portrayed as such, of course without suggesting that it is automatically therefore factual. Such as, "He wrote the allegory through a character claiming it to be a fact", for instance. 76.93.169.54 (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Socrates tends to be quite sarcastic (this is usually referred to as 'Socratic irony'). At any rate, when you have a secondary source to support this, we can consider adding it. But right now we have high-quality sources that say the opposite, and we must follow them. MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This needs to be closed now as a time sink. Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The " embodiment of Plato's ideal state in the Republic." is wrong

No where in the work of Plato's republic is it mentioned that Atlantis was governed as his "ideal state". Nor even in any of his other works. On the contrary it is implied that it was a corrupt state. Nep3nthe Lull (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

We do not say it was, we say its enemy "Ancient Athens" was. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The phrase "the pseudo-historic embodiment of Plato's ideal state in the Republic" is in apposition to "Ancient Athens". It's that, not Atlantis, to which the phrase refers. Deor (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Kodiak Island site

Not notable. Not WP:RS. Not even remotely. Feel free to start Randomkookerypedia somewhere else...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An independent philosopher following the X haplogroup evidence has found a possible site off Kodiak Island that he believes might be Atlantis or another lost civilization, which he published in a book Atlantis & Its Fate In The Postdiluvian World. This is worth mentioning as the 3D scans of the seafloor do suggest artifical construction (worth a deeper look) and Kodiak during the Younger Dryas is very suggestive of the Kircher Map of Atlantis. The book description is below: Has Plato’s lost city of Atlantis been found? This book explores the historical, geological, genetic and anecdotal evidence that supports the existence of the lost city of Atlantis. It examines a new site discovered by Michael Szymczyk near Kodiak Island in Alaska. This location may contain a sunken Poseidon monument and the ruins of an ancient city now underwater. Szymczyk discovered the site while following the genetic footprints of the X haplogroup as well as the ancient writings of Herodotus, Pliny the Elder and others. Ancient historians such as Manetho and Sanchuniathon wrote of the first Egyptian kings known as the Auletians or Aleteans, one which related to the Berbers. The word Auletians shares phonetic similarities to the Aleutians of Alaska and may have originated from a distant proto-language of the Eskaleut language in Alaska (recent genetic evidence shows the Aleut originated 13,000 BCE in Beringia and not from a migration around 4,000 BCE as often claimed). The Berber of North Africa shared a common ancestor with the Sammi 7,000 BCE, a group now in northern Sweden but originally from northern Siberia, which pointed to a location near Beringia as the original site for Atlantis. This site has previously remained undiscovered due to assumptions of arctic-Mediterranean weather and that Plato and the Ancient Egyptians meant the Atlantic Ocean, the idea of multiple oceans being a modern invention. The Ancients knew of only one true Western Ocean which encompassed the world." The book on Amazon includes 3D scans of the site, two which can be seen on the Kindle Cover or which can be viewed via Google Earth southwest of Kodiak by the ancient shoreline of Kodiak. He is planning an expedition there to grab footage of the seafloor to validate the find. 24.177.193.201 (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC) When RS cover this so can we. Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Agree. There is nothing notable about yet another claim as to where Atlantis is located as there are so many of them. Paul H. (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC) And the book is self-published. According to Goodreads and Amazon he also wrote a book about toilet people. What he says about Egyptian kings is also nonsense. Doug Weller talk 21:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC) He seems to think he has evidence of time-dilation. Doug Weller talk 21:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC) I see the book is available to download for nothing from Kindle. A fair assessment of its worth, from a look at the description. Utter bollocks... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Yeah, reading [1] The Berber of North Africa shared a common ancestor with the Sammi 7,000 BCE, a group now in northern Sweden but originally from northern Siberia, which pointed to a location near Beringia as the original site for Atlantis. and This book shows how to validate that hypothesis by collecting evidence of time-dilation at UAP hotspots through the use of clandestine filming techniques and high frame per second video cameras. It also shows where Einstein may have went wrong and looks at new technology that could be made possible by a unified theory of quantum gravity, allowing for scientific advances in the fields of agriculture, transportation, clean energy and possibly even time travel. This looks like total junk. Can somebody close and hat this? Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2023

Atlantis and Egypt

The relationship between Egypt and Atlantis had to be a good, friendly one since we can observe that the Egyptians praised the lost city in Plato’s accounts. Plato also recall’s that there could have been an alliance between the two civilizations to protect themselves in case of an invading enemy. The Egyptians present a utopian image of a city/civilization to Solon which in those times was amazing since the first recollection of the city came from Plato. This idea of perfectness struck the Greek philosophers because, from the Egyptian description of Atlantis, it was everything they aspired to achieve. The perfect state with the perfect governmental system.

84.236.117.31 (talk) 10:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Your edit request is? Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Remember that Atlantis is fictional. If you want to add content regarding its foreign relations, it should remain clear in the text that these aspects formed part of the mythology around Atlantis, especially when you incorporate real ancient civilisations like Egypt and Greece.

I'm closing the request because it's unclear what your suggested edit is. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2023

Current research on Atlantis

Although the story of Atlantis has been passed down through generations, modern scholars have been unable to find any concrete evidence to support its existence. However, some researchers believe that the legend of Atlantis may have been inspired by real-life events.

For example, some scientists have suggested that the island of Crete, which was destroyed by a massive volcanic eruption around 1600 BC, may have been the inspiration for the story of Atlantis. The eruption was so powerful that it caused tsunamis that devastated the surrounding area, which may have been the basis for the catastrophic destruction of Atlantis described by Plato.

Other researchers have suggested that the story of Atlantis may have been inspired by the Minoan civilization, which was also located on the island of Crete. The Minoans were a highly advanced civilization that existed around the same time as the supposed existence of Atlantis, and they were known for their impressive architecture and sophisticated culture.

193.225.109.131 (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

References

We already cover this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Where in the article would you suggest this section be added? As another editor mentioned, this content is covered by the article in a more comprehensive fashion and more appropriate encyclopedic language. Additionally, the source you provided does not seem to exist. The link does not work, and I could not find the article by its name either. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT creation, maybe? - Donald Albury 18:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking when I initially saw this edit request. Deor (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Donald Albury @Deor GPTZero says it's likely completely AI-generated, and I absolutely get those vibes too. Someone should code a tool that highlights text likely to be generated by AI, or maybe include that with Ultraviolet or Twinkle :) Actualcpscm (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I must try it.[2]. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

no its not AI created but I see it deans matter to you:)) 2A00:1110:110:6CC2:62:B2EB:1A35:508D (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

AI-generated content is not per se prohibited, largely because it's hard to conclusively identify. Content is judged against the relevant guidelines and policies, and the suggestion was declined for such reasons. However, it is fun to speculate :) Actualcpscm (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Deans matter? That’s not English. Doug Weller talk 12:29, 21 April 2023 hutch

Games featuring Atlantis

• The VR game "Walkabout Mini Golf" by Mighty Coconut features "Atlantis" (2023) as a course in its lost cities series.

  SO? we can't list every game here. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The article Atlantis in popular culture has a "games" section, though I don't know whether a mention of this particular game would be appropriate there. (Video games are not my thing.) Deor (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

MOS:POPCULT covers how and what to add.

"Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. A Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources. A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item."

and further down after examples

"This sourcing requirement is a minimum threshold for inclusion of cultural references. Consensus at the article level can determine whether particular references which meet this criteria should be included." Doug Weller talk 13:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

There Is a mistake!

Aristotle didn't believe that Plato created Atlantic I hope look at this I was want to add link but it's not allowed حمزة للنواصره (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s not fictional.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Atlantis actually existed. 2600:1005:B164:AC1A:9145:2171:1E7B:B3CF (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you will need to find some top-line RS to back up this claim. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m a historian. 2600:1005:B164:AC1A:9145:2171:1E7B:B3CF (talk)

2600:1005:B164:AC1A:9145:2171:1E7B:B3CF (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Then you're used to needing to cite sources. Let's see them. MrOllie (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This is real evidence.

https://greekreporter.com/2022/12/10/atlantis-plato-history-real/

2600:1005:B164:AC1A:9145:2171:1E7B:B3CF (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not a peer-reviewed academic journal. Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

That's an advert for a book from a vanity publisher, written by the book's author and posted on an unreliable website. At minimum we'd need something peer-reviewed, as Slatersteven says. As a historian you should be familiar with academic publishing and what sorts of journals publish peer-reviewed articles. MrOllie (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I don’t have to. 2600:1005:B164:AC1A:9145:2171:1E7B:B3CF (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Please read wp:v and wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/amp/ncna1055856 2600:1005:B164:AC1A:9145:2171:1E7B:B3CF (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not platos Atlantis (it is using "Atlantis" to mean sunken land), and is not Santorini either. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Atlantis is real, please believe me. I’ve written a book on it. 2600:1005:B164:AC1A:9145:2171:1E7B:B3CF (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not that we don't believe you, it's that we don't believe anyone. Wikipedia follows the best available sources per WP:V and WP:NOR. When you can support with peer-reviewed journals, feel free to come back. Until then there's nothing we can do here. MrOllie (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

We also already mentioned Santorini, it is one of many "real atlantasses". Yours is just the latest version of an idea that is 60 years old. Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

You’re wrong. 2600:1005:B164:AC1A:9145:2171:1E7B:B3CF (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

ok MrOllie (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Just “ok?” 2600:1005:B164:AC1A:9145:2171:1E7B:B3CF (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes. You know what you have to provide to change the article. There is nothing more to discuss. MrOllie (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

What do I need to provide? 2600:1005:B164:AC1A:9145:2171:1E7B:B3CF (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I’ll just change it from fiction to non-fiction when I get semi-protection editing rights. 2600:1005:B164:AC1A:9145:2171:1E7B:B3CF (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

No, you won't be allowed to change the article without proper sourcing. This has been explained above, more than once. Feel free to re-read the discussion, I'm not going to keep repeating myself. MrOllie (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

You’re an idiot then. 2600:1005:B164:AC1A:9145:2171:1E7B:B3CF (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Why can’t it be changed? Can you explain it to me again? 2600:1005:B164:AC1A:9145:2171:1E7B:B3CF (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

No, the explanations stop when the personal attacks start. Have a good day. MrOllie (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry for my actions. May I please have a second chance? 2600:1005:B164:AC1A:9145:2171:1E7B:B3CF (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.