User talk:Atlan/Archive15

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Reaganomics88 (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Your uncivil behaviour

You accused me here[1] of making repeated requests for another editor to strike their edits. This was a complete misrepresentation on your part. I have now requested on the talk page for you to strike your comments. You have not done so yet. It seems a part of most dispute processes, including ANI, that I inform you on your talk page that we are in dispute. Please take this edit to indicate this and I urge you to strike through your offending edit. I also invite you to leave an apology at the talk page where you misrepresented my edit.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention of entertaining any of your petty demands.--Atlan (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Gracias Reaganomics88 (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Reaganomics88 (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit?

Didn't bother to take a look at his previous diffs did you? Whilst my edit summary might have been misplaced, my warning was not. Go and check the edit history for the ANI page if you want to see who is really posting "BS" around here. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Skamecrazy123: Sorry for the choice of words. I DID see the edit history on ANI so I am aware of what you mean. But the edit you reverted was just him fixing his own post (changing "it" to "you"), so it made no sense to revert that and call it vandalism. Also, while problematic, none of his edits at ANI are vandalism, see WP:NOTVAND, so a "this is your only warning" for vandalism really wasn't appropriate. I wanted to leave you a note (pretty much what I'm saying here), but I forgot and went to bed. Sorry about that.--Atlan (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

How are my edits problematic? Reaganomics88 (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Oi

Smoke that good good Amsterdam weed much? The guild cannot be vanquished no matter how you try — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilsnupelives (talk • contribs) 14:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Not nearly enough.--Atlan (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Neuostheim/Neuhermsheim

Hello Atlan, I thank you for doing in above. Sorry, I couldn't because I wase blocked for 72 hours. So long and regards -- Sweepy (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

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) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your behaviour on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Hello! I noticed this edit, which seems to be contrary to our policy WP:CIVIL. Please be more careful next time, even if the discussion gets heated. You won't get more credibility with such behaviour anyways(and it can get you blocked, too).--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"Cry me a river" means "You are overreacting". It cannot get me blocked, because it's not even remotely uncivil and any admin worth their salt would know that. That's why no one else in the 2 days since I made that comment but you has given me an unwarranted and uninformed warning about it. Find some better way to spend your time here.--Atlan (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

RFC

Actually, "by default" means just that, by default, (or "the way it usually runs unless someone closes it out before 30 days"), obviously IAR figures in to this as well. However, you are attempting to close this RFC way too early, it's not even a week old. Give it time KoshVorlon 18:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Atlan, I saw both of your messages, I said nothing when you asked if you should re-open it because I was waiting to see what happened on that page, if no one said anything else by Friday, I'd tell you to leave it closed, after all , you closed it in good faith, and for what you considered valid reasons, I certainly can't argue with that. KoshVorlon 19:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright, glad to see you had the patience to wait it out.--Atlan (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Trial of Muhammad Yunus

An article that you have been involved in editing—Trial of Muhammad Yunus —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Worldbruce (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia

I'm going to ask you to stay away from User talk:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia. It's a userspace draft now and QuackGuru has a right to be able to draft it on their own without sniping or commentary. It's been expressly rejected, been taken to MFD and has been moved into userspace. At this point, further commentary isn't necessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want to return please focus on the reforms. This is very serious. You can return whenever you like. I don't want you to feel singled out. QuackGuru (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @QuackGuru:. For the record, I have no intention of editing the essay in any way, but may leave the occasional comment on the talk page. @Ricky81682:, I think QuackGuru is quite capable of deciding for himself who is welcome on his talk pages. But your point is well taken.--Atlan (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

IP Block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Atlan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I received the message: "The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts may be blocked from editing Wikipedia." I'm not actually blocked, but the 95.211.0.0/16 range from which I am apparently editing is blocked by @Elockid:. This is my work IP, and I do not work for a web host. I moved to a different work space in my office today, which I assume is on a different server. If this IP block is deemed necessary, can my account be IP block exempt? I expect to remain on this IP range for a while. As a test, I just made this edit on my other work space, which still works fine.--Atlan (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unless you can provide a good reason why you need to edit via a web hosting service, you are unlikely to be allowed to. If one of your "work spaces" connects via such a service, I'm afraid you will just have to edit from other connections, which you evidently can do. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@JamesBWatson: I would like to be able to continue editing. Isn't that a good enough reason? The only reason I could edit today was through a connection that isn't available to me in the future, because I am moving away from that location. I occupy both desks right now because I'm in the middle of moving my things across the building.--Atlan (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will ask a CheckUser to look at this, because it is generally considered unacceptable for an administrator to grant IP block exemption without a check. Unfortunately that will mean that you will have to wait for a bit longer, but I hope it won't be too long. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this userright to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked (through the use of CheckUser) periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson and DoRD: thanks for the quick response.--Atlan (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It

seem you may be stalking me. If so, don't please. Pwolit iets (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverting bad edits and deleting silly redirects is not stalking. I don't care that you don't like it. If you don't want it to happen, make better edits.--Atlan (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please

do not edit war. You are not only reverting but also ignoring wikipedia guidelines in regards to disambiguation pages. Pwolit iets (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Please point to me where in the guideline it says primary targets are based on whichever article gets the most page views.--Atlan (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

mos:Daborder: "likely to be the reader's target" / Me: "page views". I think that's a logical progression. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It's actually not the same thing at all. Please go re-read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rebbing 18:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

We do not need consensus for every single little chamge we make

The policies are clear that wenshpuld be WP:Bold, amd that we do not need a consensus for every single one of our changes. Besides no one has challenged my edits for the same reason as ypu point out.49.144.167.188 (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If your edits are challenged, then you DO need to reach a consensus. You need to follow the WP:BRD routine: You made a bold edit, you were reverted, now you need to discuss. Discussing does not mean "leave a comment at the talk page and immediately revert again".--Atlan (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

SPI

Hi, I think normally one contacts the editor under question when an SPI is opened. Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong. Also, I did not open this particular SPI.--Atlan (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I stand corrected. Sorry. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

In any case it's not mandatory - it is considered courteous, but I don't think it's the norm. It's a judgement call.

That Cult edit - interesting that an IP that appears to be a sock reverted to the pre-sock version, but socks do that sort of thing. Including arguing against each other. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Indeed. It is from the same range as 49.144.167.188, which was undoubtedly Gonzales while logged out of his account. That's why I added it. There is some weird stuff going on and for a while now, I have had the feeling that there is some good hand/bad hand account editing going on. Gonzales John and socks obviously being the bad hand accounts. Since CU hadn't turned up anything, I wasn't sure what to do. This IP edit makes me even more suspicious. So far, I feel my evidence isn't solid enough to add it to SPI.--Atlan (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It's probably him. But I'll leave it for the moment. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Atlan. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Atlan. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Atlan. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

User Talk: Jimbo Wales

If I did, it wasn't intentional, but my user contributions shows a zero byte edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AnonNep (as I stated in the edit summary - a fullstop/comma punctuation change)? AnonNep (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Once again, if I did, it certainly wasn't intentional. Thanks for the revert! AnonNep (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Atlan. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Atlan. 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)

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco

I saw you were reverting, so I assumed you cared about the article. I was looking for someone who might care about the article to see if I was doing the right thing listing some old factories. The Notre Dame fire made me think of how much of Reynolds' past went up in flames about 30 years ago. And I was in the city, though not close enough to see more than smoke.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. Well I don't have a particular interest in tobacco related articles, but they are often targeted by both pro and anti-smoking lobbies, skewing the articles in a particular POV direction (see next thread for example). Because of this, many tobacco related articles have ended up on my watchlist in the past 17 years and I try to at least keep the articles reasonably balanced. Your edits seem very informative and well sourced to me and that is exactly the kind of content I believe is most suitable for an article about a company (tobacco or otherwise). Nicely done and I'd say keep it up!--Atlan (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The additions were about historic buildings rather than tobacco, and I suppose they could have been done better. The real question is how to describe what has happened to each of the buildings that is still standing. It doesn't seem quite appropriate for that article but it might be all right. Thanks, anyway.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Philip Morris USA

Hi Atlan,

You took down an edit of mine last week on the Philip Morris USA page on grounds of "clearly synthesis" as you posted on my talk page.

I do wish you had looked at the sources. If you had, you would not only have see that the two citations were both from the same source, but you would have also seen the table in which Dr. Proctor explicitly shows the name of factories, their number of cigarettes produced, and their number of deaths caused annually. They are all his calculations in a scholarly article with 185 citations. I came to no synthesis or conclusions myself, but was simply citing the existing, verified information. In case you are curious, you may find the source here: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/87

I agree that it is important to "stick to the facts" as you mentioned. But for you to call me out and assume that I am doing the opposite without even looking at the sources makes me think you have ulterior motives. Might you be employed by the tobacco industry?

Jmacattack87 (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I disputed your statement about how many deaths are caused by the Philip Morris Richmond factory. There is nothing about the Philip Morris Richmond factory in that link. Therefore, I don't understand how you think that source refutes my message on your talk page. I doubt you would ever be able to source an absolute statement like "this factory causes this many deaths".

It's rather ironic you accuse me of making assumptions, while you make a host of baseless assumptions about me yourself. You assume I did not look at the sources. I did. You assume I have ulterior motives. My only motive is to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You assume I am employed by the tobacco industry. I'm not, I work in the financial sector. It's ridiculous you would even think that. More often than reverting anti-smoking crusaders, I have reverted pro-smoking editors such as the banned "delicious cigarette" editor.

I have been here on Wikipedia for nearly 17 years. To accuse me of these things after being here such a short time with only a handful of edits, is such a wrong-headed approach to editing and a sure way to get a ban from editing tobacco articles altogether. It's okay to make rookie mistakes, but please learn from them rather than attack other editors over them.--Atlan (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

See Table 1 in that document that I linked for you. It is above the second to last paragraph of the paper. It explicitly mentions the Philip Morris Richmond factory (as well as many others), the number of cigarettes produced, and the number of deaths caused. I don't know how you can say that information is not in the source...I'm genuinely confused (and borderline amazed). Jmacattack87 (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Because table 1 was collapsed and I didn't notice it until you pointed it out to me. The collapsed text also didn't come up when I searched for Richmond. Gotta say, that is a bold statement to make and I wasn't expecting it, like I said. It's still a derivative and highly contentious claim that I can't see corroborated by statistics other than what you already posted. It's a peer reviewed paper so in that respect it qualifies for Wikipedia's inclusion, but I think it would be wise to put this up for wider review from more knowledgeable people than me.

Sorry I missed that part of the source, I am only human. Still, please don't be so quick to jump to conclusions about other people's motives. I'm not an adversary, just another Wikipedia editor. This is simply the process of WP:BRD we find ourselves in. When you accept this as a necessary Wikipedia process, you'll find this a much easier place to work in.--Atlan (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)