Alatari

Post here if:

• You wish to compliment my work.
• Keep in touch.
• Constructively criticize my work.
• Work with me to improve Wikipedia.

Anything else will be deleted.

• User talk:Alatari/Archive 1
• User talk:Alatari/Archive 2
• User talk:Alatari/Archive 3
• User talk:Alatari/Archive 4

POV arguments being used to remove parts of Argumentum ad baculum arguing "pushing against christianity". What is your take on this? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

About.com articles are many times written by unpublished non-scholarly authors. If you can show that Austin Cline of About.com is a reliable source then the About.com link can stay. Austin Cline doesn't have a wikipedia article and I can't find any peer reviewed articles or texts written by him so I'd say it isn't WP:RS but you could prove me wrong. The example argument is focussed on the religions that belief in an eternal damnation which many religions don't (Judaism). Maybe reword it a bit but I support the inclusion in the article because it is a very common argument of that type. Alatari (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

58.164.108.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to be deleting many links which are atheist for pov. Is this proper? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm reviewing them all. So far Daylight Atheism and infidels that he removed for POV reasons should be removed for other reasons. Daylight was linking to forums and not even to a section that discussed the topic and infidel has paid advertising spam in the header. Both no, no's for external links. If any of the others are valid I'll revert. Alatari (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I placed a request on the incident noticeboard [[1]] for a review of his account activity. Eastcote (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

After I put forth the effort to find this tool for you, is it too much to ask that you use it correctly? The raw list of pages edited by both users includes pages that they edited months or years apart. I mentioned this at AN/I, but you haven’t acknowledged my response. It’s rather poor form for you to ask me for help finding an information-gathering tool, use that tool against me in an incorrect manner, and then not acknowledge that when I point it out. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't spend all my time here and a few minutes after I posted that my internet went down. It was not my intent to 'use it against you' but it crossed my mind while I was cooking dinner you could see it that way. You said you didn't remember ever crossing paths with OM before and that tool, while not definitive, would maybe refresh your memory and you would recall when you two had crossed paths within days of each other. I understand the tool has temporal difficulties: your own Recognition memory is to fill in the gaps.

Also, I was pretty excited at having a new tool and a ready use for it.

I'm not sure what's going on between you two. I have had a terrible temper in my past that has cost me dearly and I ... understand him. He contributes here much more constructively than I and if it were possible to pass on my newer serenity to him I would but alas that sort of knowledge must be paid for (maybe dearly) and sought on his own. Alatari (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for getting back to me. As I said in response to you at AN/I, my issue with OM isn’t a personal one, but I’m upset about his behavior because of what I think it represents. Something I think you should understand about me is that there’s one thing I hate about Wikipedia more than anything else, and it’s the way editors are held to inconsistent standards of civility based on how long they’ve been around. The Economist has even published a letter from me about this.

I know in situations like this one, a lot of people feel like the harm done by someone’s personal attacks needs to be weighed against the value of their content contributions, but thinking of it that way overlooks something important. When an editor is acting this way, it often isn’t easy to see how many potential new editors it’s driving away. I agree with what Panyd said about this in her arbitration candidady: “Editor retention is dropping by the month. New editor rates are also decreasing by the month. This issue is larger than simply the editor to hand but I must ask; Do we honestly think the allowance of continued incivility for the sake of one good editor is worth losing however many potential new editors are driven off by this behaviour?”

I’m really getting raked over the coals for taking a stand about this, but as far as I’m concerned this is what the project needs in order for the policies WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA to mean anything. I wish that in the long run someone could show me some gratitude about this, but the way things are going that doesn’t seem very likely. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Change comes sometimes from hitting a bottom and having to crawl the way back out. OM earned a warning just from this ANI and maybe he will get a ban. I tell you this: He has just had major heart surgery and he is possibly looking at spending the rest of his life at greatly diminished capacity and he is angry...very angry... so angry it will be spilling out all over. Does he deserve a ban and renunciation for some of the things he said the last few days: yes. Will it happen? For his own good: I think he could benefit from it and a little more time away. However the world works on how many friends you have; not laws and he has a great number of friends and they may love the hell out of him but it seems a disservice to enable him to be as abusive as he wants to whoever he wants. This is a volunteer endeavor and peace of mind and health are more important. I'm not sure what if any of this I should say to him or in there. Alatari (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I’m optimistic that the thread will be closed with more than just a warning for OM, so it probably isn’t essential that you express your opinion about this there. There’s one way in which that would be helpful, though, which is just that the thread is so unpleasant that I’d really like it to reach a consensus and be closed as quickly as possible. I realize that’s a kind of unimportant reason, though, so it’s up to you whether expressing your opinion there is worthwhile. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for finding the Osage News source - I've updated the article and also added the cite to BigHorse, confirming him on the notable list as a state rep.Parkwells (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alatary - thanks for your comments in the discussion surrounding OrangeMarlin. " Thompsma needed to just rewrite the section and put it up for all to review instead of spending 1000's of words just talking about a potential change." - You are absolutely right. I realize my mistake. I make mistakes sometimes, this was one of them. I'm working on a proposal and will put the paragraph together. My actual intent was to stimulate collaboration, but I went about it the wrong way.Thompsma (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm still irritated by String theory not being commonly called String hypothesis because it has failed to pass one test and is close to untestable and could remain in the realm of phlosophy. Theory in actual word usage in the science community is not following the definitions that I read in Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and other sources. If Creationists truly wanted to insult Evolution they would call it just a hypothesis; calling it just a theory isn't that insulting. Especially since it is a verified Theory and not just a theory. Gravity Theory could very well be modified yet again if Loop quantum gravity passes some experimental testing thus illustrating clearly the difference in fact and theory. Theories evolve... pardon the pun. Alatari (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

He tells Bobby he loves him. He does not change his attitude/approach towards the admin social worker. Volunteer Marek  14:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've watched the entire series several times. While he doesn't ever like that social worker, Hanks anger control improves and he even willingly attends anger management. That first episode where Hank is border obnoxious loudmouth is modified to him being a slightly angry, boring midwesterner and shows' straight man. Alatari (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Did you just call Hank Hill a "midwesterner"? Volunteer Marek  16:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

OMG! I insulted the great Republic of Texas! Damn, they're not part of the midwest! Alatari (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I truly think OM could benefit from some self-control on his angry outbursts. Rage is bad for the blood pressure and thus the heart. Alatari (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Probably. Volunteer Marek  16:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for helping with the spider diagram. I've posted a new photo. P0M (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alatari. This is the type of idea you should raise in the first instance on the article talkpage. If you're planning on launching it as a nice surprise whilst there's an Arbcom case ongoing, don't be surprised by the drama that will cause. You will find the info you are after at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. --FormerIP (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I had planned this last week before the Arbcom and I had the idea for something to warn Muslims back in 2010 during the Everybody Draw Muhammad event but didn't know how to do it. I would think it would be a compromise position that all could settle on now that there is an ArbCom. --Alatari (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You may turn out to be right that it could be implementable. But I think that, given that the very issue is currently at ArbCom, a bold move would be bad etiquette. More to the point, it is likely to get editors' backs up so that the idea is less likely to find consensus. I think proposing the idea on the talkpage would be the right way to go. --FormerIP (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I want to have it built in a sandbox and practice on some other page before proposing. I've seen people spend days discussing on talk pages about what something could look like and never actually building it. I'm not here but maybe once or twice a week and so when the urge to get something done is on me I have to do it. Wikipedia seems to be some people's life work and I'm sure they are doing wikipedia while on the work computer and spending 5 or 6 hours a day here and they seem to expect this from everyone... --Alatari (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

User talk:Alatari/Template:MuhammadEditNotice

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

Is there a way to have a template display a random list of 20 names from a category? --Alatari (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not as far as I know; such a template would make it hard for the servers to cache the page. The closest I can find is {{Random page in category}}, which displays an unchanging link that jumps you to a random article when you click on it. I suggest you ask this question again at Village pump (technical), where the project's template experts will see it. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Edits to Delhi. I removed the montage on the page because 1) it was not representative and biased, and 2) irrelevant. I do not understand your comment about 'extensive' [sic] sourced information. Those were just photos of a few random places in the city some of which may be relevant and others are not. Based on past user discussions, the montage was put up with just 2 people deciding what goes on the main article about the capital city of the second largest country in the world. I made a change which made the article better, and if you would call that 'vandalism' then I doubt how well you are 'contributing' or should I say dictating the content. Nix.kappler (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Vandalism is when you deleted 30k of sourced information from the page... Quit acting like you are innocent of vandalism. Maybe you didn't realize you were removing 30% of the article in one edit. 'Extensive' is the correct US English spelling. --Alatari (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alatari, there's currently an ongoing discussion about splitting the Stop Online Piracy Act page at Talk:Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#ONGOING_DISCUSSION_-_Splitting_the_Article. You've familiarized yourself with the entry before, and your insight and perspective on the matter would be appreciated. Hope to see you there, Sloggerbum (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for your message and I will sort out the ref. Not really known for sure about Libya, Prof. Khulusi’s theory seemed to think so. Cheers--Simon Salousy (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

  Dust off your Polaroid camera and pack your best lenses. The first-ever Wikipedia Takes St. Louis photo hunt kicks off Sat, Sept. 15, at 12:30pm in downtown St. Louis. Tour the streets of the Rome of the West with other Wikipedians and even learn a little St. Louis history. This event is a fun and collaborative way to enhance St. Louis articles with visual content. Novice photographers welcome! Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about my comment! Didn't mean to aggravate... Zad68 21:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Alatari (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Here's the article on the father and company - <http://www.blackpast.org/?q=aah/c-r-patterson-sons-company-1893-1939 C.R. Patterson & Sons Company", Black Past>. Have been working on some other things but may be able to help soon.Parkwells (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

You obviously missed the previous discussions on the restructuring of this article. Can I encourage you to take a close look at the references in Obligations? You also restored a verbose and unbalanced section on membership requirements. Your input on a Lewis works in Scotland, but I can personally assure you has no bearing on the practice in UGLE. In a broader perspective, the article needs restructured and slimmed down to a point where enhancement is less confusing. In other words, simplify and let the specialised articles do the details. You took no part in the previous discussion. Please read the talk page. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I read through the discussion and even did a page search for the word 'obligations' and reviewed the Membership discussion and did not see the discussion on the Major Overhaul. On a topic this notable I don't consider 3 people a consensus. Freemasonry is a very old topic and the pages content will be challenged regularly. Editors will continue to pull old content back especially when the sources are still out there. Alatari (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, thank you for your thoughtful input. I really don't think three is a consensus either, but nobody else responded. The MOS says "Be bold". Thanks for being awake. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the "thanks" on the Henry article. I have a few magazines that I go through every month looking for references and one came up. It's nice to see another "computer old timer" here on WP. I still have my Apple IIc and occasionally have a bad dream about FORTRAN... :) Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

PL/1, such a waste of my college life. Thanks for the cookie! Alatari (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

twinkle created a new page. Gotcha. Would hate to have your backlog. Alatari (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please read the PROD template that you are edit warring over. If someone removes the template — which I have — then it stays off and you must go to AFD to continue the debate. I'm not going to engage in childish edit warring, but your revert is improper and should be reverted. — goethean 12:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Then we go to AFD. She is not notable enough to have her own article and 3 other editors have suggested this. Alatari (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is very, very silly. — goethean 12:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Read the talk page. I am quoting two other editors. Marriage to a famous man does not automatically get a Wikipedia page. Alatari (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

No offense, but do you know anything about the subject area, i.e., Bob Dylan? there are shelves of books written about him, all of which mention Sara, because Dylan wrote many of his best songs about or to her. This extensive commentary absolutely does make her a highly notable person. 1329 Google books hits. 101 Google scholar hits. 33,900 google hits. [2][3][4][5][6] — goethean 13:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Then that is supposed to be in HIS article. Just because Dylan wrote songs about a subject doesn't make it notable enough for inclusion to Wikipedia. Alatari (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

If there are that many sources about Sara then why is her article mostly unsourced and bloated? Alatari (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

At best she is notable enough for three paragraphs, songs about her, marriage, divorce. Alatari (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I won't edit war over your change on this at Missouri (mainly because I don't care enough one way or the other).

In this edit, you partially supported the edit with the statement "CE replaced AD years ago". But per Wikipedia's community accepted Manual of Style for dates and numbers, specifically the section listed at WP:ERA, it clearly states that on Wikipedia both are acceptable, as well as specifically stating "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change."

Like I said, I won't revert it back. But please be aware of this in the future. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

There is not other usage in the article so either way is fine. I was under the impression it was CE preferred (since I almost always see it in religion articles only) so thankyou for pointing out WP:ERA. Alatari (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. In the Jennifer Lewis page, I piped the appropriate pages to Jenifer Lewis and added a hatnote. If the Harvard professor's article is removed, then Jennifer Lewis could be used as a redirect, to prevent confusion. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for spotting my error. However, I piped it Jennifer Lewis, because of a previous edit. I will correct it. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your willingness to learn in new areas, and your work to improve Sara Dylan. I thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thankyou! Alatari (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message - very interesting. Bear in mind that "Blackadder" was set in an alternative reality and bears no relationship to real history! :-) Deb (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for notifying me about the defects of the Sara Dylan article. I have re-written the article. Best wishes, Mick gold (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia. I actually do have an account - Metalello - but I didn't notice I wasn't signed it. :D - Metalello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.155.137 (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Just FYI [ANI request] [Mediation request] --IseeEwe (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

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) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_cXQEhbP2gLbvCdf&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect BIXie. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 15#BIXie until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 01:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply