User talk:Atlan

Archives

August 24, 2002 - June 19, 2007 June 20, 2007 - July 7, 2007 July 8, 2007 - September 13, 2007 September 14, 2007 - December 17, 2007 December 18, 2007 - May 18, 2008 May 19, 2008 - August 31, 2008 September 1, 2008 - January 14, 2009 January 15, 2009 - August 27, 2009 August 28, 2009 - December 4, 2009 December 5, 2009 - March 16, 2010 March 17, 2010 - July 27, 2010 July 28, 2010 - January 15, 2012 January 16, 2012 - October 21, 2012 October 22, 2012 - January 21, 2015

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[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) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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