User talk:Athanasius1

Welcome to Athanasius' talk page. If you leave me a message, I tend to reply on your talk page - unless you ask me to do otherwise. I tend to archive with some regularity (I hate long talk pages). Please respond on this talk page if our conversation has been archived. I refactor my talk page for readability. I will assume the best about your intentions and edits, please grant me the same priviliege. You are welcome to email me. But if so, please note that I do not check that email regularly, and I may respond on-wiki unless there is a compelling reason not to. I prefer the transparency of on-wiki communication. Leave me a message.

Archives

Index 1

Welcome!

Hello, Athanasius1, and

. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

You've done some good work already, I see. Always happy to have another valuable editor around! John Carter (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to take a quick swing through and see if there are any refs that really shouldn't be there? I'm at work, so I shouldn't take the time for a thorough review before Natty's block expires.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at talk page. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 10:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just threw in a request for editor assistance here, perhaps not with any well-thought out idea of what I was asking for; it's more of a cri de coeur in narrative form, resulting from accumulated frustration I suppose. I'd appreciate any words of wisdom or useful commentary you may have (whichever way they may cut). Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone suggested posting a query at

WT:IPNA, so I did that. Here. I'll be interested to see what shakes out. As I said there, I don't much care how the thing finally looks so long as a few competent and knowledgeable Wikipedia editors conclude that it's okay. JohnInDC (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Editor Assistance/Requests

Please don't overuse the "stuck" tag. That shouldn't be used more than once in probably a hundred taggings - usually another tag will work. For instance, the "Sciencewatcher" section can be tagged "unresolved" or even "answered" since we did give the guy advice, and the "telepathy" section is a clear "answered" or even "resolved," per Mendaliv's answer. Thanks! Fleetflame 23:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Athanasius1 -looks like you completely misunderstood the nominations I made at

]

s'alright - you weren't the only editor to be fooled, so it was probably my method of nomination that was at least partly to blame. Grutness...wha? 04:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looksing anyhow. --

]

Project 86

Hey guy, that user Schwabette done those thing again (remove sourced information).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_86&action=history

If you can, report it to the admins speaking that it was done again. My english is poor, sorry. Bye. (JoaquimMetalhead (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, Athanasius1. Thanks for your participation

]

please not the discussion that was attempted with what's his name long ago on this subject. Only result was no change, a worse-off article, and his removable of citations [1]. His rebuttal seems to be that 'people don't agree with his viewpoint so they must be bad people'. And who exactly is archiving these discussions to bury his hostility and unwillingness to do anything more than post long-winded non-responses?

hey, you want discussion on the Ford FE page, well I'm trying to discuss. But as usual, the other guy doesn't want to discuss/be satisfied. Thanks for no help on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.159.130 (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am will shortly be posting to

with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN

"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

• User:Peter Damian (old)
• User:HistorianofLogic
• User:Logicist
• User:Here today, gone tomorrow
• User:Renamed user 4

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of

who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project".

]

Re Bart Sells His Soul

Hi, the old version of

]

Added to

WP:MISS

Entry for this user made in

WP:MISS

: Missing Wikipedians

• Athanasius1 (talk · contribs · count) - Last edit: 19:07, 22 July 2009. Left a great epitaph - ^{editing is fun}

Gone, but not forgotten. Get in touch... Mediation4u (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC) ^{editing is fun}[reply]

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deltopia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deltopia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]