User talk:Atlan/Archive6

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

there are 2 series' of them.

Resident Evil Movie

Biohazard Movie

The "Resident Evil Movie Series" is the non-canon one, whilst the "Biohazard Movie Series" is unknown.

The Biohazard series follows within the "canon-line," as in it has nothing in it that the games say is non-canon. And, due to being closer to Capcom than the Resident Evil Movie Series, the canon should rather be under "Reputed Canononical". That way people can discuss wether-or-not the Biohazard series should be counted as canon without the page saying it is or isn't.OsirisV (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. Still, "reputed canonical" implies speculation and makes it unfit for an encyclopedia article. It's fine to make it a topic of discussion on the talk page though.--Atlan (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough.OsirisV (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly I'm not used to applying sockpuppet tags. Appreciate it! --jonny-mt 13:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and before I forget, nice work on nailing the sock :) --jonny-mt 13:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem. I appreciate your judgement in both the Afd and the sock block. I would have left the main account unblocked in this case just like you did.--Atlan (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Atlan, I just went to the DBZ talk page and User:Son Gohan said we should start an article on talk pages. I agreed, since they were pretty important. What do you say I start it and you can continue on with it a little bit. Jimblack (talk) 05:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Jimblack

The main reason I added that link there was to shorten the Plot heading significantly. If you look at the history, you will find that the heading was originally very long, and was essentially a copy/paste job from said Bulbapedia entry. I left the link there in case people wished to read the full plot. It is not spam. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 22:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I was aware of that. Sorry, my edit summary wasn't really clear on what I meant. It's just that we don't do these external links in the middle of an article (that includes to 'pedias), despite your good intentions. I don't think that link even warrants mention in an external links section. Kudos for shortening that bloated plot section by the way.--Atlan (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can see where you're coming from now. However, I must say that the external links probably should remain, although it's really only on the ground that the StrategyWiki link is there as well. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 10:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Atlan, I would have prefered to have emailed you privately about your edits to a source of mine (www.gossipgirls.com), but none the less I will speak publicly about the issue I have with your deletions. Personally, I respect the fact that you have been an editor for over five years on Wikipedia and myself being just a newbie I don't want to come off as being someone who challenges you outlandishly. Regardless, I'm straying from the point of my post. I enjoy updating celebrity information and I have found a great source in www.gossipgirls.com. They have provided information/news for such press conglomerates as Fox News and AOL. They provide accurate and impartial news about celebrities (despite their name). They even have celebrity profile pages with up to date information about celebrities relationship status, birthdate, events attended, videos, and pictures. Kim Kardashian not only states that gossipgirls.com is her favorite site but that the information she posts about herself on her official page comes from gossipgirls http://www.kimkardashian.com/2008/06/im-so-glad-to-be-back.php. Gossip girls is not a slander site, but a site that brings non-biased information to the people who want to know about celebrities. I am just confused as to why you deleted my edits, while leaving IMDB (which is basically copied directly from this page for articles), TMZ.com, People.com, E-online, The Hollywood Reporter, still remain as "reliable" sources of information. Basically, you've deemed my source as being faulty, yet you've kept all of the other celebrity news sites (with the exception of IMDB), some of which are biased, up on the articles I recenly edited. I'm just curious as to what conditions go into your decision as to whether a source is reliable or not. In many cases I only edited information about the celebrities attending philanthropy events/groups they support, television appearances, songs they've written, roles in movies, or information backing up relationships status. I also added an external link spot to the actual celebrity profile which is on the website. All of my contributions have been deemed useless because they came from a specific informational website, which isn't given the just credit it deserves. All I ask is that you check out the website before judging it... Please get back to me as soon as you can because I respect your experience and knowledge of Wikipedia. Thanks for the understanding and I apologize if this causes you any inconvenience. Harris Feldman (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You are free to take issue with any edit I make and discuss it with me, don't worry about that. Also, I'd rather prefer you do that publically here than by e-mail, if only to let other editors know what's going on. As for you website, I visited it of course. I don't go around reverting other people's edits based on assumptions. The problem is that your website deals in gossip. Gossip is often unreliable, at least for Wikipedia's sake, no matter how good a track record your website has. Many times, the information is based on assumptions. Also, I considered your additions mostly irrelevant for an encyclopedia. For example,

WP:BLP

for why gossipgirls.com won't do as a source most of the time.

I removed your external link to the website mostly because it seemed like you were spamming it. You placed the link in every article you edited after all. Furthermore, the same BLP issues as with the sourcing arise when using the website for an external link. Read

WP:EL for our guideline on external links.--Atlan (talk

) 21:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I changed my screen name awhile ago because I got bored of the 'shadow jester' moniker. :p I know editors would eventually figure out I changed screen name's :p --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  20:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but unlike you I have been actively discussing this issue on the discussion page trying to come to an agreement. Simply undoing my contribution without first even attempting to prove it invalid puts you in the wrong here. The only one guilty of edit warring at this point just might be you given that you have failed to give any justification for your revisions so maybe you should keep in mind the

Engaging in discussion does not give you the right to violate the 3-revert-rule. Conversely, NOT participating in said discussion does not forbid me from reverting the article to the consensus version. I have nothing to add to what StarScream1007 already said in the discussion, hence I've left no comment so far.--Atlan (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

three-revert rule as you have falsely claimed and the current and very recent “ethnically ambiguous” revision is not the result of a consensus but the contribution of one person. Yet another false statement you have made. It would have been more appropriate if you had bothered to Assume good faith as oppose to your first actions being to throw around blanket accusations and undo revisions without even attempting to make your case in discussion. Siddhartha21 (talk

) 18:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The warning template simply states you should not breach 3RR, it doesn't say you already did. It's not a "blanket accusation", it's not a accusation at all. Still, I'm not one to get the other party blocked just to "win" the argument. I'd rather see you abide by the rules than get you blocked. You make a good point in saying my "revert to consensus" is the contribution of one person. That's true, apart from the fact that I am in support of this contribution, which makes two. We also happen to be the only two regular editors of the article, so I don't expect any more input in this discussion. I support StarScream1007 because his opinion is backed by Wikipedia policy. I expect in the end you will likely be right, but right now there are no sources that say so.--Atlan (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's how it's pronounced, not because you see Kapukon on the back of the video game boxes and stuff. If it's Kapukon for real, then the bacronym for the Japanese way of saying Capcom won't make any sense. Think about it before you jump to your personal conclusions.

M/8/12/08 10:53 P.M. PR NAIREBIL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekin Republican (talk • contribs) 02:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh no. This, "カプコン", clearly spells kapukon. It's not even debatable, that's just what it says. Your above explanation is yet more proof that you have limited understanding of Japanese. That's quite alright, but you shouldn't be editing Japanese translations.--Atlan (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I know what that stands for but I have a point to. It could be either both. It just goes to show you that you haven't been in Japan to hear if they either said Kapukon or Kapukommu. 7:20 PM Augu 30th 2008

That is utter ignorance and bullshit at its finest. Please try to be smart elsewhere, it's not working here.--Atlan (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, dude. Its all forgiven. I apologize for calling your message tedious. Take Care.

How do format this request properly first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisstanley (talk • contribs) 22:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You are of course referring to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mafia Expert. You need to choose code letters that actually make sense, add diffs as evidence and lastly, you need to list your request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser.--Atlan (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In the Japanese Version they said they went to Liberia in Africa to stop a Civil War so leave it there and stop deleting it. 7:17 PM Augu 30th 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekin Republican (talk • contribs) 23:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese versions of all RE games have the same English-spoken cut-scenes as the English versions, so claiming they said something different in the Japanese version is pretty stupid. Furthermore, you have very little credibility in this matter. You are known to insert false information pertaining Liberia on more than one occasion. You can't fool me, so please stop bringing this nonsense to my talk page.--Atlan (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)