User talk:Athaenara

Archives: 1 2 3 4 ------------ Signature Art  Gallery ------------------- WikiComedy  

Civilisation is High Maintenance. 

IFF the topic of your post fits in none of the sections in the table of contents, Click here to post a new message. If your intended post is part of a discussion on another talk page, I am more likely to reply there.

VANDALISM THREAT

Guarded __ __ __ __ __

Words of wisdom

Why we're here

This project is here to build an encyclopedia.  Please limit your actions here to things that help that goal. — A Man In Black (talk · contribs) 21:46, March 1 2007 (UTC)

You know it ain't easy

Oh, good grief, it took me 5 months to find the undo button on edits, you expect me to see the obvious alert you posted right above your message?

—   KP Botany (talk · contribs) 20:01, March 18 2007 (UTC)

Assume no clue

Has anyone else noticed how spammers and other conflict of interest editors think the guidelines are for the other guy and what they are doing is "useful" and shouldn't be questioned? And they are completely sincere about that.

It's entirely plausible that an editor can plow blithely on, unaware of guidelines. Perhaps we need a corollary to Assume Good Faith called Assume No Clue …

—   JonHarder (talk · contribs) 03:27, January 19 2007 (UTC)

Protect the encyclopedia

The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on Wikipedia is overwhelming.

If we are to remain true to our encyclopedic mission, this kind of nonsense cannot be tolerated. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy.

I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation. This is simply out of hand, and we need your help.

—   BradPatrick (talk · contribs) 09:53, September 29 2006 (UTC)

Wonkish & Arbish

We have dialogues here in two languages. Let's for the purposes of discussion call them Wonkish and Arbish.

In Wonkish, discretion stands for certain vague and disreputable areas of policy where what should happen is not yet properly regulated.

In Arbish, you have always to look behind applications of policy to see intention and the application to the mission of writing the encyclopedia.

In other words, discretion in Arbish is read as saying that proactive admins are the main lines of defence of the project. It is much better to have them out there doing their best, taking the mop and bucket away from a few, than to do up the constraints ever tighter to preempt misuse of admin powers.

—   Charles Matthews (talk · contribs) 03:23, October 1 2006 (UTC)

Signature talk

Subsections in Archive 1:

• Complaints (link).
• Gallery Guest Book (link).
• Category (link).

Barnstar for Gallery   →  A Wikipedian Signature Art Gallery relocated January 9, 2007. —Æ.

Absolutely beautiful! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.247.220.9 (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC).

    Thank you! — Æ.

Nice work

Greetings Athaenara, I see you maintaining WP:BLP/N and just wanted to say that it is good to see someone like yourself taking care of business there. Thanks for that. Also, I caught sight of your sig gallery and I must say that with the formatting and layout it is a pleasure to look at. Take it easy. (→Netscott) 00:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for the encouragement (BLP/N)! If you don't mind, I'll put your comments about the gallery in the Gallery Guest Book section there, unless you would like to add your comments yourself—let me know. — Athænara ✉ 00:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Autograph books are a bit contentious right now... I suppose I wouldn't mind if you transfer my comments there though. Cheers. (→Netscott) 00:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah one other thing, many Wikipedia editor find large signatures annoying could you perhaps alter your to be like this: — Athænara ✉? Large signatures tend to give sig users a bad name. :-) (→Netscott) 00:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not an autograph book (cf. my comments on the gallery talk page about that very thing) but a curated collection. Thank you for your kind permission to add your comments to the guestbook. — Æ. ✉ 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Sections in Archive 1:

• 50 States flag PNG (link).
• Inexplicably delinked (link).
• Youth Sign Language Pics - see Talk:Youth Leadership Camp#Requested Pictures.

You're a genius?

I hope this doesn't offend you, but you didn't seem like a genius. And you don't edit anything particularly brilliant, but rather, your edits seem to be just simple fixes here and there. How about completing the table of logic symbols? That's something I actually wrote on the article's talk page that I was going to do, but never did. Or how about "dumbing down," the articles on advanced mathematics and physics, so that, for example, the average reader can understand what the hell this means? At least maybe you can help me correct the article on Classical Liberalism. Robocracy 07:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC) aka HP_Owner in the IRC

No, I really cannot imagine why Mensa let me in. Given your low estimation of my intelligence, you won't be disappointed that I decline your offer of an assortment of ambitions in which you've lost interest. — Æ. 14:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonspecific comment intended to be hard to classify

Not sure any more that a normal person can add anything to your Talk page, without first spending a week to study your archiving system :-). Anyway, I'm giving it a try. Your change here does show a fantastic attention to detail. I'd just like to throw in my two cents that it may not matter so much if archive pages get large (over 81kb), because I think no one ever goes there (I mean normal people, not like us). If you truly can't classify this comment, it's fine to delete it! EdJohnston 20:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, I studied the "puzzling change" you reverted. The guy found a previous version of the page in its history, added a comment, hit save, and -presto- all current discussions disappeared while previously concluded discussions returned in their earlier incarnations.

		Barnstar of Exemplary Reversion
		Awarded to EdJohnston for saving a Wikipedia Project Page from destruction. — Athænara ✉   03:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For your act of vigilance, I award this very fine Barnstar. — Athænara ✉ 03:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Very nice star, I'm honored! Now I'll have to go resolve a conflict somewhere. EdJohnston 05:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Massive Edits

Yes, that is how they were before, but they looked odd, and this box idea was originally in the area of Sen. Patrick Leahy. Therefore, I modeled it after that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnitedStatesIndia (talk • contribs) 21:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please reply on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization#Over 100 edits to succession boxes. Thanks. — Athænara ✉ 21:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow

I don't think I've come across anyone on wiki that works as hard as you. You rock. Keep up the good work! I wish I could work the way you do, I'm serious. I've had a bad two days, suffered some personal attacks and stuff, and I've been thinking about quitting Wiki. I'm not going to do it. Looking at your edits was pretty inspiring. I've resolved not to let certain people get me down, and get back to fighting vandalism, something I'm pretty good at. Thanx for renewing my inspiration in Wiki.

Sue Rangell 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you, it is very kind of you to say so—and I'm glad you're back on the job. — Athænara ✉ 09:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Subsections in Archive 2:

• Aaron Klein (link).
• Aliweb (link).
• Suite101 dot com AfD (link).
• PSK Vanderbilt (link).
• The Embarcadero (link).
• Bloodless Bullfighting (link).
• Suhayl Saadi (link).

Poweroid

• (In re user conflict of interest, WP:COI/N; user name = company name, WP:RFCU.)

Could you mediate Poweroid's offer* to list websites he may have added, or offer suggestions on how this could be done to keep the list confidential? I'm thinking that it would be best to have a third party involved, rather than my doing everything directly. Thanks. --Ronz 15:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You know what bothers me about this? His good faith is being assumed, yet he's added links for his clients and raised a confidentiality issue instead of removing them. How can we continue to assume good faith if he doesn't remove them himself? — Athænara ✉ 23:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I just don't know what other venues to take this to. RfC or ANI maybe?

I think he want to make a list and email it, or a least I can't think of other ways for him to distribute the list while keeping it confidential. Thoughts? --Ronz 00:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you asked him to remove them? If he will do that, there will be no need for more elaborate processes. If he won't, then I think WP:RFC/USER would be next. — Æ. ✉ 00:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Puts the responsibility on his shoulders, which is where it should be. Thanks. --Ronz 03:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! — Æ. ✉ 03:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was a good idea, but he's taking the approach that there is no coi. I've never been a part of an RfC before. It looks like two editors must attempt to resolve the issue first. Care to give it a try? --Ronz 16:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've disputed his preferred take on this. As for Rfc, just a comment: I don't like process-heavy instruction-creep procedures, but of course it may be an eventuality. — Æ. ✉ 02:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

RFCN Poweroid

Please see my comments at that topic. I started looking around prompted by your RFCN. I'm having a hard time believing the problem is at all as serious as presented. Is the name duplicative of a business - yes? Is it probable that the business name was the source of the name - very much could be. I didn't see where that was asked of him. But by my random shot at investigating, I just can't see imputing the motives as they appear to be presented. So far, I can't see this as 'suspicious'. If this is CoI, it is goshdarn subtle.

Unfortunately, I believe you have conflated two issues. Is there CoI? That is what I am having a lot of trouble with. Is there a name conflict? Yes. But it is a name that's been used for 2.5+ years. To bring it to RFCN under this progression of steps is really unfortunate, in my view. Shenme 07:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I sketched the facts in the RFCN as accurately (and as briefly) as I could.

The conflict of interest issues and the noticeboard discussion about them simply are what they are. The few talk page refs and diffs fill in some blanks per the reasonable expectation that Wikipedian editors attempt to reach consensus before moving farther up the administrative process line. Wikipedia:Username policy#Inappropriate usernames mentions neither restrictions nor allowances with respect to the length of time a username has been in use.

If there was anything in your post here which you had meant to include in your post on the RFCN, please add it there rather than generating more threads on more venues, ok? Thanks. — Athænara ✉ 09:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the username could be acceptable given the guidelines in place at the time when Poweroid registered it. Does he have a coi with the links he's been adding? Absolutely. Is there more to it? Possibly - he likes to include the links in the first edit of three successive ones, and rarely mentions that he's adding a link (from what I've seen, he used to mention the added links, but stopped doing so after they were being removed). He says he's added other links to clients of his, but he won't remove them nor make a list of them for all to examine. He's made no contention that the links are inappropriate currently. I don't know what should be done about the situation, but I'm disappointed by his lack of cooperation in fixing mistakes he readily admits to making. --Ronz 14:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the result shows (at this stage, at least) that the username has been grandfathered in. And so it goes (ref. Kurt Vonnegut). — Athænara ✉ 02:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: The user's comment—"I don't have your experience/knowledge of Wikipedia policy so perhaps that puts me at a disadvantage"—is funny in view of the fact that I've been a Wikipedian for only six months! — Æ. ✉ 05:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your note on Poweroid's page. I've been here a lot longer (on and off) but just the other day someone pointed out a bit of discussion etiquette that I'd seen, but didn't know was official guideline (marking discussion you later go back and re-edit, by doing <s>old text</s>). We teach each other (even if there it was because I'd irked him by changing my comment! ;-) I hope I didn't come across as a pain. Please accept my apologies if I did. Shenme 06:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Your main points seemed to be: [1] the request for comment was misguided; [2] the conflict of interest policy concerns were imaginative; [3] the only important factor was how long the user had been editing.

The user has repeatedly slighted the policy concerns (and editors who express them) as trivial. After I posted to the user's talk page, at my own behest, and on my own behalf, because the user had misrepresented there what I said on the noticeboard, the user's response was "Thanks for replying for Ronz"—not honest, not civil and very far from assuming good faith.

By the way, the basis of the "confidentiality concerns" comment in the RFCN was this edit in which the user posted "It wouldn't be wise to give away the farm to the competition by posting my client list publicly." The remainder was the offer* (see above) to which Ronz referred in the first post in this section.

It does seem that you have been trying to follow up on the policy issues themselves with the user, and I respect that. — Athænara ✉ 08:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

May I repeat what I said before? I don't BELIEVE there's a CoI. But I'm not infallible so I've also said I'd be happy to examine any instance someone else suspects as CoI and happy to revise edits I've made in the past. That's all on the record. If that is "slighting policy concerns" I'm confused. I certainly didn't mean to suggest you and Ronz were "trivial". I'm astounded you seem to have read that between the lines.

I notice how you selectively quote from my comments and refer to the "remainder". Why don't we have the actual wording of the remainder? It's, "But, like I said, I'll put a list together for anyone here who's researching me in relation to this CoI claim. Please tell me how and where I can provide it." So, sorry, but I'm having trouble seeing the "basis" for your "confidentiality concerns" comment in the RFCN.

That you replied to comments I made for Ronz was a matter of fact and I was excluding further complicating the multiple location discussion by accepting that my comments were replied to. They were not designed to be "dishonest", "uncivil", or to suggest I did not trust your good faith. Bear in mind that at this point you and Ronz had had extensive discussions elsewhere about my case none of which I was privy to (as I was unaware of all the buzz you had generated in several locations).

Whether I misrepresented you re. what is now a relatively unimportant matter - your opinion based on a single, brief, slightly ambiguous comment you made - I'll leave it to readers to decide. Your comment was, "Poweroid seems not to have added his links ... to articles in the past month—am I missing something? " My interpretation was that you were questioning whether there was a CoI case. Perhaps I made a big interpretation error, perhaps not. I'll leave it to the reader to decide. Poweroid 14:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Third opinions

Wikipedia:Third opinion

Subsections in Archive 3:

• Naming conventions (link).
• Pike disambig (link).
• Tire companies (link).
• Kingsmill massacre (link).
• Newton Falls, Ohio (link).
• Infobox (link).
• X Japan (link).
• Talk pages (link).   → Copy of Purple Barnstar Award preserved here also:

To Fresheneesz, for injuries suffered in steadfast defence of Wikipedia:Civility in the face of determined attack, I award the Purple Barnstar. —Æ. ✉ 03:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for my first barnstar! I'm honored. Fresheneesz 03:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You truly earned it! — Athænara ✉ 03:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Subsections in Archive 4:

• Seth Swirsky (link).

A -

You've only heard from me when I needed help but I just wanted to say a sincere "Thank You" for being of great assistance to me with "you know who" (dare I say his name!). You are a fantastic editor who really cares. Again, thank you! Seth Swirsky 14:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Seth, you're a sweetheart, and after what that guy put you through you deserve a Purple Heart Star yourself. — Athænara ✉ 02:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Hello again! I see you've been helping out at BLP/N. What is the point of that noticeboard exactly? You submit a case there when bad stuff has been put in a biographical article, and you're unable to remove it because of stubborn people? Would that imply that if stubborn people insert favorable stuff, that's not a BLP case, just a normal editing dispute? Or are there, as usual, no rules :-) Your impressions would be helpful. EdJohnston 03:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My impressions are as shallow as one might find anywhere. Start with "reporting and discussing incidents that require outside intervention" and continue through "editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes." Piece of cake. — Athænara ✉ 06:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Carla Martin

• (In re BLP/N report, AN/3RR reports 1 & 2, checkuser request.)

Athaenara, thanks for your help with Carla Martin. I haven't been doing this for too long so I wasn't sure what the next step was in dealing with Schmetterling et al. PubliusFL 21:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. (It wouldn't hurt to thank the admin who blocked her, too :-)  This may not be the end of the disruptive editing, but at least there's a breather for a bit, and the user may have gained some understanding of how far her editing patterns deviate from Wikipedia policies and guideliness. One hopes so, at any rate. — Athænara ✉ 21:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, "not the end" is right: Oh well! PubliusFL 06:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

One's hopes were dashed—but your second report has yielded results: thirty one hours this time. — Æ. ✉ 08:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Schmetterling seems to be evading the block with an anon IP. I have requested a checkuser. PubliusFL 19:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Fast results (open proxy blocked) too, good work! — Æ. ✉ 00:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fans and brand management

• (In re Clamp (manga artists), archived BLP/N report, Talk:×××HOLiC#Requested move.)

Hi there, thanks for so thoroughly putting a lid on that Clamp thing - just another example of fandom-infused purism, I'm afraid. Speaking of fans with strong opinions, you seem to be right, that RfC on Darkcat21 isn't really going anywhere. But on the plus side, it's been rather quiet around the X Japan article the past few weeks, which is good. Anyhow, there is currently another move request to reduce stylization going on (for ×××HOLiC, one of Clamp's works). Given that there is already a bunch of people around who are irrevocably opposed to the idea of standardized capitalization, you are more than just welcome to join us. Take care - Cyrus XIII 11:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd choose "HOLiC" myself. I'll think about it. — Athænara ✉ 13:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Strikeout What, am I nuts? "Holic" is better. — Æ. 00:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Holic. Just Holic. No exes. — Æ. 14:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I posted my support for "Holic" on Talk:×××HOLiC#Evil polls. There has been at least another yard of dispute since you posted about it here, Cyrus, so I'm glad I waited. — Athænara ✉ 09:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong

• (In re BLP/N report and related Rfa.)

I'll try to not be so lazy next time and track down the links myself :) You're obviously busy enough on the BLP board as it is - Duly noted and appreciated. CovenantD 12:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks :-)   — Athænara ✉ 00:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment on Burt Reynolds

• (In re archived noticeboard discussion, same BLP subject, attribution issues.)

A Request for comment on Burt Reynolds' birthplace has been opened at Talk:Burt Reynolds#Request for Comment. -- Donald Albury 21:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of that discussion. I stayed out of it, because I didn't see anything I could contribute to it. I'm glad to see that the disputes there were finally resolved. — Athænara ✉ 05:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello, Thank you very much for your input at Naeim Giladi; now peace has finally broken out on that article after edit-warring for months. Here I should insert a bouquet of flowers, but since I´m no good at inserting pictures I´m afraid you just have to imagine them! I have not been on Wikipedia for a few weeks, so when I tried to look at the WP:BLP/N it had been archived. However, there seem to be something wrong with the link(?) Regards, Huldra 11:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Try the link again—the section you're looking for is the third one in that archive. — Athænara ✉ 12:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath

Hi there! I have stripped the article. Can you please include it to your watch list in order to prevent unencyclopedic promotional reverts? Thank you. - Watchtower Sentinel 03:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can do that for awhile—keep it on yours, too, though, because articles which attract POV edits need a few more than one looking out for them. — Athænara ✉ 03:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)