User talk:Athaenara

Wednesday

11 September 2024

00:00 UTC

This is a Wikipedia user page.
If you find this page on a site other than Wikipedia you are viewing a mirror site.
The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Athaenara.

Template:Multicol

Template:Multicol-break

VANDALISM THREAT

Guarded

__

Template:Multicol-end

Email

An account for Wikipedia-related email to me exists. However, I check its inbox infrequently, perhaps once or twice a month. I receive few messages there and send none. If you seek my attention for any Wikipedia-related matter, please post your concerns on this page (e.g. here). — Athaenara ✉ 22:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current Requests for Adminship

● See Archive 000 for inactive RfA discussions.

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
RfB candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report

No RfXs since 08:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC).—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline}

Deletion discussions

● See Archive 00 for inactive deletion discussions. See also: User talk:Athaenara/Archives#Archive links.

See also: Deletion policy • Deletion review • Why was my page deleted?

Copyvios and socks

→ In re: Ongoing project spearheaded by DoriSmith and Uncia. [ Athaenara ✉ 07:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC) ][reply]

More PolTX stuff

I know that you're also following along with the saga, so I figured you'd like to know (if you don't already), that Uncia has filed another ANI notice (WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#More copyvio by User:LamyQ) and a suspected sockpuppet report (WP:Suspected sock puppets/PoliticianTexas (2nd)). Any help you can give would be appreciated! Dori (Talk • Contribs) 05:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added those links (diff) to the WT:RFCHU section. With so many anonIPs listed in the sockpuppet categories, I would think anonIP range blocks would help. — Athaenara ✉ 14:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LamyQ was blocked as a sockpuppet (yay!). The action has now moved over to WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#More_copyvio_by_User:LamyQ, where there's now a discussion about a community ban and a range block. Please feel free to add your opinions! Dori (Talk • Contribs) 04:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting content without notifying the creator

H. If you are going to delete content whether it is articles, templates or whatever in future can you please notify the creator of the work as a good gesture rather than just deleting something which appears misfitting. I'm talking about Template:CinemaofSingapore which shouldn't have been deleted, rather applied to Singaporean cinema articles as standard with other cinemas. Regards The Bald One ^{White cat} 10:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, two months ago, 22:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC) to be precise, a few days before I learned that the editor who was moving many such pages and tagging the resulting redirects for deletion was doing much of that without consultation and without posting courtesy notices. After Andrew c's heads-up note (11 July 2008, in User talk:Athaenara/Archive 00#Template:AbortionbyCountry), I steered clear of pages which Sardanaphalus had tagged for deletion. — Athaenara ✉ 02:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James King (pioneer)

Restored. You can't violate the copyright of a public domain source. Hesperian 04:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the undeletion, and agreed, mere seconds before YOU HAVE NEW MESSAGES showed up. No problem (and I restored the talk page). — Athaenara ✉ 04:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Hesperian 04:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A10 road Sandbox

Please can you restore Talk:A10 road/Sandbox- this is part of a project I'm working on and is VERY MUCH USEFUL TO THE PROJECT. In future, ask before deleting. Thanks — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 11:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 11:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome :-) Suntag had tagged the page at 02:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC) ("Added {{db-g8}}. Page was for June 2008 comment and no longer appears relevant to any ongoing talk page discussion"). I posted a little edit summary of my own (diff). — Athaenara ✉ 12:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemonster2k1

→ In re: Orangemonster2k1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and a deletion summary

Not a sockpuppet. I don't (and can't) use the account anymore. Due to, let's say "user difficulties", I abandoned the account and made this one a week after abandoning "Orangemonster2k1". This isn't a sockpuppet account. - NeutralHomer • Talk • Work • October 3, 2008 @ 23:15

A question: why the "Userlinks" linkage? - NeutralHomer • Talk • Work • October 4, 2008 @ 15:47

I use "in re" and "see also" pointers in most sections. — Athaenara ✉ 15:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I just hate having attention drawn to that account. The whole thing was worked out (loooong ago) on ANI and I don't want to drag it all up again. - NeutralHomer • Talk • Work • October 4, 2008 @ 16:00

Zachri29

I've tagged several images today from Zachri29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and you handled one. Based on the talk page history, I dropped a final warning on his page. Since you can see his deleted history, too, can you take a peek and comment as to whether I was justified?—Kww(talk) 23:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly justified, and if he continues to upload copyvios after so many warnings the account should be blocked. — Athaenara ✉ 23:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go move my warning, then, to make sure it doesn't get lost among the bot notices.—Kww(talk) 23:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is unlikely to get lost! — Athaenara ✉ 14:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

● See Archive 0 for inactive Did you know? discussions.

Signature talk

● See Archive 0 for inactive signature discussions. See also: A Wikipedian Signature Art Gallery and Beyond.

Miscellany

● See Archive 1 for inactive miscellaneous discussions.

Hi, if you're not too busy ...

Hi! Sorry, my watchlist told me you were active, so ... could you do me a favour and handle WP:Articles for deletion/Pseudointellectual (2nd nomination)? I'm a gnome myself and was cleaning up, I have transwiki'd to wiktionary this article and the page is just kinda sitting there. I think consensus is met. If not, no worries! Thanks! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 04:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudointellectual

Opened: 19:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Closed: 19:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudointellectual (2nd nomination)

Opened: 20:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Closed: 22:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#What to do after an AfD discussion has passed with a confirmation:
Nothing. If the discussion has been listed according to the rules above, at the end of the discussion period (about five days), it should be closed within a few more days at most. Asking for someone to close the discussion is unnecessary.
Observation: Simply {{relist}}ing the first rather than opening the second would have been more expedient.
— Athaenara ✉ 00:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know about that tag, thanks! :-) I don't partake in XfD anymore fr33kman ^{t - c} —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Genevieve Termier

Thank you for the removal of the WP:CSD#A7 from the article on professor Geneviève Termier. Mea culpa that it was so brief originally, I think that she and her husband deserve and entry, yet I did not trust my French enough. Lesson learned. Have a nice Sunday. --HTO (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. — Athaenara ✉ 02:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thx

For dabbing three at Philip Marc, it assisted my understanding to find out who they were. cheers Victuallers (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for popping up here and giving me an opportunity to mention that I think your image maps are terrific. — Athaenara ✉ 02:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

→ In re: User:Fr33kman/New mediator school and User talk:Fr33kman/New mediator school

Hi Athaenara, I have been working on an idea for a proposal and would like your views on it. Could you take a look at the work I've done so far? It's regarding education for new dispute resolvers and mediators (WP:3 and WP:MEDCAB) and would be totally voluntary. Thanks! :-) fr33kman -s- 01:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd get more responses from more editors if you posted on WT:3O and WT:MedCab rather than on individual user talk pages. — Athaenara ✉ 00:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was just soliciting your and Daniels' opinion initially, to see if there was even any need or interest? I'll list it their instead. Thanks! :-) fr33kman -s- 01:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the user talk link! :-) fr33kman -s- 17:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living persons policy

● See Archive 2 for inactive BLP discussions. See also: User talk:Athaenara/Archives#Archive links.

Third opinion project

● See Archive 3 for inactive WP:3O discussions. See also: User talk:Athaenara/Archives#Archive links.

Relationship between religion and science

I think you missed the point of the discussion entirely. It isn't a question of how to format repeated uses of the same reference, it's how to format a whole host of references (not real references, but information contained in <ref>-tags) (23 of them in total) which are used to support a single point.

As for changing the topic at 3O - I don't think that what Firefly posted in any way reflects the "dispute" - the sourcing dispute boils down to whether WP:V and WP:UNDUE apply to this article. Guettarda (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I relisted yours and left Firefly's as he worded it (I had previously edited his description for neutrality and he reverted it: see WP 3O page history). — Athaenara ✉ 05:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duo on 3O

Hi, my thinking was that the AfD would be better off completing in case it was deleted. Sorry :-) fr33kman ^{t - c} 01:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. This dispute about artist chronologies in an album infobox was unrelated to the AfD (which was initiated by the user who didn't want them). — Athaenara ✉ 02:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understood what they had done and why they had done it. I just feel that only admins should deal with an article while it's doing and AfD. Cheers. fr33kman ^{t - c} 01:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Link

→ In re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duo (Richard Marx and Matt Scannell album)

I had no idea about the link duplicate. Sorry I reverted your edit before. Hope you have a nice weekend. --Candy156sweet (talk) 04:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~How do I withdraw the nomination? Do I just remove the tags from the article or is there another process that I should follow? Thanks in advance for your help.~~ I think I've figured it out. --Candy156sweet (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! — Athaenara ✉ 07:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You too?

Re: this suggestion - believe me, that anon knows how to sign their posts. He or she has been told at least a dozen times! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3O on Heart

This is a follow up of sorts. There has been no 30 response yet however the user is now making multiple posts to my user page (Eight in the last 12 hours) despite me asking them not to and to use the Heart (band) talk page where I have repeatedly answered this users questions and even made a very clear post (re)citing all my refs. (Talk:Heart (band)#Facts with Citations from the main page concerning Disputed/Questioned items) Their last post(s), made within the last hour, (User talk:Soundvisions1#Hello?) implies they will again revert edits I have made and if I change/revert/complain about said reverts they will have an admin block me for vandalism. (If you will not answer, then you have no right to complain about what I do. If you do complain, I will class it as vandalism, and behave accordingly.) You can, if you have not already, start the reading from their first post on my talk page, User talk:Soundvisions1#Vandalism Warning #1 and go from there.

I see no "how to" for Baiting (trolling) and how to report it, and as of right now this is how I see what the user is doing. Per Wikipedia descriptions what the user is doing not Vandalism. It falls short of the 3R. I did send a plain request to the Arbcom-l list last night however this was before this mornings posts. If you could either look this over and act on it or send it to someone who could act on it today it would be appreciated. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Moonriddengirl#Soundvisions1 for Moonriddengirl's advice ("state your opinions succinctly on the talk page of the article" and "stick with the essentials about the debate" etc.) to Pdfpdf about this (I hope he follows it and stops deluging your talk page with messages). — Athaenara ✉ 14:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did not know the user had made that post on Moonriddengirl's talk page. I did already "state your opinions succinctly on the talk page of the article". That was what kicked all of this off. So in this case I will await the Arbcom-1 response for now because it is better than giving in to the users Baiting (trolling). Thanks Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Moonriddengirl's advice was to Pdfpdf. — Athaenara ✉ 15:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some tags and a new subsection: NPOV / Third Party Opinions. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest guideline

● See archives 4, 5, 6 for inactive COI & COI/N discussions. See also: User talk:Athaenara/Archives#Archive links.

Public Relations Consultants Association

Hi Athaenara,

You recently deleted a page I submitted on behalf of the the Public Relations Consultants Association and I would be interested to know why.

There are pages on Wikipedia for similar organisation such as the Chartered Institute of Public Relations [1]

Your help would be much appreciated.

Toyne

Toyne (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]