Jump to content

User talk:Athaenara

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Modelmanager (talk | contribs) at 19:57, 21 October 2009 (Formal Complaint). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Athaenara/Status

            Archives                             Athaenara's Talk Page                             Gallery            


 Sunday  10 November 2024  21:43 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

Current Requests for Adminship

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 21:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

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]

Archive notes

→ Inactive discussions in User talk:Athaenara/Archives are sorted by subject:

I need help

→ in re: deleted article (article log talk page log)

You are one of the moderators who deleted my page John Bracamontes.

How can I keep the page up?!

I am a candidate for the Illinois State Representative 2010 election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbtes (talk • contribs) 03:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted {{Uw-coi}} information on your talk page regarding Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines (diff). Did you read any of the linked explanatory pages? — Athaenara ✉ 03:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K.M.Daniel

Are literary critics such as K.M.Daniel notable? -WarthogDemon 04:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that hinges upon whether the subject satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) guideline. I have absolutely no expertise in the area of Malayalam literature. — Athaenara ✉ 04:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

→ in re: this edit and Talk:Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations#Notability tags, unsubstantiated summaries, edit-warring

I see my 3OO report was removed because more than 2 editors are involved. I didn't think it was that big of a deal since the other two editors have been doing the same edits.

What would you recommend to resolve this dispute? Whatever is quickest since all we really need to is an admin to confirm if BLP/original research occurred because it seems some users have no idea what OR is. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? — Athaenara ✉ 19:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that for original research as well? There is a content dispute over what qualifies as "criticism." Is there a way I can just have an uninvolved party or qualified user just give an objective opinion? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This week's Signpost says there's a new content noticeboard; Wikipedia:Coordination links a no original research noticeboard as well. — Athaenara ✉ 03:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus Group/Sock Puppet

→ in re: Prometheus Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
→ see also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 35#Prometheus Group

Greetings, my account was recently flagged for possibly being a sock puppet of another user, Jl437. To escalate this issue, the article on Prometheus Group was deleted while I was in the process of fixing the page to match Wikipedia's policies.

The copyright and advertising issues can be resolved should the page be re-reviewed, but deleting the page once it has shifted editors doesn't help me to do that.

What would you suggest I do in this case?

K3nsanders (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted {{Uw-coi}} information on your talk page regarding the conflict of interest guidelines.
Did you read any of the linked explanatory pages? — Athaenara ✉ 14:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did, and I agree there were COI violations in the old version of the page. I'd like to remedy those issues while still meeting the guidelines, but I'm facing two uphill battles *sock puppet/COI problems*.
I'm assuming the sock puppet issues needs to be dealt with before I can fix the article COI issue.
Do you agree?
K3nsanders (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two accounts (or three with the anonIP 70.62.118.144 you used for your first post on the article's talk page) trying to promote their company on this encyclopedia with the same COI will be shot down almost as fast as the promotion was. You should be aware of what you are doing and how it will be perceived. The "advertisements masquerading as articles" and "how not to be a spammer" sections of the Wikipedia:Spam guideline are pertinent. — Athaenara ✉ 14:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't deny that the first revisions of the page we're ill-created. However, I'm not attempting to spam. My proxy routes me through the same network, so my IP address won't change from the other account. I would appreciate the chance to rectify these issues. We're simply trying to create an informational page given our ties with SAP. The first person to attempt this, as you noticed, did not come anywhere near close to achieving it. Please allow me to clean up the article, all advertising and promotion will be removed from the page.
K3nsanders (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you take your issues to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard to get more feedback about the situation and your take on it. Other neutral editors, and particularly admins who will be able to read and compare the deleted versions of the article, may be more helpful than I. — Athaenara ✉ 14:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted on the noticeboard about both the page deletion and the flagging of my account. Thank you for your redirection and guidance. Hopefully this issue will resolve itself in the near future.
K3nsanders (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. — Athaenara ✉ 15:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MyCeliacID

→ in re: deleted MyCeliacID (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article
see also:

Hello,

I'm rewriting my MyCeliacID article because it did not meet wikipedia's standards and was categorized as WP:CSD#G11: advertising / promotion.

Can I post my rewritten article in your talk page to get feedback in my bid to meet wikipedia's standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EGOeditor (talk • contribs) 20:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting your article on my user talk page would not be appropriate.
{{Uw-coi}} information was posted on your talk page regarding the conflict of interest guideline.
Did you read any of the linked explanatory pages? — Athaenara ✉ 23:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeLane Matthews

→ in re: my {{db-g11}} tagging of DeLane Matthews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article (diff)
→ see also: DeLane Matthews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In regard to this article, it looked like a normal biographical article about a television actress to me, as opposed to being advertising. And her four years in the cast of Dave's World suggests to me that she is notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. With IMDb the only source, it looked like spam to me. — Athaenara ✉ 03:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IF? Records and Little Nobody

→ in re: IF? Records (hist), Little Nobody (hist), {{db-g11}}, and COI spas Nina phunsta, Popstarr69, Shareradar, DSK1984
→ see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Nobody (2nd nomination)

"nina phunsta" is associated with IF Records so there is a clear conflict of interest.

A Google search for nina phunsta adequately demonstrates the above claim when reading through various posts on forums. [1][2] Various forum profiles of nina phunsta contain the IF Records website in their signature. This is in contrast to previous claims that Andrez Bergen is a former writing colleague on nina phunsta's talk page [3][4].

"DSK 1984" is harder to pinpoint as it is a relatively newer handle but a Google search presents forum posts mostly related to IF records.[5]

As for the Little Nobody page:

  1. ^ Wayward Seafarers Review, Chris Downton. 3D World, June 2008.

This review does not exist on the 3D World website, the link is to the homepage of that website. There are no other external links under references that can be used to verify any of the text on the Wikipedia page. Some of the articles cited are recent so a link to the article on the web version of the newspapers should be provided. The ABC artist profile is the only reliable source and is dated, from 2003 and refers only to a local dance music scene. Many of the links under External Links are broken.

Much of the information appears to be fabricated as it does not appear anywhere else when performing a Google search. Colloquial language in background information: "Website Little Nobody's dodgy MySpace site". This indicates that the article is largely a puff piece.

Thus, articles related to Little Nobody and IF Records should be removed for: 1. not meeting notability guidelines; and 2. being written in an advertising format 3. large amounts of unverifiable information WaltonSimons1 (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) No admin has denied the speedy yet but (although it was tagged 12 or more hours ago) neither has anyone deleted it. I agree that it's spam and deserves deletion. The problem may be that, promotional puffery that it is, it's been around for so long, but that can cut both ways. — Athaenara ✉ 18:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(2) Jclemens has since declined db-g11 (diff), recommending {{prod}} or AFD. I did a spam cleanup, explaining why in my edit summary (diff). — Athaenara ✉ 04:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The broken external links should also be dealt with according to Wikipedia policy and citations requested for the majority of the information posted. That should allow administrators to conclude that the page does not meet notability criteria and is unverifiable. I will attempt this soon. WaltonSimons1 (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Both articles need more {{fact}} tags for specific claims. It's great that you're willing to take the time to check links and references. — Athaenara ✉ 08:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tags will have to wait for the timebeing. See [[6]]WaltonSimons1 (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there this is David (DSK), I've been following and building on Little Nobody site as an experiment to see how to do this and to try to build a good coverage of Melbournes techno people in general. I'm not an If? Recods person, but a big fan. Any way, I want to see if I can make this better to suit guidelines but I would love help/advice as I'm new at this. Some of the interviews/reviews are from the 1990's so most magazines didn't have Web sites then, so tricky to verify, but I'll try and contact them and see. If I do (somehow!) manage to finds editors/writers, what would you need as proof from them? Thanking you in advance, DSK1984 (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An enyclopedia article doesn't have the same role as websites for artists or record companies. It may be appropriate and even expected that the latter will include reviews, particularly if they're positive, but an encyclopedia article must be neutral rather than promotional (see the Wikipedia neutral point of view policy and spam guideline). — Athaenara ✉ 00:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Athaenara

This is David DSK on Wikipedia.

I have a concerns about WaltonSimons1. I noticed he's a new addition, and his sign-up and focus on the Little Nobody entry strangely coincides with a very aggressive individual known as V-Tronon the ITM Forum whose been personally attacking Andrez (Little Nobody) quite publicly on the forum threads there over the past few days.

For instance this posting by him, which openly refers to the Little Nobody entry on Wikipedia: [7]

And this one which has a picture of the Little Nobody Wikipedia revision history - right before WaltonSimons1 got involved: [8]

And this one which refers to smashing both Andrez and seems angry at me too: [9]

I have no proof that this is WaltonSimons1, but the suspicion remains.

So while I think this entry definitely needs attention and clean-up, it may be better if both he/she (and me, if you think appropriate) are removed from the process, to ensure it's fair. Can we ask someone else (or yourself) to follow through? If deletion happens, it would be fair of course, but I worry about this individual. DSK1984 (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is unlikely to be deleted (see discussion above). — Athaenara ✉ 00:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Please let me know if I can help in any way but I think I should stay at a distance on this entry too, right? DSK1984 (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. — Athaenara ✉ 00:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Athaenara, Looks like the deletion process on Little Nobody is underway again thanks to some more fishing from WaltonSimons1 - If you have time please see his approach to encourage assistance from Lattefever [[10]], but he still has not answered the contesting that he and this V-Tron on the In The Mix forum are the same person. I'm deliberately trying to stay away from the Little Nobody entry as per your advice, but its disappointing to see him doing this. Anyway, sorry to involve you again.DSK1984 (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little Nobody

Hello again Athaenara, I hope your well, I was finally able to get Andrez Bergen to send us the digital records of a lot of those article/reviews mentioned in the entry on Little Nobody and you can download the set HERE http://www.megaupload.com/?d=T4B96ZLG If you prefer not to download, the folder is 39MB so I am not sure how to get you this. ;-) I hope this helps to make every body satisfied!DSK1984 (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Little Nobody was the right place to post that. — Athaenara ✉ 07:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Athaenara! DSK1984 (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astro & Glyde Deletion

→ in re: deleted article (log)

I believe that my article - Astro & Glyde - was deleted under false pretenses. While it may have originally been slightly biased, I subsequently altered the article to make it objective. After this was done, no justification was provided as to what was wrong with my article or why it was deleted. It no longer met the previous criterion, yet it was deleted under a criterion that only applied to the original edition. I believe that the deletion was far too hasty, aggressive and assumptive in nature. Can you please either give me some indication of what was wrong with the article, or reinstate it? Thanks. Higginson21 (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your three edits after the article was tagged {{db-g11}} did not substantially alter the situation. You are free to question the deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. — Athaenara ✉ 23:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PlanGuru

→ in re: Dennyp22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and deleted article
→ see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlanGuru‎

Hi Athaenara. I noticed you also deleted the article, PlanGuru. User:Dennyp22 (the creator of the article) has been tirelessly bothering me about the deletion of the article (e.g. [11]) , claiming it not to be advertising/spam. If it's not too much trouble, I'd appreciate your input on the situation. Best, FASTILY (TALK) 18:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He should realize by now that this really is an encyclopedia, not a free marketing forum, but he can appeal to deletion review if he wishes. Every editor who has seen his article perceived it as spam, and he persisted despite the {{uw-coi}} info posted clearly on his talk page. Whether he read it and ignored it, read it and didn't understand it, or didn't read it at all, he's been told. — Athaenara ✉ 20:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F8 deletes

Thank you for deleting all the images I tag as F8.  :) I'd do it, but I'm not an admin.--Rockfang (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I'd delete other F8s. Not my own.--Rockfang (talk) 06:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're welcome; {{db-f8}} followup is one of my favourite admin activities because one rarely encounters ill will or incivility in the process. I agree that it's best for admins to share in the distribution of tasks rather than both tag and delete one-man-band style. — Athaenara ✉ 07:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism by country discussion page

→ in re: Talk:Buddhism by country archiving

Thanks for archiving all of those repetitive and old discussions at that discussion page. It looks much better now. Theravada1 (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. — Athaenara ✉ 01:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin

→ in re: this edit and Talk:Charles Darwin#Natural Selection never seen as the primary explanation of evolution
→ see also: Logicus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Where should this go then? I've personally long given up on the discussions, and they're getting rather frustrating and tedious to wade through. I'm just not sure where it should be listed. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are several venues for problems which are more complex than the relatively straightforward two-editor disagreements which WP:3O addresses (see the {{dispute-resolution}} sidebar on the project page).
If the primary problem is one user's behavior (incivility, personal attacks), Wikiquette alerts and Requests for comment/User conduct are both intended to help with that. — Athaenara ✉ 21:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. This issue has been going on for... well months, really. Logicus is the main instigator of these issues, and the main issues involving him/her are original research claims of sources used being incorrect as well as incivility insults to editors (calling them illiterate, among others). The user seems to intentionally create these by talking in the third person as well as unnecessary verbiage and classing "TLDR" posts to make other users focus more on the incomprehensible nature of posts. Honestly, this debate really needs some outside arbitration as well as higher-ups notifying the user as to the improper nature.
The main problem comes from the fact the fact that the user's posts are so convoluted that any arguments against are dismissed as out-and-out stupidity on the part of other editors'. If you look at the user's edits, you can see the trend. I've personally long since ceased doing anything other than reading the debates, but things really have gone on more than long enough and the edits are becoming rather destructive to any kind of meaningful work. I've started looking for outside assistance because a "regular editor's" responses are being flat-out dismissed. If you have any other advice I would more than welcome it; I work in my own little niche in Wikipedia, and when it comes to issues like this I'm just about lost. I can't claim to believe that I can handle further discussion in a civil matter, and as things have been going they have just become worse. Any further advice would be more than welcome. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Coordination page gives a good bird's eye view of the variety of ongoing discussions. The No original research/Noticeboard is the most obvious choice for airing OR problems, but RFC/User conduct might be the most straightforward approach.
(See the disruptive editing guideline for more.) — Athaenara ✉ 04:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to scratch the whole matter. Another editor decided to respond based on the Third Opinion posting, then another editor arrived simply to state that since it wasn't fitting into those criteria Editor 1 should not be commenting (as well as misquote the request as being from Logicus), and all of it ends in more of a mire and more insults to me. Since the main reason I requested outside aid was due to the fact that any counterpoints were responded with insults of being "illiterate" or an "ignorant American", if I'm not even able to point some outside arbitration to the issue without further insults I am simply removing the article from my watchlist and ignoring it's existence in the future. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked around and found Requests for comment/Logicus, which was opened in February 2007 and hasn't been edited since February 2008 (see page history). From what I've seen on the Charles Darwin talk page, it's clear that the user's pattern of deliberately insulting and alienating other editors has not changed. I think a second RFC would be more than appropriate, but your wish to disengage is understandable. — Athaenara ✉ 00:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfX report

→ in re: this edit to User:X!/RfX Report

Hey, thanks for fixing that! Odd; I was *just* about to do exactly the same thing, after Mentifisto (talk · contribs) complained that it looked wrong when transcluded on their userspace page.

I made the edit because the bot missed the fact that MacMed's RfA was closed and re-opened, and wanted to fix that; also wanted to note that I had amended it ('coz I know how much DRAMA goes on around those parts).

Anyway - all good now; thx again.  Chzz  ►  20:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo (that non-admin closure was faulty, too). — Athaenara ✉ 20:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; that's really why I wanted to fix the table - it was unfair on MacMed to close it in that fashion; yes, I know they were clearly failing, but that's not the point. Anyway. All's well that ends well, apparently; MacMed seemed (online chat) to be OK with things, so hopefully will continue improving as an editor.  Chzz  ►  08:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

→ in re: this edit to RfX Report

{{bureaucrat candidate}} is the name of the template; whether it's an RfA or an RfB is decided by one of the parameters (either rfa=yes or crat=yes). -- Soap Talk/Contributions 13:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (syntax obvious, my question dumb!) — Athaenara ✉ 22:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Klein

→ in re: Talk:Aaron Klein#Semiprotection review (article history) (talk page history)

  • 21:01, 5 December 2007 Athaenara protected Aaron Klein ‎ (Nearly 30 unregistered anons with same POV persistently impeding WP:NPOV for 1.5 years. Ref Talk:Aaron Klein#Single purpose accounts. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

It's been nearly two years now so I've started a review to see if this semiprotection is still considered necessary. See talk:Aaron Klein. --TS 03:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the review is a good idea; thanks for the heads-up. — Athaenara ✉ 07:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, I've asked for unprotection on WP:RFPP, outlining the situation and referencing the discussion on the talk page. Fingers crossed and eyes wide open. --TS 14:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page Deletion

→ see also: page log

Hi Athaenara:

Please help me understand the deletion of the Virtus Investment Partners section (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virtus_Investment_Partners&action=edit&redlink=1) from the Mutual Funds Families lisiting. Deletion was listed a advertising/promotion and I'm glad to rewrite as necessary. Thanks. jfazz Jfazz (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was the content of the article as created August 28, 2009 by Donnahall (talk):

"In Latin, Virtus connotes the characteristics of integrity, quality and strength. Those are the traits we stand for today as an investment management provider and the traits that will define us in the future.
"For further information about Virtus and our products, please visit our website at [http://www.virtus.com]."

WWGB (talk) tagged it appropriately for deletion as per {{db-g11}}, which placed it in the Category:Spam pages for speedy deletion. — Athaenara ✉ 19:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectforms

→ in re: deleted article; see also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brentbucci

I recently received a speedy deletion from you for a perfectForms page that I created, on the grounds of notability, however, I have given reason for why this company can be seen as notable in both the article and talk page. I request that you remove the speedy deletion tag. ([12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentbucci (talk • contribs) 22:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it {{db-g11}} for speedy deletion as advertising/promotion, not for notability. Did you read the {{uw-coi}} information which was posted on your talk page? — Athaenara ✉ 23:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again A

→ in re: Bulten's edits to User talk:Athaenara/Archive 5 (history)

You are of course free to retain improper links to wrong pages and dab pages in your archive, but kindly keep in mind that you just told me not to edit an ("your"?) archive page for housekeeping immediately after you edited the same archive page for housekeeping. As my job is complete upon having informed you that there are better ways, and since there is no need for us to come to agreement on this nano detail, you need not waste time replying. Thank you for listening. JJB 07:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a {{UserTalkArchive}} in my userspace. — Athaenara ✉ 07:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stacy McCain

→ see also: article history and talk page history

Hi. Would you be able to take a look at the Robert Stacy McCain article, please? I've asked for help at BLPN, but nothing happened.

User Goethean (talk · contribs) and I currently disagree about whether to include a quote from McCain's blog. (We had other areas of disagreement but they seem to be settled now.) The last few comments on the talk page probably cover all the issues that are still relevant; see also the last few edit summaries.

Cheers, CWC 02:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an unpleasant situation because Goethean is tendentious and frequently incivil. I've a low tolerance for that sort of thing lately and don't want to get involved, sorry! — Athaenara ✉ 01:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that answer is quite helpful by itself. I'll try some other BLP experts. Happy editing! CWC 14:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formal Complaint About To Be Filed Against You

 You have deleted my work that I had been working on. Please "Respect" my time as I will respect yours. I didn't want to use the heading above to be viewed as a threat in anyway, I am using it to get your attention to help me.  I asked the other "admin" people who like to "delete' pages rather than create them to help during this process, I have spent numerous hours trying to work with "admin" with little success.  If I don't get a positive solution in 24 hours, I will be filing a formal complaint with Wikipedia.  I didn't create the page two years ago, I am merely adding information and solid references along with authorized images only to have them deleted.  You want to set up a conference call with me, I will gladly give you my number.  Please don't hide behind the internet by being introverted. I realize a lot of you are overweight, unhealthy, and/or not happy with your lives in general (I can help you turn your life around, just ask).

 I agree the 21 Magazine page needs to be worked on, but to be fully deleted?  I am not looking for any rebuttals from you, I am looking for a solution.  If you have the time to delete and make negative comments, you have the time to also help me and make a difference.  The point is, please don't burn a bridge with me, help me and we can move forward.  Modelmanager (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Modelmanager[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Athaenara&oldid=321253411"