User talk:Athaenara

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 ------------ Signature Art  Gallery ------------------- WikiComedy  

Civilisation is High Maintenance. 

Friday  24 May 2024  10:56 UTC

VANDALISM THREAT

Guarded __ __ __ __ __

Words of Wisdom

Why we are here

This project is here to build an encyclopedia.  Please limit your actions here to things that help that goal.   • A  Man In Black   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?     • K. P.  Botany   20:01, March 18 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.     • Brad Patrick   09:53, September 29 2006 (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.     • Jon Harder   03:27, January 19 2007 (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   03:23, October 1 2006 (UTC)

See also • Quotes from Wiser Editors • Template:Wisdom

Signature talk

→ Subsections archived in Archive 1.

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

Absolutely beautiful! — 131.247.220.9 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

    Thank you! — Æ.

Miscellaneous

→ Subsections archived in Archive 1.

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 -hey 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. — Æ. ✉ 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)

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)

Biographies of living persons

Biographies of living persons policy and BLP Noticeboard

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 which 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)

Thank you

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

Langan entry

• (In re Christopher Michael Langan biography and BLP/N report.)

Hi, just letting you know I left a comment for you on the BLP noticeboard regarding the situation at Christopher Michael Langan. Thanks for your interest. FNMF 01:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the heads-up, I'll have a look soon. — Athænara ✉ 02:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks for that. FNMF 04:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome—if you mean this, it took almost exactly one hour and let me work off some anger at determinedly time-wasting non-neutral editors. — Æ. ✉ 05:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That is what I meant, and I'm glad you are now very well informed on this entry! I hope you'll keep an eye on proceedings. Thanks again. FNMF 05:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

John T. Reed

• (In re John T. Reed article and BLP/N report.)

You were right -- that was a pretty appalling book list I put together! Digging up all that garbage and tracking down ISBN numbers -- what a hassle. I was trying to placate a senior admin who kept reverting any attempts to try to use the article language (minus some POV parts) that someone claiming to be John T. Reed wanted. Notwithstanding that, as you pointed out, all the books were right there on Reed's site, my edits were reverted for not verifiably proving the number of books written among many other things. So I'm not especially sorry to see the list go.

I see BozMo listed the talk page at WP:BLPN and that you're active with BLP issues.From a BLP issue, there have been some marginal talk-page comments by the same SPA who tried to speedy the article twice. There was a passing comment soon deleted about Reed's personal life. Not exactly a BLP issue but odd was this tagging of the article for notability [1] by an admin in spite of links to 3 full length news articles Reed (including one in the Sydney Morning Herald).

I will probably walk away from this one; I'm not an admin and I don't need to get in any hotter water than I probably already am in. If you're watching this article, the current version is close to anon's language but with some POV cleanup. Also, the anon's original external links are now footnotes in a new references section; I've put additional newspaper articles are in the external links section to help bolster against further notability tagging. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the tangle of pro/con editor POV issues, it needs copyediting and wikifying. Thanks for the comprehensive précis, and I will get back to you this. — Athænara ✉ 04:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Considerable cleanup done—have another look now. — Æ. ✉ 07:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is way better thanks. I am very pleased someone put the effort in to sort this article out. --BozMo talk 07:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm happy you approve the result. I wasn't aware of the article when the disruptive editing was going on, so I'll just stand clear of that aspect. — Athænara ✉ 07:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

in re RUSS

For what it's worth, (very little, given its irrelevance), the ticker symbol is RUSS.OB. The company is not traded on any major exchange, hence the "OB" suffix. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Understood—that's why I had linked it to OTC Bulletin Board—and I also agree that there's no reason for it to be in the article at all. — Athænara ✉ 17:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Athaenara. I just now saw your 5 April note (I've been online for only a few minutes over the last several days). Please accept my belated acknowledgment. Thanks for clarifying things for me -- I was pretty confused. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know—I didn't realise you hadn't seen it! — Æ. ✉ 18:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Aggressive editor

I also filed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Mel Etitis reported by User:BozMo (Result:). I thought things were a bit aggressive. --BozMo talk 07:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Mel Etitis IS becomingly a more and more difficult admin/editor to work with. Good luck with him. --PeterMarkSmith 03:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You spotted it. I am walking away: I don't care enough about that article. --BozMo talk 09:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If you care, considering asking for a consensus on that Talk page. EdJohnston 13:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The article/talk histories show that the user who dismissed my own encyclopedic perspective (I've edited the article exactly twice) as "getting emotional about it" has, in the past month, edited the article over twenty times (edit warring, reverts) and posted on the talk page nearly twenty times.

I have no idea why he doesn't have more self-restraint. I do know I'm not getting in front of such a steam roller until it's been stopped. — Athænara ✉ 03:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to interrupt a private kvetchfest, but for the record, my defence of the article received support from the other admins who commented (except BozMo), and BozMo's attempt to get me blocked for 3RR failed. Oh, and, first there's no such thing as "senior admin", and secondly I wasn't using admin tools, simply acting as an editor and trying to uphold Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Still, if it keeps you all happy to have a little moan here, I'll not interrupt further; please carry on — I'll not return, so you can say what you like. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Mel Etitis#Your comment --BozMo talk 15:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

See also: Talk:X Japan#Recent edits, recently posted on WP:3O by another editor. — Æ. ✉ 02:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. While your intervention per WP:3O was not possible, it is still good to know that I'm not the only editor having unpleasant run-ins with the other guy. And Seraphimblade really did a great job taking on all those 3Os (let's give the man a barnstar). Speaking of good work, should you be considered for admin at some point, let me know, I really appreciate what you do at WP:3O. Anyway, I just hope these changes will go un-contested for a while. I must admit, I'm a little tired of all this back-and-forth arguing over details. - Cyrus XIII 15:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's put that "un-contested" bit down as wishful thinking. I could really use some help there. - Cyrus XIII 16:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So could I. Consensus building doesn't mean engaging in personal attacks on other editors in breach of Civility policy, but Etitis seems to think so. — Athænara ✉ 19:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to call for an RfC on that X Japan issue (and the related one at Hide (musician) - you reckon this might render some results? - Cyrus XIII 22:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It might. I haven't followed Rfc pages closely enough to know how effective they are, so I can't really answer that question. — Æ. ✉ 22:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The RfC is up at Talk:X Japan#Request for Comment: Recent edits. Given that "all editors are welcome to help resolve disputes by responding to RfCs" (WP:RFC), your previous fallout with aforementioned editor would not keep you from commenting. If you do, please look at the diffs I provided in my statement (I'm afraid the editor who already responded did not, as parts of the response appear to somewhat miss the point). On a different topic: How are your adminship considerations coming along? - Cyrus XIII 16:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I commented there, and I hope my perspective on it is not completely useless. Could you look in on Talk:Anchor#Request for Comment as well?

Since MER-C posted the "Adminship?" section I have given it some thought and study, but I am not actively pursuing it. Any observations you'd like to add to that section are welcome. — Athænara ✉ 20:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinions

Wikipedia:Third opinion

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)

Conflicts of interest

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

→ See also: Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Blocks for Conflict of interest-only accounts.
→ See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive84#Shall we expand principle of indef blocking vandalism-only accounts and nuke COI-only accounts?

Anchor

• (In re WP:3O requests , COI/N reports, WP:AN/3RR reports, article RfC, user RfC…)

Hi Athaenara, I want to just thank you for all your thoughtful help with Anchor, not only did you file a third opinion, but when the other party involved managed to have me blocked, you stepped in to try to help. I am happy the article is protected and thus the issue at rest for now, though Badmonkey seems very insistant on having his way and the COI notice did not seem to result in much. Though I am of the opinion that consensus at the moment suggests to leaving the section out which I origonally objected to, especially given Hoof Hearted's amazing effort to learn about the issues involved and then thoughtfully comment. Though regardless of consensus having been reached I dont think this is the last we will see of this issue, at least its at rest for awhile though! Thank you again for your thoughtfulness and help. Russeasby 00:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! You're right about editor consensus while one editor—and we're quite clear on which one—is not only disruptive, tendentious and uncivil but dishonest as well. After his second or third interjection on the 3RR page I just ignored him. — Athænara ✉ 00:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For going out of the way to help in an edit conflict and trying to ensure fair treatment among the editors involved. Russeasby 00:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, protection was lifted from Anchor and as I was worried would happen, User:Badmonkey is back and he readded the section. I do believe consensus was reached on the talk page, but apparently he does not think so. Can I ask for your kind assistance and advice on how to proceed from here? I have not reverted his edit, I do not want to go through all that again. Any advice you give I will happily take and follow. Thank you! Russeasby 02:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ctbolt has the right perspective on consensus and policies and guidelines. I recommend letting him take the lead for awhile. — Athænara ✉ 08:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to ask here, as I know you dont like posts here related to articles you already watch. But I felt this question did not belong on Talk:Anchor as it is a WP policy question. So my question is, would it be a violation of WP:CANVASS to leave notes on the pages of people who had previous contibuted a third party opinion for Anchor to notify them of the current WP:RFC active there. I am doing my best to abide by policy in all respects, but its getting rather complicated and some things such as this are not clear to me, thus why I ask for advice. Russeasby 05:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You've shown good judgement in posting here, in my experience, so don't worry about that caution—it's intended for, hmm, well, I'll show you diffs sometime, more clueless users.

I saw the RFC and I expect to post* as one of the uninvolved parties later today. I think there's nothing wrong with notifying other NPOV editors of the RFC if they have previously commented and might have more to say, as long as you do it wholly neutrally without soliciting particular sorts of input such as support or condemnation. [Post.]*

Remember you have a life outside of what one linkspamming COI SPA has turned into a dreadful little battleground, and remember there's no particular time limit to RFCs, nor mandated conclusions. — Athænara ✉ 06:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't easy to take my own advice when, with characteristic ruthlessness, he posted a flurry of interjections and trumpeted "you are now anything but uninvolved…" — Æ. ✉ 21:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I know you have stepped away from this dispute, but I have opened a Request for Comment on User:Badmonkey, if you could step in a moment and certify that you attempted to resolve the dispute I would be grateful. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Badmonkey Russeasby 23:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Done! — Athænara ✉ 21:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with COI SPAs

• (In re Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#COI SPAs DiogenesRex and Codeplowed.)

I appreciate your closing of the initial bad faith report and summarizing the real problem.

I'm amazed how you were able to turn six long rambling reports on multiple notice boards into one simple clear statement and a few links.

Impressive!

Thanks and have a good day... --Parzival418 09:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And I thank you, Parzival, for appreciating my work and taking the time to tell me! — Athænara ✉ 09:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Adminship?

I'll create the nom pending your acceptance. MER-C 10:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Give me at least 24 hours to think about it, OK? — Athænara ✉ 10:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

MER-C, what are your reasons for considering this? — Æ. ✉ 21:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Several reasons: we need more people able to swing the banhammer at the COI noticeboard, especially now that *a proposal to permablock COI/VSCA only accounts is going unopposed. And delete the rather large amount of prods the noticeboard produces. You seem to be the more ideal candidate (I'm way too deletionist). And you also seem to be the only one standing between us and huge backlogs at WP:BLPN.

I'll probably be burninating unsorted stubs and vandal patrolling for the rest of the day, but I'll keep an eye out. MER-C 06:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That is *a GREAT proposal. I'll give the rest of this more thought. At the moment, catching up with the {{prod}} backlog is the only admin task I can imagine doing. — Athænara ✉ 07:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Athaenara. I join MER-C in asking you to give this serious thought! You would add to the pool of administrators who are well-informed on COI and NPOV matters. If you haven't been reading RfAs lately, you might check out what's happening there, to get ideas for your application. EdJohnston 01:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ötzi the Iceman

Hi, I noticed that you moved the image of Ötzi the Iceman lower down in the article. Don't you think that it would be better if we had a picture at the top right hand corner of the article? Cheers, Jacklee 23:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)