User talk:Athaenara/Archive 12

This is an archive of January through March 2019 discussions. Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 11  Archive 12   Archive 13 →


 * Conflict of interest discussions January through March 2019

Rajan Zed
→  in re:, (1st Afd) (2nd Afd)  →  see also:, , 

Please review and restore my article. My name is Pandit Rajan Zed and you deleted my article. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajanZ pandit (talk • contribs) 14:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Why did you delete my question from Rajan Zed pandit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajanZ pandit (talk • contribs) 14:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * What question? – Athaenara  ✉  14:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see now what you meant. You left messages at the top of this page.  They were moved here as per Wikipedia talk page conventions: new messages go at the bottom of a discussion page, not the top.  – Athaenara  ✉  00:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Deletion of Rajan Zed prayer protest

Hi, was not logged in over New Year's holiday here in America so missed the warning.

The reasoning for the deletion is faulty as the page that is claimed to be a copy of is merely a collection of quotes from other sources. The wiki-article cited the sources directly and the citations are direct quotes of people involved, so there is no copyright violation. The site that the supposed plagiarism came from merely used some of the same quotations.

While I am unaware if there is a process within Wikipedia to undelete pages, I can easily reconstruct it from the google archive if not.

Google Archive: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:B5-bFv4khwoJ:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajan_Zed_prayer_protest+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Page that is supposedly plagerized: https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2007/07/11/prayer-in-senate-sure-hindu-prayer-blasphemy/}}

Wowaconia (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * As there also seems to be some concern over continued notability I add that a Google Books search of the topic shows it referenced in 2015's Minority Voting in the United States [2 volumes] by the academic publisher ABC-CLIO:


 * https://books.google.com/books?id=mFwzCwAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PA242&dq=hindu+Prayer+senate&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiY9Z-40M7fAhVK74MKHT2_C_sQ6AEIMzAC#v=onepage&q=hindu%20Prayer%20senate&f=false


 * And most recently in 2018's Hinduism: A contemporary Philosophical Investigation By the academic publisher Routledge:


 * https://books.google.com/books?id=0DhjDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT172&dq=hindu+Prayer+senate&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiY9Z-40M7fAhVK74MKHT2_C_sQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=hindu%20Prayer%20senate&f=false


 * Wowaconia (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to be my usual straightforward, one might say blunt, self: are you part of a marketing machine for this guy? Do you know him, or the editors (one of whom posted above) purporting to be him?  He's a very determined publicity hound, and the article was basically spam.  Some other editors (not I) deal regularly with copyright intricacies as per Copyright violations policy.  You could perhaps study that and find someone interested in checking out all your links.   – Athaenara  ✉  10:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Just to comment that it was noted here that "That this guy is a spammer, and the Wikipedia article is part of his campaign of self-promotion. Nor am I the first person on the internet to note that this man is on an all-out narcissistic spamming-spree." --Eskeek (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no affiliation with the Hindu guy in the article, rather I am deeply interested in issue of separation of Church and State in the United States of America. I found the incident notable as the advocates against Church and State separation are usually pro-prayer in legislative bodies and describe protests against it as religious persecution and unAmerican, in this case they took the opposite position.

Mr. Zed being a self-promoter is of no consequence to me nor the article as the current President of the United States has a long history of self-promotion and there is no suggestion that as such any articles with him should be deleted. The issue of notability rests not on our personal opinions but on whether reliable and respected sources think that the event was notable. To indicate the ongoing notability of the event I provided links from Google Books. The books linked from there seem similar to school text books and are from well known academic publishers and are not merely self-published texts.

Mr. Zed does seem to be working to assume a mantle of Hindu spokesperson in the US and has a history of leading such prayers in other legislative arenas such as different states. Other Hindus openly question his striving to represent them but the controversy around him is a detail of the incident and the reason it rose to notability was not that detail but that in the Federal Senate a loud opposition rose against him. This raises questions about the acceptance of Hindus in America by the Christian majority, the claims of the possibility of fairness by those advocating legislative prayer, and the wisdom of legislative prayer as a practice altogether.

It is my opinion that Mr. Zed was trying to rack up Hindu creed by praying at legislatures but had no intent to be confronted in the well of the Federal Senate and shouted down by angry Christians asserting his actions were unAmerican. But even if we assume that he was trolling them somehow, that wouldn't negate the fact that the event happened and if we for some reason assume he trolled them (despite me thinking he is rather oblivious) that would not merit deletion of the article as we can see 2017 Berkeley protests is an article despite the whole thing looking like it stemmed from Milo Yiannopoulos trolling. Our opinions on Mr. Zed are of no account when it comes to issues of notability and source reliability. I think the article easily met those Wikipedia standards and should be restored. If other editors think segments of the article need work than those can be addressed in the talk page and consensus can be strived for there. ---Wowaconia (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I noticed your claim "the article was basically spam". I fail to see how anyone can make that claim when looking at the article, vastly more space was given to the Christian groups who opposed him than to him. Christian legislatures were quoted calling Hinduism a false religion that worships cows. His prayer and his response to the protest are quoted, but the closest thing to praise for him was that he is "a Hindu cleric and a noted leader in Interfaith Relations from the Indian Association of Northern Nevada". This statement or any of the segments could be changed if consensus supported that, but full deletion is not warranted.

I invite you to look at the archive of the article again and back up the claim that it was spam. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:B5-bFv4khwoJ:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajan_Zed_prayer_protest+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

If you look at the history for a similar controversy in the US Federal House of Representatives you will see that I began that page as well Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala prayer controversy, I think both these incidents show some of the difficulty the Christian majority is having with multiculturalism especially with Hinudism as its not monotheistic.

I also began the page for the Quran oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress where a US House of Representative member deciding to be sworn in on a Quran was protested by Christian groups.

Rather than being motivated by a desire to spam, I continue to hold that these articles show a pattern of the difficulty of members of the Christian Right adjusting to the reality of multiculturalism as their numbers decline, an issue that many political commentators say played into their support of candidate Trump and their continued support of President Trump. So I think these articles remain helpful in understanding our age and are worthy of inclusion in an Encyclopedia, if segments need to be adjusted that is certainly a matter where consensus can be reached to improve the article.

Therefore I maintain that full deletion of the article in question is not warranted, neither by claims of copy-right infringement (there was none); lack of notability (it is being cited in text books published in the year that just ended); nor spam (I am motivated by a desire to examine State and Church issues, not by any affiliation with either Zed or Hinduism).

--Wowaconia (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Prior to Huon's cleaning up the article, the article was little more than an excessive collection of quotes and unsourced biographical content. I placed the G12 before Huon started and withdrew it after he finished editing, due to him scrubbing out most of the quotes. The G12 deletion came after Huon was done. Also, we can do without the editorial bloviating here; regardless of one's point of view on the matter it is not our job to point and laugh at people whether they be liberal or conservative, Abrahamic or Hindu, sensible or silly. —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Bori! 20:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Derrick Lee Foward
→  in re:,  →  see also: User talk:ForeverJustice, User talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao, User talk:Randykitty/Archive 23, Teahouse/Questions/Archive 880, user, user 

Did you remove or delete the page (Derrick Lee Foward) I created which was pending in AFC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverJustice (talk • contribs) 21:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you remove or delete the page (Derrick Lee Foward) I created which was pending in AFC?ForeverJustice (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The page log shows that it was created in article space by User:Bellanox.
 * It was further edited by several others including you, deleted by me per WP:CSD as spam, undeleted and moved to your user sandbox by Ian.thomson, further edited by you and others, tagged for db-spam deletion by Randykitty, then again deleted by me.
 * At no time was it "pending in AFC" (I presume you mean Articles for creation). – Athaenara  ✉  01:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Good Day AthaenaraAthaenara, the Wright State University library started an article on Civil Rights Activist "Derrick Lee Foward" and it was accepted. When I conducted extensive research on this individual and added to the article, you deleted it. It took a lot of time researching all the great work he has done and to have it deleted was very disheartening. Would appreciate it you would place the article back on Wikipedia. Please advise. ForeverJustice (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please forgive me if this seems to you to be overly blunt, but it's pertinent: have you read Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause? Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that encyclopedia is not a euphemism, and consider alternative outlets. – Athaenara  ✉  22:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Good Day AthaenaraAthaenara, this is not my noble cause, the Wright State University library started the article and I found interest as well and started researching this Civil Rights leader. Just as other editors on Wikipedia write about other Civil Rights leaders or public figures. ForeverJustice (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Good Day AthaenaraAthaenara, what makes other articles that I have read on Wikipedia any different than the one Wright State University started. ForeverJustice (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Renard Siew
→  in re:  →  see also: File:Renard Siew .jpg, File:Dr Renard Siew.jpg 

You deleted a page about Renard Siew after other contributors had improved attributions on the page. I am rather devastated to have lost all the work - especially contributions of people I do not know. Is there any way this page still exists as a draft?

If you are concerned about his notability, please note that two wiki pages already refer to him and suggest he should have his own page. We were working on incorporating those links Thomas Lim (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Thomas Lim
 * user ToT89 tagged it for deletion per WP:CSD as spam and I agreed with that assessment when I saw it. Do you have a conflict of interest in this subject area?  If so, I'd advise you to post on the WP:COIN noticeboard about it.


 * No question about notability was raised. By the way, who are "we" of whom you speak?  Group accounts are not generally permitted here: the usual rule is one editor per account.  – Athaenara  ✉  08:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * why did you copy User:SabaBPC's text in the question above about Dr. Azra Quraishi? – Athaenara  ✉  17:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Nkiru Olumide-Ojo
→  in re: 

You deleted the Nkiru Olumide-Ojo page few minutes after it had been flagged for speedy deletion, which was contested and the page substantially edited. Please, can you kindly point expressions that suggest promotional in the edited version at least for learning purposes, if you would not be restoring it. Thank you. RovingFingers (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * What you wrote reads like what it is: a publicity piece, a promotional document, a press release. It was not an encyclopedia article.  Have you not seen and read our policies and guidelines about independent reliable sources and the neutral point of view?  – Athaenara  ✉  16:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Global Solar Atlas page deletion
→  in re:,  →  see also: User talk:MrOllie/Archive 5, Talk:Solar energy/Archive 9, Talk:Solar irradiance, User talk:Philipnelson99/Archives/2019/January 

You deleted this page, but I had responded via the article talk page to the concern that there was a copyright infringement (there isn't), and requested some time to sort this out. The speedy deletion warning came while I was on holiday, and so I was only able to respond via the Wikipedia app, which wasn't ideal (and I wasn't able to click on the link for "contesting speedy deletion" for some reason). However, the guidance said that the article's talk page would be consulted before any deletion took place, but that doesn't seem to have happened in this case. What is the best way of reinstating the article so that it can be revised? Thanks. O-Jay (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It was spam, like a full page glossy magazine ad. Argue copyright issues with someone else if you must, they're not my main concern.  Have you read Spam?  – Athaenara  ✉  17:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it qualifies as spam or as an "advertisement masquerading as an article". On that guidance page, it says "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual". The Global Solar Atlas isn't a business or product, nor does it promote a company or individual, but could perhaps be classed as a service, although as it is not commercial and provided as a 'global public good' (like Wikipedia!), the word "advertising" isn't really appropriate as there's no benefit or money to be made by promoting it. I looked at a couple of other pages that exist in the same field (e.g. Renewables.ninja, which is pretty dubious if you ask me and very thin), and I determined that a new article on this website/resource was appropriate especially considering the number of places it relevant to other articles (there are many solar maps already published, and myself and others have updated some of those to provide the latest data). I'd be happy to spend some time making the article more neutral, but equally I won't push this further if this is simply a question of it being too early to add an article, or the article needing to come from someone else. I've been pretty transparent about my intentions and background, and my objective in editing Wikipedia is simply to improve the information available to people and pass on some of my knowledge. Crediting this new article was part of that aim. However, I find the process a bit strange: the article was initially flagged as not having enough material and moved to a draft area for improvements, and then when it was reviewed it was flagged for copyright infringement, but apparently the real reason was that it was deemed to be spam. And I wasn't given any chance to respond, despite immediately posting to the article's talk page. O-Jay (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you read Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause? – Athaenara ✉  01:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * O-Jay, I'm an administrator, and I haven't looked at this before, but just looking at the draft I also think it's promotional, and totally lacks secondary sources. BTW something doesn't have to have some commercial purpose in order to be deemed promotional. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * and Ok fair enough, although my hope was to work on it further to improve the secondary sources etc. It's a bit chicken and egg to argue that an article needs to be fully formed in its early days, when the whole point of the wiki model is that (hopefully other) people improve an article over time. But if you feel the subject isn't appropriate yet, and therefore the article is too promotional, then that's a fair point and I won't push it further. Thanks to Drmies in particular for your feedback. Sometimes the comments one receives from administrators come across as accusatory and rather aggressive. O-Jay (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Advice please
→  see also: User talk:Cabayi/Archive 6 

Thanks for dealing with Bobby Joshi & Bobby Joshi (photographer). While the article was still visible I searched for the company name Goodshotz and came across who has a sandbox plugging BJ dating back to Dec 2017. My reading of the events is that BJ, under the GoodShotz username, saw how it might be difficult to successfully introduce his autobiography, and sought a paid editor. created Bobby Joshi, then created Bobby Joshi (photographer). Given that Marcelo842 also overlaps with spammy contributions on Draft:Moogsoft with (Moogsoft is salted) I strongly suspect a paid sockfarm but, so far as I can see, none have actually broken the rules around sockpuppetry. Advice please? Cabayi (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess that's what sockpuppet investigations are for. I haven't initiated any as far as I can recall, but I have posted information on a few of them.  They're pretty well organized over there, go for it!  – Athaenara  ✉  16:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Filed. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and it's come good, 11 socks found. Thanks again, Cabayi (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Lara Brown
→  in re:  →  see also:, User talk:Ruhri Jörg, 

I didn't think this was so promotional as to require G11, especially not in Draft space where articles can be improved. The article contains the same sort of contents as is in all articles on academics. The "miscellaneous" section will need to be trimmed a little--I usually try to find some way to avoid saying "considered an expert". I also on he basis of the information given don't think she meets WP:PROF. bit that's a different reason.question--I'd need to check for publications.  DGG ( talk ) 10:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ayurveda in the United States
Can you please mark the results as bold text for the AfD scripts to parse the result. thanks.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you mean specifically to put Deleted (in this case) in bold? – Athaenara ✉  22:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes put Delete in bold instead of "deleted", for example this Articles for deletion/Gene R. Cook closer who has followed Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions which requires the closers to "Add the result at the very top of the page, with the appropriate result in bold "-- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. – Athaenara  ✉  22:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (Final fix 01:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC).) – Athaenara ✉  06:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

you might already be aware of this but this script XFDC, makes the the process of closing completely automated, so you may save some precious few seconds in future. Thanks for your help in closing AfDs regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I rarely participate in or close Afds, I just followed the instructions at Afd top and Afd bottom. Now, just think of the time you'd've saved if you'd simply fixed it yourself.   – Athaenara  ✉  22:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Naah, you wouldn't mind but the Admins in general, frown upon any kind of messing with the afds they closed. (based on personal experience ) so it's better to stay safe than be sorry. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  23:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not me, I like a collaborative environment with lots of good work getting done with as little fuss as possible.   – Athaenara ✉  23:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * then,you deserve this. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  23:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, now I have to complain!   Where's my Orange Julius? – Athaenara  ✉  23:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * May be next time, if you continue with the good work. . -- D Big X ray ᗙ  23:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a deal. – Athaenara  ✉  03:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  (DBigXray later became Renamed user U1krw4txwPvuEp3lqV382vOcqa7.) – Athaenara ✉  12:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC) 

Re: Fguevara robles
Thank you so much. Literally, as you blocked them I was filing a COIN. You may want to keep your eye on Enigma129 who looks like a meatpuppet/UPE. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Aye, I noticed that, checked the logs, found the Fguevara robles account was created a few years before the Enigma129 account, so tagged the latter user page. – Athaenara ✉  05:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Bengal cat
→  in re: this edit to  →  see also: Copyright problems/2019 January 27, User talk:Lubbad85, 

Please tell me why you have deleted all changes to the Bengal Cat page. The edits were all referenced properly and all relevant links were provided. I have spent three full days referencing the page and updating the information

(Lubbad85 (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)) --- moved from Draft talk:Amphetamine synthesis. – Uanfala (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I over-reacted after reading and deleting your New Zealand Cat Fancy page, which was spam and tagged for speedy deletion per G12 as a copyright violation.
 * I won't be reverting your reversion (we call that edit warring). – Athaenara  ✉  21:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I am sorry if I was terse. I was unaware that you are an administrator (Lubbad85 (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC))
 * No problem. – Athaenara  ✉  21:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It also occurs to me now that the advantage to you is that all your edits are now visible as a single edit: your restoration of all that my edit removed! – Athaenara ✉  21:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Athaenara

Please help me if you can. Another administrator has reverted all of the work that I have done. I am unsure how to proceed, but also feeling sick about the time investment in the project. I am sorry for any cause for concern here and I endeavor to do the right thing. (Lubbad85 (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC))


 * That wasn't another administrator, that was an unregistered editor with no contributions to this encyclopedia other than that revert and the messages posted here below. Please contribute to the Copyright problems/2019 January 27 discussion if you can.  – Athaenara  ✉  03:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Athaenara Can you help me with the situation? I am unsure how to proceed (Lubbad85 (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC))
 * My best and most sincere advice is to participate in the copyright problems discussion as I suggested in my earlier message above. – Athaenara  ✉  03:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I do hope I can resolve it. i am contributing there, and happy to remove the offending poorly referenced or copyrighted material. (Lubbad85 (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC))

I see that you made a fantastic Edit on the Bengal Cat Wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_cat at - 23:39, 25 January 2019
 * Bengal Cat wiki Changes

I think the decision to revert the extensive edits made by Lubbad85 was absolutely correct.

However, they have now 'Undone' your Edit completely and I thought I should let you know. They 'claim' you vandalized the page, however, the only vandalism that I see being made by the user Lubbad85 In my opinion.

I thought I should bring it to your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:1480:FE00:8D9B:2FAB:58D7:DD47 (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello
 * on the talk page the administrator Athaenara stated:
 * @Lubbad85: I over-reacted after reading and deleting your New Zealand Cat Fancy page, which was spam and tagged for speedy deletion per G12 as a copyright violation. I have spent many hours referencing the page and cleaning it up.


 * I originally thought that the page was reverted (vandalism) I did not know that Athaenara was an administrator and so I thought the site had been vandalized. Athaenara and I traded a few messages on this topic. Please see the work that I have done and undue the drastic revert.
 * (Lubbad85 (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC))


 * I invested so much time editing the page with extensive edits because it was so poorly referenced. It was a great deal of time and energy hunting down referenced and Breed standards to fix the page. Please see my work in the community to know that I am helping in the community. Thank you for your consideration.
 * (Lubbad85 (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC))


 * Hello @Lubbad85 although I'm certain you have indeed invested time into this page recently and that's appreciated, however, you have made extensive edits to this page that has been contributed to by many over the last 10 years with valid sources that remain factual and helpful information to viewers. I absolutely agree with Athaenaras edit on 23:39, 25 January 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:1480:FE00:8D9B:2FAB:58D7:DD47 (talk)


 * Talk section with edits - are we on the right track?

Hello talk:Athaenara I am currently working on a new improved version for the article "Bengal Cat" I am hoping you can have a look an tell me if the version is much improved. I have it situated in a talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bengal_cat/Temp and I am developing each section independently and referencing material with proper sources and quotations. I have completed several edits and published them on that page. I hope this is appropriate use of the space.

thank you (Lubbad85 (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)).

Good Morning Athaenara I am hoping to learn the way forward on the "Bengal cat" page. I have made the changes and I have run a Copyvios report. Can you help with this? The edits can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bengal_cat/Temp

All my Best Lubbad85 (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , : The page seems good to me, might want to histmerge the temp page to the main page so we don't run into any attribution issues. TheMesquito  buzz  01:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm out of this. I've never done a history merge and I'm not going to start now.
 * This discussion began after I deleted a New Zealand Cat Fancy page as spam and a copyright violation. I noticed the extensive edits on the Bengal cat page by the user who had written that page and, seeing similar problems, reverted them.  That user reverted my reversion, the copyright angle was noticed by others, etc.
 * I'm not involved in this and I'm not rescuing anybody or any thing. Try WikiProject Cats?  – Athaenara  ✉  04:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubbad85 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Bengal cat 2
→  in re: 
 *  (long term infobox image edit warring by Lubbad85, 3TTT5, 108.189.2.131, 97.100.38.180, perhaps others) 

→  see also: Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive386, Talk:Bengal cat, Articles for deletion/Jean Mill 

I have notified each user on their talk page and posted to the edit warring page. Also posted to Bengal cat talk page 3TTT5 has been posting the same photo into the infobox on the Bengal cat going back 10 years. In the history of the page, every time the photo is updated this user replaces it with the photo 3TTT5 desires. I have messaged the users on his/her talk page, and reverted 3TTT5's photo 2-3 times. I do not want to be in an edit war. After I reverted the last attempt by 3TTT5, another user reverted the edit using the same photo and language that 3TTT5 prefers: I suspect that user: 108.189.2.131 is the same person since he/she has used the same language about this photo.
 * Bengal Cat article Photo edit warring with infobox photo over a ten year period

Check it out Diffs of the user's reverts: from user 3TTT5
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)

and same edit and language from 108.189.2.131 Lubbad85 (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)

Ankesh Shahra
→  in re:, , Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Aparna0108  →  see also:, 


 * Regarding creating a page about Ankesh Shahra

Dear Ma'am,

I have noticed that the page Ankesh Shahra is not allowed for creation. I was really looking forward to creating the page since I have met this person and am a big fan. Ankesh Shahra is an Indian by root and has done really well in the field of sustainable agriculture globally. He has brought hi-tech farming solutions by useful R&D and made them available to farmers. I understand the Wikipedia page creation guidelines and would like to know if this content looks suitable to you. Please see. Thanking you in anticipation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanSmith0906 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Brosix Instant Messenger CSD Decline
→  in re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brosix Instant Messenger 

Hi Athaenara. I am working with on training for NPP. We're currently working on deletions and I have to admit to being confused by your decline (but subsequent delete !vote at AfD) - what it seems to be saying is that because we've deleted this in the past we shouldn't use speedy delete now? In my experience most admins are reassured by that when dealing with a G11. Just want to understand your thinking here myself and also help Girth along as he learns. Thanks and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I just felt it would be best to continue the public discussion of those pages. That's my view, and the 4th AfD was initiated soon after.  – Athaenara  ✉  23:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Epilogue: three or more Brosix pages salted. – Athaenara  ✉  01:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Article drafts created by user Thieme Chemistry
→  in re: and 

→  see also: Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 140 

Dear Athaenara,

I already wrote you an private e-mail regarding my previous user account "Thieme Chemistry" and my deleted drafts. You may have overlooked it. You can read my previous message to you below:

"Dear Athaenara,

thank you for your hint to guideline G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion regarding my drafts and my user page. While I am accepting to create a new account using a neutral user name that is not mistakenly intended to represent an organization or company (confer: Username policy), I would like to state my reasons for creating the drafts:

The publications and journals I created drafts for are of relevancy for the chemists’ community. I stated the Science Citation Index, various databases, articles and further references to make clear that the journals are prestigious for the community and ranked in open databases. I testified my subjective neutrality to create articles that should contain relevant information that helps people to find the information they need regarding journals. I will keep my neutral stance in upcoming drafts. Therefore, I am willing to create and improve these drafts without any promotional content to ensure that my articles are neutral, justified and reliable."

For these purposes, I am asking you to restore the drafts you deleted in my user space (User:Thieme Chemistry). Thank you for your help and guidance in advance.

Best regards Dr.Booom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:12, 1 February 2019‎ (UTC)


 * As the uw-coi notice I posted on your user talk page specifies, "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation", etc. This is easily done by adding a UserboxCOI to your user page.
 * For example, if you are editing on behalf of Thieme Medical Publishers, this is the syntax to use:
 * – Athaenara ✉  19:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * – Athaenara ✉  19:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Athaenara,

thanks a lot for your answer. Does that, in view of the Wikipedia guidelines, mean that if someone has a conflict of interest, you are not allowed to create drafts or articles about the topic you’re deeply involved in? In that case, I am not allowed to create drafts regarding Thieme Chemistry journals anyway? Or am I misunderstanding the corresponding guidelines?

Thanks a lot in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Booom (talk • contribs) 13:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that, rather than rely solely upon me for guidance in this, it would be good if you posted your questions and concerns on the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. – Athaenara  ✉  14:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Mobley, Wonder Wafers, etc.
→  in re: my edits to Ihelptocontribute's user talk page  → See also:
 * (AfD)
 * (AfD)
 * (David Mobley Songwriter Producer) (2015)
 * (2016-18)
 * (2017-18)
 * (2018)
 * (2018-19)
 * (2018-19)

Thank you for helping me to abide by Wikipedia's Policies and Procedures. I would like to inform you that I am not a COI Conflict Of Interest. I am receiving no compensation for any of the articles I write about. I use Wikipedia during my spare time to help improve the Encyclopedic online database for new articles and materials that have not been published or discussed before. I try my best to stick to a normal Encyclopedic book form, where these forms offer references to subjects as if the subject knew nothing about the article or words contained in the article as it may be outside of their profession. Can you please help me to understand what I would need to do exactly in the current article's format and paragraphs to edit or delete, or anything else you may see to help me understand what I need to complete before the article is cleared for publishing? Thank you for all that you do. (Ihelptocontribute (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC))
 * Hello Athaenara,

SAQI SAX ARTICLE
→  in re: (AfD) 

Hey, nice to meet you. i wrote SaQi wikipedia article. i will be glad to follow your advice.

I saw some of your colleague make mistake about saqi sax player and saqi trumpet player in there research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SaQi

The link about the source they added are wrong, they added link about a saqi play trumpet. My wikipedia article its about about a saxophonist play smooth jazz.

please let me know your opinion. best regard --CLAIREYUAN2010 (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked through the page history and couldn't find any edits that mentioned trumpet. – Athaenara  ✉  05:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello thank you for your answer when you open the SaQi'Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SaQi The first post about: (with the red color) : This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Etc......

this post talk about some sources are not related to my article. the last line of the first post: Find sources: "SaQi" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR. All this link its about other saqi, first link SaQi youtube, he is a trumpet player, second link "news" its about a saqi's in japan. the saxplayer is french the one in the link from an arabic country. the link "newspaper also talk about other artist but nothing related to my article.

let me know more details to understand what i did wrong thank you. --CLAIREYUAN2010 (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * That's a Template:Find sources link. It's part of Template:Article for deletion/dated and doesn't add content to the page.  – Athaenara  ✉  18:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Find sources: "SaQi" : link to SaQi trumpet player : https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22SaQi%22&num=50 – news : link to a SaQi live in Japan :https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22SaQi%22+-wikipedia All the links in this template dont talk about the SaQi in my article, please explain me why ? i would like to find the good way and fix it. Best regard --CLAIREYUAN2010 (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors have no control over what Google does. Any internet user can narrow a search by writing their own more specific search strings, including saxophone and excluding trumpet for example. – Athaenara  ✉  12:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I understand, but why your colleage add this link if its not related to my wikipedia article ? best regard --CLAIREYUAN2010 (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * To repeat: Find sources is part of Article for deletion/dated. Questions about it could be posted on Template talk:Article for deletion/dated or Template talk:Find sources.  – Athaenara  ✉  22:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. i will ask on the template talk. Best regard. --CLAIREYUAN2010 (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

User block
→  see also: User talk:Pbornet 

Hello, Athaenara,

I was surprised to see that you gave an indefinite block to Pbornet when all they did was try to write an article draft about an academic association for professors of religion. I can see there were copyright issues with the draft but for the first infraction, that usually results in a warning and deletion of the draft, not an indefinite block. Was there more to this editor than be seen in the deleted draft? Because I think that a draft like this could be written by any graduate student that wants their professional association included in Wikipedia. Thanks for any clarity you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 18:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to unblock, no problem. – Athaenara  ✉  18:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅, actually. – Athaenara  ✉  18:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Aprimo
→  in re: (Talk:Aprimo/COI),   →  see also: Deletion review/Log/2019 February 6, Deletion review/Log/2019 February 18, User talk:Robert McClenon, User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2019/February, Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 140  →  and coi spa users:  →  mentioned also at Articles for deletion/Marketing resource management 

I understand you good faith deleted a instance of the Aprimo on 05:01, 1 February 2019 deleted page Aprimo (G6: Deleted to make room for an uncontroversial page move, leaving it to taggers to perform the move) (thank).
 * One issue that resulted from this is that the associated talk page was not deleted and has become associated with the current article, making references to the article before it was created.
 * A further concern is the deleted page which likely was a redirect which had previously been an article had history and attributions under the redirect. In my view best practice would have been draft was copy / pasted over the redirect with attributions to retain this history; not to simply remove the previous page.  There is a (I believe small) risk content from the page may have been used on target without attribution when redirect was created however the fact there was no tagging of attribution at the time means this should not have happened (but these are sometimes missed).
 * Probably a way forward is if in the first instance can ask you restore the Aprimo page and history you deleted to my user space for examination. thankyou.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Probably worth adding after reviewing WP:G6 criteria I may call for a deletion review as the talk page implies the article had history, and probably should have done previously the first time I noted the talk page inconsistency but to be fair that would have distracted from COI resolutions at that point. Either yourself or  may care to short cut and self refer.  If the page was a redirect with no history then I apologise and WP:DRV possibly isn't necessary.  Object of WP:DRV is to confirm pathway of current article, concerns of talk pages not being consistently deleted and redirects with history being removed.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with you or Athaenara checking to see if there was copyvio between the current article and the one that was (I presume?) AfD'ed in 2011. As you said, it's probably a remote chance but no harm in checking. I'm probably not going to request a DRV over the deletion of a redirect of a page with no public content history, though, as I don't really understand the concern you're expressing in that regard so wouldn't be able to articulate a DRV proposal. However, I have no objection if you'd like to request one. Chetsford (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I found no WP:AFD for Aprimo, is that what you meant? – Athaenara  ✉  19:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, my mistake. Your note below answers the question I think. When I approved it at AfC I didn't think I saw a previous AfD but started to second guess myself in light of Djm-leighpark's various concerns with my approval. Thank you for checking! Chetsford (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: The page created in 2009 by AbardaroPR (talk) was deleted almost immediately per WP:CSD as a copyright violation of the Aprimo website (see Aprimo page logs linked above). – Athaenara ✉  19:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Self-correction: that was user Kturneraprimo. – Athaenara  ✉  07:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Even though the account seems to have been abandoned 7 years ago, I'll file a shared username report on Abradorpr for due diligence. Chetsford (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this: In general I am not concerned about the Abradorpr page. The key place I have looked is Special:Log/delete. The results there give:  05:01, 1 February 2019 Athaenara (talk | contribs) deleted page Aprimo (G6: Deleted to make room for an uncontroversial page move, leaving it to taggers to perform the move) (thank) 14:58, 13 August 2009 Toddst1 (talk | contribs) deleted page Aprimo (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement) (thank)  Subsequent to 2009 two pieces of evidence imply the Aprimo page was (re)created (Probably by AbardaroPR) as an article which was subsequently converted to a redirect: (1) The entry ''This article appears to have been written by an employee of a PR company (AbardaroPR (talk · contribs)) on its behalf. It should be therefore considered just an advertisement for company. Peacock (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)'' in 2011 implies this existed as an article at that point (ie subsequent to 2009). (2) My entry on the Draft article talk page indicating This draft may need to be merged over the top of an existing redirect which was previously an article to maintain attribution history.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC) .. visible on Talk:Aprimo/COI - Now what you may be saying is that the version of Aprimo which was deleted on 05:01 1 February 2019 consisted (I suspect) of work by Abradorpr which was promotional / advertising and which had been replaced by a re-direct. In totality I am not currently sure "CSD G6" uncontroversially applied.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In general, we do not preserve G12 copyvio material, and there's not much merit in preserving G11 material either. If you're concerned about attribution, most or all of that will be found in contribs and deleted contribs (which admins can see) of the COI accounts linked above.  – Athaenara  ✉  21:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel the point has been reached where this needs to go to WP:DRV as I require independent review because I cannot argue from what I cannot see. This will occur if I squeeze between real life commitments.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @ I have just checked the procedure and I need to have fully exhausted discussion with yourself first. You have chosen so far not to, as is within your right, action my request to refund the version including history of the Aprimo page incarnation including history that you deleted to a user page for myself to examine.  I would appreciate for that to happen.  Because talk pages and comments were not in my opinion read/acknowledged it may still be appropriate to go to WP:DRV for lessons learned.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've re-read your messages and I'm trying to understand what seems to me a degree of obsessiveness about what you cannot see that is driving you to demand information, which you can't obtain without the access and tools you don't have, from those who have been entrusted with that access and those tools.
 * Maybe someone else who understands you better than I will undelete a bunch of pages and put them in your user space for scrutiny as you seem to desire. I won't do it, but I won't give any other admin a hard time if they do.
 * In general, the page is much improved now over previous versions. One might almost not suspect that there had ever been any COI SPA PR people slanting it for their companies. – Athaenara  ✉  03:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Aprimo. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ( Deletion review/Log/2019 February 6 ) Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Deletion review for Aprimo (1)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Aprimo. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Deletion review for Aprimo (2)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! – Athaenara  ✉  12:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Bhutan
→  in re: 

Hi Athaenara, I see you nominated for speedy deletion the draft of an article 'Bhutan Media Foundation' due to it being a direct copy from the BMF webpage. The page was created during some training of new editors in Bhutan and I would like to go back and work with the contributor, a newbie, to improve the page to meet Wikipedia's standards and join the community. However I cannot find it. Would you be able to help me retrieve it. with thanks Doctor 17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't nominate the page for deletion. User:Diannaa tagged it as a db-copyvio of a BMF website page (it was), which put it in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations, where admins see such pages and follow through.  New editors will find the WP:CSD section helpful.  – Athaenara  ✉  03:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Athaenara. How can I find the page so that I can work with the new user to improve it, rather than leave him just dispirited that his first creation was deleted. As part of the "I'm a newbie: Dont bite me" policy I would like to help him, not lose him. So please can you help me find his original page, if that is possible. Thanks Doctor 17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to be dispirited, just take the lesson that copying content from other websites will always be treated as a copyright violation on Wikipedia and move on. – Athaenara  ✉  05:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Fit Club Deletion
→  in re:  →  see also: User talk:Mike Halterman, Articles for deletion/Fit Club 

I don't agree with this deletion. I don't understand how this article was a promotion or advertisement. It was written from a neutral point of view with references? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Fit_Club&action=edit&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestfitnesspicks (talk • contribs) 19:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Requests related to Wiki Ed Class
→  in re: Wiki Ed/University of Washington/COM 482 Interpersonal Media - Online Communities (Winter 2019) and:  →  see also: User talk:Athaenara/Archive 11 
 *  user and  (sandbox) 
 *  user and  

Hi Athaenara, I'm teaching a college class on online communities, and the students are learning to make contributions to Wikipedia. Several of them are working on articles about fashion or make-up brands, including and  whose drafts were deleted (by you) when they moved them from their sandboxes into the mainspace. There are two pages involved:

AmorePacificCorp

KITH NYC

I think both of these companies are notable as they are both have sizable markets and influential brands and have attracted media coverage in the fashion and business press. It's also totally true that the student's drafts were inadequately encyclopedic, needed better headers, more polished writing, or paraphrased source material too closely (in the case of AmorePacificCorp). I want them to have the chance to improve their articles and I will review their improvements before they attempt to re-create the articles. That said, as things stand they are each blocked from trying again. Can you please take steps to make it possible for them to continue working on their articles?


 * Please restore 's sandbox, which was deleted, so that she can recover her draft and begin improving it.
 * saved a copy of his draft and has made some improvements in his sandbox (though he probably still has more work to do). However, the article KITH NYC was page protected after  recreated the page after it was deleted the first time.  I'm not 100% sure why this happened, but since this is his first time editing Wikipedia, I think it's reasonable to assume confusion but it in good-faith. Can you remove the page protection?

Again, I'll review their drafts and I won't approve of any attempts to move them to the mainspace unless I think they are encyclopedic and not promotional, advertising, or copyright-violating.

Groceryheist (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * if you don't teach them the seriousness of (1) copyright violations and (2) using this encyclopedia (it is not a euphemism) as an advertising vehicle, who will? – Athaenara  ✉  03:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that we covered matters of copyright, close-paraphrasing, and self-promotion. Teaching the students isn't just up to me, we also used material from wikiedu.org, and now you and other editors are helping by demonstrating what can happen when these matters are not considered as seriously as they should be. Ideally, we would be able to teach them well enough that they don't make these mistakes, but doing that effectively remains a challenge. There's a lot to learn! Many of my students have successfully made good contributions, but some that chose to work on articles related to brands or companies are having some trouble. It seems difficult for them to write about companies in an encyclopedic way that doesn't appear to have a commercial intent. And this wasn't something that was specifically covered. In the future I'll do so, or at least make it so that they can't choose articles on companies. I appreciate that paid and disingenuous editing is a serious problem for you to deal with, but that's just not what's happening here.  Nobody is shilling on purpose.  I would really appreciate it if you gave them another chance.  Groceryheist (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * by another chance, do you mean by unprotecting the pages they created and, after deletion for strong policy reasons, re-created? Since you are asking me, I will tell you what I think: they'd be better tasked to encyclopedic topics which have nothing to do with products and marketing.  – Athaenara  ✉  04:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yes, I would like you to un-protect KITH_NYC. The topic of the page is clearly notable having been the subject of articles in the New York Times (multiple), Wall Street Journal, and GQ. indeed re-created a page that was deleted. I still do not fully understand why he did so.  can you explain? Did you know that you re-created a page that an admin deleted? Why did you re-create the page?
 * In the second case was working on Amorepacific_Corporation, but mistakenly put her changes in AmorePacificCorp.  When that was deleted, so was her sandbox where she was working. Is it too much to ask for you to restore User:Alice0129/sandbox so that she can recover her work to be integrated with Amorepacific_Corporation? Groceryheist (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * With regard to the AmorePacificCorp page, we do not restore copyright violating material. Sorry I missed this specific request earlier.  – Athaenara  ✉  09:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the information you provided here. It was never my intention to recreate the page that was deleted my admin. I was totally unaware of the fact that I recreated again because it's my first time edit an article and move it out of my sandbox.Realyuang (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I just moved U|Realyuang's reply below mine to keep things organized Groceryheist (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that Wiki-Ed students aren't getting enough supervision, and instructors aren't, either. Doesn't the Education program give any guidance to Wiki-Ed participants?  That project page has prominent links alleging to connect to information for educators and students and about assignments, and has a big "ask or discuss anything" link.  Is that not real?


 * The Wiki-Ed assignments which have crossed my path in speedy deletion categories have left me rather appalled by the naïveté and inexperience of both instructors and students, and one case looked like outright exploitation of students (see the December 2018 discussion preserved in User talk:Athaenara/Archive 11).


 * Wiki Ed certainly provides guidance. They provide real human support and and  also gave student's feedback on their projects. Yes the project page is real.  I can't speak to other issues you've had with Wikiedu students, but I have a hard time imagining that a teacher or someone with Wikiedu paid students to advertise. More likely is a case similar to this. Students choose to work on companies, they don't know what "an encyclopedic tone" means, and had their articles speedy deleted.  Sometimes learning involves making mistakes.  It's regrettable that these mistakes lead to work for you.  There's also a selection bias here because you won't notice the many other articles that other students work on. It isn't really fair to evaluate Wiki Ed simply in terms of the minority of problems. I have to say I think it is clear that  KITH shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. The topic is notable, but the article as created had surmountable problems that needed to be cleaned up. I'm also asking you to undelete a sandbox so a student can recover their work. If you're not willing to do these things then I'll start a WP:Deletion_Review. Groceryheist (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you know about the Articles for creation project? – Athaenara  ✉  08:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I do, I (and the WikiEdu content) advised the students to look to AfC, WP:requested articles, or to find stubs to improve, especially ones that have been claimed by Wikiprojects. Groceryheist (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Athaenara and Groceryheist. Wiki Education takes copyright violations and promotional content very seriously--in fact, we cover copyright violations, including close paraphrasing, in the very first training students take. We emphasize that content should be written in a neutral point of view.


 * We also provide in-person support with an automated alert system that notifies the three Wikipedia Experts of potential incidents, included detected plagiarism and when articles are nominated for deletion. Despite these failsafes, however, students are nearly all entirely new editors, and they make good-faith mistakes. While the volume of students means that not every student receives personalized feedback from Wikipedia experts--students rely on their peers and also their instructors for feedback--the Experts are able to provide some personalized feedback and support, as I did with one of the students in question after their article was nominated for deletion.


 * Groceryheist, I've looked at both of these articles, and I'm not sure there's anything salvageable there for your students, unfortunately. As Athaenara pointed out, we can't restore content that contains copyright violations. The KITH NYC article, in addition to being promotional, is also using sources that aren't reliable, such as the brand's website. Can you encourage your students to re-take our trainings about what makes a reliable source, and what doesn't, and how to establish notability for a topic? These are really key guidelines they'll need to follow if they'd like to create these articles. If they can't find 3-5 articles covering the companies in independent, editorially reviewed sources, they'll need to pick a different topic, or you're obviously welcome to have them submit their work to you off-wiki. They just can't create articles that don't follow Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. Thanks, Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

DanielleNeal2
→  in re: user 

Figured you have seen the ping anyway, but out of courtesy, I'm just letting you know that I've unblocked this user now that she's agreed to abide by the COI rules. The issue of meatpuppetry does give me some degree of pause, but as long as she restricts herself to talkpage edits I don't think there's an ongoing need for the block (although I wholeheartedly endorse its initial imposition!). Yunshui 雲 水 14:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, it's a wait and see situation now. – Athaenara  ✉  21:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

→  in re: 
 * Informal WP:REFUND-like request.

Since you deleted Draft:EmployBridge Update, I was wondering if you'd do me the solid of grabbing the one or two news articles that found. I didn't save my own copy. I'll probably fork the current article into draftspace, get it all banged out with DanielleNeal2 where it's satisfactorily updated to 2019 info, and send it to either you or for review. Sound good? (ping response pls) &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  00:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It was monster PR spam for the company, there's nothing to "bang out" there unless 90% or more of it is discarded. Seriously.  If you absolutely have to see it, click on one of the diffs in the user's userpage history where she copypasted the whole thing. – Athaenara  ✉  01:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Climate Plan
→  in re:  →  see also:, User talk:Daiyusha 

Athaenara, was it you who deleted the page at Climate_Plan? If so, do undelete and - if needed - articulate any concerns in the talk page, while I call for removal of your admin privileges. Sam.carana (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Page deletion

Pure Planet
→  in re:,  →  see also: Requests for undeletion/Archive 334, User talk:DGG#Undeletion of a page, and the following SPAs: 
 *  (2011 February) 
 *  (2017 June) 
 *  (2017 June) 
 *  (2017 July) 
 *  (2017 November) 
 *  (2018 November) 

Anthaenara, could you undelete the Draft:Pure Planet page. I have submitted an undeletion request, as I wish to improve that draft and remove the promotional material. But could you please undelete before I work on it further? Tomtr2 (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2019 (GMT)


 * Hello Anthaenara, I was not aware of these previous submissions under the same topic. Could you undelete my draft in order for me to edit and review my wording, adding additional information and sources? Tomtr2 (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2019 (GMT)
 * You'll find it at User:Tomtr2/sandbox. – Athaenara  ✉  18:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
→  in re: user  Thanks! – Athaenara ✉  05:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

thanks!
→  in re: 

Hi, thanks for your help removing spam earlier today! I'm being forced to clutter your talk page because there is no "thank" button in Deletion Log entries :) Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, you're welcome.  – Athaenara  ✉  15:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Page creation about me
→  in re:  →  see also: 

Hi, regarding the page creation, I did create it and it got deleted since it was about me. I am not sure about the other account that created it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saranshkataria (talk • contribs) 06:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletions of draft and article
→  in re:, 

Hi Athaenara,
 * Article deletions

I'd noticed that the following two articles of mine were deleted under Unambiguous advertising or promotion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Life_You_Can_Save_(Organization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Bresler

I've taken a close look at them and am not sure what content in them is falling foul of the advertising and promotion Wikipedia guidelines. I was wondering if you could provide more some more detail on these points so I can present versions of them that are fully adhering to the guidelines.

Warmest regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by EAuser1990 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Undeleted, for now. I don't know how long they'll last.  What is your relationship to the organization and the person?   – Athaenara  ✉  09:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Athaenara,

Hope you're well.

I don't believe there is a conflict of interest here, but here are the full details to aid your decision:

The Organization: I'm not and have never been an employee or volunteer for the organization and I am a self-employed EFL teacher so I don't work in their industry either. I have written a blog for the organization: https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/blog/id/1479/minimalism-and-effective-altruism and a supporter story: https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/take-the-pledge/supporters-stories/id/1473/an-intuition-worth-following because I admire the work of Peter Singer. I am an admirer of effective altruism and so this brought me to Wikipedia to see which organizations, people etc. I found that both the organization and Charlie do not have entries on here so I wanted to fill these gaps.

Charlie: I have never spoken to or met with Charlie, although I do admire his work.

If you have any questions about the above, I'm happy to answer :)

Warmest regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by EAuser1990 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Plaqad
→  in re:, ,  →  see also: User talk:Athaenara/Archive 11, Sockpuppet investigations/Ladispeaks, Talk:Freelancer/Archives/2019, Articles for deletion/Bola Adeboye, Articles for deletion/Patricia.com.ng 

Hello, Athaenara,

I was surprised to see that you deleted the page Plaqad as a result of ambigous advertising; I have made the page more better and removed all advertising languages and making it better.

Can you review it at Draft:Plaqad Or can I recreate the page afresh?

Ladispeaks (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It was spam then and it's spam now. Don't you think it's past time for you to admit your conflict of interest and make your paid-contribution disclosure?  – Athaenara  ✉  16:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Athaenara

To start with

1) I do not have a conflict of interest in any of these articles that I create and this is after I have read the conflict of interest and they are not also paid contributions.

2) Instead of assuming - why don't you ask because an assumption is the lowest level of knowledge indeed assumptions can be misleading.

3) To state it for a fact again - I do not have a Conflict of Interest and tagging the article as spam is grossly irrational. I find that veery insulting and demoralizing as to the work Africans do on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladispeaks (talk • contribs) 16:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * On your own user page you admit that you (in the third person) "focuses on user-centric marketing and communications" which sounds a lot like you are writing Wikipedia articles for pay. For that reason, I can understand your confusion from our response to your overt marketing through "ad copy" drafts like Draft:Plaqad. We seek to assist you in your editing by communicating to you because we want to ultimately help readers and avoid doing them a disservice by falling into bad practices like advocacy. Wikipedia is a volunteer-written open-source knowledge service and we resist being exploited by those in the marketing industry, not to mention selfishly-driven charities and other non-profits. Because we get swamped by these bad-faith contributors, we use the neutrally-worded boilerplate messages about CoI like the one you received. Rather than take offense at our well-thought concerns, please come to understand our motivations, our purposes, and our reasons for acting. Many of us are concerned with subjects around the globe, including in Africa. We have a project focused on Africa as well as other outreach efforts to better cover the continent as well as the Global South. It is, therefore, disheartening to see your condemnation of Wikipedia as "insulting and demoralizing" when you do not speak for all African peoples and you have no awareness of what we, as a volunteer community, seek to do for Africans. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Plaqad (agency) (again)

Hello Athaenara, as you have some knowledge with the article's history and can see the deleted version at Plaqad and Draft:Plaqad, would you mind checking the newest version again please? As a 2017 establishment it seems unlikely to be notable, but the cite bombing with advertorials, routine announcements and passing mentions makes it difficult to assess the entire situation. The disambiguation is also rather pointless as no other Plaqad topic exists on Wikipedia. GermanJoe (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Three Plaqad pages salted, Ladispeaks blocked.  – Athaenara  ✉  22:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Userpage re-created
→  in re: user accounts and  

The user re-created their user page here (fyi). - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 16:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, deleted again and blocked. – Athaenara  ✉  17:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Notavote
→  in re: AfD for  →  see also: Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 5 

It's not for experienced editors, it's for inexperienced editors who may have been canvassed. There's already one voter there CU blocked. I don't think the removal, or the snarky edit summary, were called for. Leviv&thinsp;ich 22:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to be the remaining one-man army trying to get rid of the article. I repeat: drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.  And don't bludgeon the process.  – Athaenara  ✉  01:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are objectively incorrect about my being a one-man army: I am neither alone, nor am I an army. Please stop trying to exclude me from a conversation because you disagree with me. I'm not the one reverting your edits here. Leviv&thinsp;ich 01:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't like the assumptions you make about other people's intentions and motives, and, objectively, I am not trying to exclude you from anything. And "reverting your edits"?  I  removed one template one time and you're painting it as serial reversions.  Stop.  – Athaenara  ✉  02:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we just leave this at "we have a difference of a opinion about the notability of a particular article subject", without any hostility? I didn't engage you in the AfD discussion, you engaged me–kinda rudely–from the start. I posted: "", to which you replied "", followed by "", and more. You've talked to others in the AfD in a similar manner, and you complained about the uninvolved editor who relisted the discussion (""). I posted {notavote} for what I think are obviously good reasons: one of the voters was blocked by a checkuser as a sockpuppet. A few voters aren't extended confirmed. Some haven't edited in a while before voting in this AfD. Seemed to me like a normal use of the tag. But you reverted my {notavote} with the edit summary "". Don't template the regulars? What? This is an AfD, not a user talk page. And stick? I wish you would have AGFed and realized I posted the tag for good faith reasons, not as some kind of message to "the regulars." If you think it was an inappropriate use of the tag, then revert me, that's fine, you're an admin, I wouldn't complain. But the snarky edit summary, and the snarky comments before that, are uncalled for. I didn't nom this AfD, I didn't relist it, I'm not the checkuser who blocked the sock, but you call me a one-man army. When I came here, you again accused me of not dropping a stick and bludgeoning the process. I don't understand why, from the outset here, you've treated me in this way. I really don't understand what I've said or done to upset you. I hope we can just agree to disagree on the notability of this article subject, and bury the hatchet from here on out, if that works for you. Sorry for the long message and I won't post here again if you don't want me to. Leviv&thinsp;ich 03:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why it's called bludgeoning: accusations, exaggerations, and misrepresentations in another long screed. I again invite you to stop.  – Athaenara  ✉  03:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia
Hi Athaenara, I hope you’re well. I have worked on a user draft with some possible updates and changes to Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia, which is out of date in places and has some puff terms, as well as having no infobox. In my user draft, any suggested new sentences/paragraphs are in italics and anything I’m proposing to be removed is in strikethrough. There is a full explanation of these suggested changes on the talk page of the draft. I have also posted on the main article talk page. If you have a moment sometime to review and let me know your thoughts it would be much appreciated. Thank you. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't had time to look closely at this yet. When I do, I will.  – Athaenara  ✉  15:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Athaenara, thanks very much and I saw you added the infobox - much appreciated. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Athaenara, just wondered if you’ve had a chance to look at any more of this draft. Thanks. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, every time I approached the task, hoping to find some relatively minor and uncontroversial starting point, I end up bogged down again. I think reaching out to editors with more expertise in this area (WikiProject Saudi Arabia?) could be more productive.  – Athaenara  ✉  21:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Acharya Indu Prakash
Hello admin

A PR reperesentative of acharya indu prakash has asked me to create wikipedia page, though I have refused. But again for my knowledge asking for the notability criteria for an astrologer.--Babitahamdard (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked at WikiProject Astrology and its talk page, then Category:Astrologers and Category:Indian astrologers, then the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline and Biographies of living persons policy. I guess that's where you could start, too.  – Athaenara  ✉  15:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Jexodus
→  in re:, user , File:David Roberts-IsraelitesLeavingEgypt 1828.jpg  →  see also: Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 75, Administrators' noticeboard/Archive307 

Hello Athaenara. I removed a photo and it's associated caption on the Jexodus article. I noticed you have removed the photo as well for the same reason. Its being added back by a mostly single-purpose account who I don't think understands why it's inappropriate. What would you suggest in relation to the inappropriate image (and other content) being added to the page? I don't want to get into an edit war with PaulSampson79. Thank you. --Kbabej (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's kind of an ugly situation, there are many on Wikipedia pages which have anything to do with politics. For now, I posted a warning on PaulSampson79's talk page about edit warring.  – Athaenara  ✉  18:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. Something isn’t automatically inappropriate just because it is critical of a particular POV.  Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and literally everything in the article is cited.  97.118.143.21 (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This matter has been reported at WP:NPOVN, not sure you knew about it Athaenara ☆ Bri (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bri. – Athaenara  ✉  20:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Michael Takeo Magruder
→  in re:, ,  →  see also: User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 99 

Please undelete Draft: Michael Takeo Magruder. I saw a message this morning (UK time: 7:31am)advising a tag had been placed on Draft:Michael Takeo Magruder requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. I immediately visited the page to contest the tag and make the removal/amendment necessary to ensure the page did not infringe copyright. I would be grateful if the draft page were re-instated so that I may remove the relevant offending material.Jeremydkp (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please Undelete Draft:Michael Takeo Magruder

Applause Entertainment
→  in re:,  →  see also:, ,  →  and more: Help desk/Archives/2019 March 28, User talk:Onel5969/Archive 36, User talk:Orangemike/Archive 33, User talk:Jimfbleak#‎Applause Entertainment Deletion, User talk:Jimfbleak#Undelete User : Arpit.Toshi 

Hi,

Could you please list down your points of concern with the page in an understandable manner? The current deletion of this page is slightly uncalled for, and I guess your verdict on the same is entirely 'mistaken' at my end. Would need further clarification on the article's talk page or mine! Please bear with me, as I have recently joined Wikipedia, but am certainly not new to the world of advertising.

Request you to give this thought a shake and give me at least 5-10 instances in the writeup as to where did I go wrong? It is a production house with a bunch of web series in the pipeline; I think it's not me who made their plots interesting, for all I have the authority to do is make it a bit more descriptive.

Also, let's talk and collaborate to deliver the information that we are tasked instead of deleting everything by disregarding every single word written there.

Best --Arpit.toshi (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

OPEN Community
→  in re:, 

sir, you deleted my page a couple of days ago. This was the page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEN_Community

I have made a draft of this page. It would be really helpful if you could tell if the page can be published now. this is the url of draft page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:OPEN_Community

Thank You sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManushiKapoor (talk • contribs) 14:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Cyber Group Inc
→  in re:, , (CyberGroup1998) 

Hi @Athaenara,

I'd noticed that the following article of mine was deleted by you under Unambiguous advertising:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:CyberGroupInc

I've re-verified it and I am not sure what content is falling foul of the advertising Wikipedia guidelines. I was wondering if you could provide more some more details on these points so I can present versions of them that are fully adhering to the guidelines. Thanks and regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheReader1998 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Athaenara! I am still waiting for your response on the above matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheReader1998 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You wrote a draft article advertising the company you work for. K.e.coffman posted a Db-spam-notice on your talk page last month, linking guidelines and policies which will tell you all you need to know.  (Translation: read WP:CSD, WP:SPAM, and WP:ORGFAQ.) – Athaenara  ✉  08:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Athaenara! I appreciate your reply on the above matter.Could you please let me know concisely what exactly i need to do to publish this page? It would be really helpful for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheReader1998 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just don't. Are you not here to build an encyclopedia?  – Athaenara  ✉  12:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia user page. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Athaenara/Archive_12.