User talk:Athaenara/Archive 2

This is an archive of discussions from 2007 through 2019. 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 1  Archive 2   Archive 3 →


 * Biographies of living persons
 * Biographies of living persons policy and Biographies of living persons noticeboard

2007
→ ''Note: A mouse kindly retired me from March·April·May·June 2007 BLP noticeboard archiving. —A. 22:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC) ''

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.  — Athaenara 06:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Seth Swirsky
→ Postscript: User "MoeLarryAndJesus" changed username to Special:Contributions/TortureIsWrong and got blocked again

Hi Athaenara. This is Seth Swirsky. I am new to wikipedia so please bear with me—I hope I'm not writing this in the wrong place. But here goes: I have a page that a number people have written on (you can only imagime how flattered I am!). I'm a pop songwriter and book author but I've also written many political articles throughout the past year and a half. One person—moelarryjesus—clearly does not like me personally. Someone emailed me today and says he's trying to label me, on my 'wiki' page, as a 'conservative', which I am not. This person has written me personally very nasty emails to my personal email.
 * Take 1

I know politics is a rough sport, but I don't feel like that should happen. When I found out that he is continually trying to revert my page to a label of which I am not, it's a little distressing. So, I (probably clumsily) reverted it back (again, it's my first time on wiki). I also wrote why I think the description of me as a Henry "Scoop" Jackson democrat, should stand. I understand you ruled against me. But, if you would please allow me a second of your valued time, I can give you my case for reverting back. As an aside, I think this person is targeting me and it's a little nerve-racking (to say the least!). Again, thank you Athaenara. — 22:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I apologise for misinterpretating statements in your RCP [RealClearPolitics] article and getting the point only half right.


 * I'm not an administrator and I have no special powers or tools on Wikipedia. Users like MoeLarryAndJesus generate a degree of conflict that is beyond the scope of a simple dispute resolution project like Third opinion, which relies on good faith in disputes between two editors only.


 * The situation this user has created on Talk:Seth Swirsky is extremely unpleasant. S/he is the kind of disruptive, tendentious and contentious user who doesn't understand that Wikipedia article talk pages are for discussions about improving encyclopedia articles, not free-for-all blogs.  Such users typically either change their ways dramatically or get banned from Wikipedia.  — Athaenara  23:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, sorry to be bugging you Athaenara—I'm new to wiki and I don't know if this is the place to ask you to intercede. Can you, if you get a chance, take a look at my reasons for not wanting to be labeled something I'm not by "MoeLarryJesus". it's become a blog-stand-off (and I know that's not what this site is for. ) I apologize if I contributed to that but I just wanted to defend and elucidate my position with this person, who, it seems, is intent on 'getting his way". I can offer a compromise, but it wouldn't matter because he just continues (somewhat obsessively, judging by the personal emails I get to my email box) to want to label me as HE sees me. Oy! Thanks again for looking at the situation. I obviously would like that section to revert back to what someone named Jheditorials wrote. Thank you. — Sethswirsky (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood. I don't think you contributed to it—on the contrary, you had a normal human reaction to being maligned and harassed by a total stranger.  Please see also the Dispute resolution section on the article talk page, and the listing on Wikiquette alerts about the user.  — Athaenara  02:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC) → (Wikiquette assistance/archive11)

Athaenara, thank you for your response. For the record, I'm not trying to "win", just looking not to have people, like MoeLarryJesus label me as someone who I'm not. So, trying to make it easier for everyone involved, I've offered a compromise that sounds pretty good. what do you think?

I've askd MLJ if he could abide by it. It seems like a fair compromise. I am what I describe myself as—although I acknowledge that others, like MLJ, may see and label me differently. That seems to distill our thoughts on this. — Sethswirsky (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your wording (which the other user has reverted some five or more times) is appropriate, Seth, though please understand that I don't have a swing vote in the situation.


 * I walked into this minefield after Jheditorials posted a request for a third opinion on WP:3O, which is just one of several projects in which ordinary Wikipedians participate in pursuit of the common goal of consensus building to achieve the neutral encyclopedic point of view in articles.


 * That didn't work out, because a disruptive user who has a particular agenda and assumes bad faith in all other editors won't respond to neutral third opinions. This "MLJ" user seems to have thoroughly intimidated the editor who posted the WP:3O request, and neither of them seem to understand the informal nature of the WP:3O process.


 * We're all on learning curves, though. I confess I really don't get the blind spot some people have about conservatives who are also Democrats.  "Liberal" and "Democrat" are not actually synonyms.  — Athaenara  06:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Athaenara. (is this the correct place to write you? Again, first day on Wikipedia—I wouldn't even be here if I really wasn't being harrassed (if you could see the nasty emails I get personally by this "Moe Larry Jesus" person!) I made my case, I rebutted his points, I even offered a compromise, even though I think what Jheditorial wrote on my page was correct—and why shouldn't it be: he (Jheditorial) probably got that I was a "Scoop" Jackson Democrat because he researched the internet and there it was in numerous places (counter to MLJ's "opinion" that I am a conservatove—and, a "self-described" one at that (show me once where I describe myself that way!). This is disheartening. Where am I in all of this? I just really don't appreciate being labeled as something I'm not in what is a "hit job" being done on me by someone who doesn't like my politics, clearly. Again, thanks for listening. — Sethswirsky (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Athaenara—another day, another revert by MoeLarryjesus, the bane of my existence—what do you know! Can I get some advice for what I do now that the moment he woke up this morning, despite your reprimand and my compromise proposal, he reverted my page back. Do I file some kind of harrassment complaint and how do I do this? This is a political hit job being done on me because he does not like my politics and cannot believe I am a Democrat. Oy! Any suggestions would be welcome because I have more important things to do, as do you. I've offered a compromise, but his description of me is completely wrong and not fair, not backed up by anything on the web, although my own description is, as I've pointed out numerous times. Furthermore, coupled with the personal email attacks I get from him, his vandalizing my page is getting a little scary. Thanks again for your time. — Sethswirsky (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hang in there. — Athaenara  20:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Seth, your success in Staying cool when the editing gets hot, remaining civil in an extremely distressing situation in which you have been repeatedly and apparently maliciously provoked, is admirable. — Athaenara  01:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * → (MLAJ posts returned to sender with request to refrain from using this user talk page for continued Harassment of the subject of a Biographies of living persons article.)

Athaenara—I appreciate your assistance (this may be the wrong place to ask you this, but not knowing the rules of Wikipedia, this is the only place I know to reach someone who understands this case). MoeLarryJesus is at it again: He's now vandalized another section of the page… I've changed it back but this is truly ridiculous already. How do I get someone at Wikipedia to see what this guy is doing? He has some kind of hatred for me so he's terrorizing me (or trying to) in public. I'm asking for your help in this matter. If I can contact someone, or you can—anything—to get this guy banned—rules for vandals were made for people like him. Sorry to ask you this but what would you do? I've posted this on a Sethswirsky talk page, and again, sorry to re-state this here—I just don't know where to turn next? Thank you. — Sethswirsky (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It might have turned a corner—see recent post* on the bio talk page. — Athaenara  10:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC) * Talk:Seth Swirsky/Archive 1

You would have thought a corner would have been turned—if I didn't see the goings on with my own eyes, I wouldn't believe it. Two new editors, Sanchom and HollisMusicGuy both weighed in and their description is dead on accurate—a perfect compromise, everyone's happy. But not MLJ! he has reverted their edits now 3 times just this morning. Moreover, instead of just letting it be, he now is insistent on posting the amazon.com sales numbers for my just released CD, which is an unfair piece of info (even if it was #1) because it changes by the hour. It was meant by him as a slight. If it's not perfectly clear that this person has it "out" for me personally, and should be banned from "editing" my page, I don't know when it will be. Other editors are acting in good faith, but not him. Last thing: read this. Clearly, this is a debate forum for him, not a place for consensus. Again, thank you! — Sethswirsky (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 3RR Report: 08:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3RR Result: 20:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked: 20:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC) with an expiry time of 24 hours - extreme 3RR violation (more than 10 reverts) after warnings

→ Postscript: Blocked user returned after 24 hours (01:31, February 22 2007 UTC), resuming similar behaviour (while so far avoiding more 3RR violations) on Seth Swirsky and Talk:Seth Swirsky.

Hi Athaenara, remember me? Seth Swirsky -- Again, I don't know if this is the place to request you look at something --you were completely sympathetic to [me about] the vandalism being done to my page by MoeLarryJesus last week --well, he's at it again.
 * Take 2

This guy will not go away. Read his hateful comments on my discussion page. He now has deleted my "Political Writing" section of my entry entirely. He's using a different name to do this. Do you know how many people write political articles for big-time blogs, as I do? Michelle Malkin, Bill Maher, David Sirota, Cenk Uygur — and they have their writing archived and spoken about in their Wikipedia article. But MoeLarryJesus is on a mission to get mine taken off. You got him suspended for a day — but he seriously needs to be blocked from my page forever.

A, can you re-visit this? This is insanity (and I'm sure he's loving every minute of it.) It was true what I told you: he did write a scary email to me personally. He claims he didn't but what a coincidence that the email address was from MoeLarryJesus@____.com! Help! Sethswirsky (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (1.) Hi Seth—I remember when you posted on Wikiquette alerts last month: "For the record, the date of last harrassing email from MoeLarryandJesus was February 9, 2007 12:49:30 AM PST."    (Wikiquette assistance/archive11)


 * A few days ago, I asked Newyorkbrad (the admin who handled the 24 hour 3RR block) about the deletion of content from your userpage, on User talk:Newyorkbrad. Please bring this to his attention there (you can quote this post if you want) and if you type five tildes  after your name he will know what time you posted.  OK?  Good luck!  — Athaenara   01:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC) → Archived: see below.
 * User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive4
 * User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive4
 * User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive5


 * (2.) There were—this will not surprise you—other disruptions.  The user was blocked, with "(…account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Troll)"  in the summary, following a Requests for comment process:     →  (opened)  →  (debated)  →  (closed).


 * Because there really should be consequences to email harrassment, you might also want to follow through on the suggestion I offered last month about using the Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) process. — Athaenara  03:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (3.) After an admin told him he should not have removed content from your user talkpage, the user complained on WP:ANI. I posted a comment there with diffs, timestamps, and quotes a few minutes ago.  —  Athaenara  03:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)   → (That whole section is now archived.)


 * (4.) Miscellaneous related updates:
 * Username change request added.
 * Block review. The user's trolling on WP:ANI is referred to in this discussion.  Examples:
 * - (first) "laughable" "self-important" "mealy-mouthed editors" "getting into tizzies"
 * - (third) pulled the "chuckles" ploy on an administrator.
 * Username change request removed.
 * User's talk page  before  one of several administrators who were completely fed up with his trolling replaced its content with "This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia."
 * It was all about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. —  Athaenara  10:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

(As of 11:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC): user block reduced from indefinite to 48 hours.)

A -
 * Thank you

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. — Athaenara 02:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Carla Martin

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

Athaenara, thanks for your help with Carla Martin. I haven't been doing this for too long so I wasn't sure what the next step was in dealing with Schmetterling et al. PubliusFL 21:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. (It wouldn't hurt to thank the admin who blocked her, too :-)  This may not be the end of the disruptive editing, but at least there's a breather for a bit, and the user may have gained some understanding of how far her editing patterns deviate from Wikipedia policies and guideliness.  One hopes so, at any rate.  — Athaenara 21:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, "not the end" is right:  Oh well! PubliusFL 06:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * One's hopes were dashed—but your second report has yielded results: thirty one hours this time. — Athaenara  08:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Schmetterling seems to be evading the block with an anon IP. I have requested a checkuser. PubliusFL 19:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fast results (open proxy blocked) too, good work! — Athaenara  00:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fans and brand management

 * (In re Clamp (manga artists), archived BLP/N report, Talk:×××HOLiC.)

Hi there, thanks for so thoroughly putting a lid on that Clamp thing - just another example of fandom-infused purism, I'm afraid. Speaking of fans with strong opinions, you seem to be right, that RfC on Darkcat21 isn't really going anywhere. But on the plus side, it's been rather quiet around the X Japan article the past few weeks, which is good. Anyhow, there is currently another move request to reduce stylization going on (for ×××HOLiC, one of Clamp's works). Given that there is already a bunch of people around who are irrevocably opposed to the idea of standardized capitalization, you are more than just welcome to join us. Take care - Cyrus XIII 11:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd choose "HOLiC" myself . I'll think about it.  — Athaenara  13:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Strikeout What, am I nuts? "Holic" is better.  — Athaenara  00:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Holic. Just Holic.  No exes.  —  Athaenara  14:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I posted my support for "Holic" on Talk:×××HOLiC. There has been at least another yard of dispute since you posted about it here, Cyrus, so I'm glad I waited.  —  Athaenara   09:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Article moved to XxxHolic at 15:42, March 21 2007 (UTC).

Burt Reynolds

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

A Request for comment on Burt Reynolds' birthplace has been opened at Talk:Burt Reynolds. -- Donald Albury 21:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying me of that discussion. I stayed out of it, because I didn't see anything I could contribute to it.  I'm glad to see that the disputes there were finally resolved.  — Athaenara  05:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Naeim Giladi

 * (In re discussion of Naeim Giladi in Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive11.)

Hello, Thank you very much for your input at Naeim Giladi; now peace has finally broken out on that article after edit-warring for months. Here I should insert a bouquet of flowers, but since I´m no good at inserting pictures I´m afraid you just have to imagine them!

I have not been on Wikipedia for a few weeks, so when I tried to look at the WP:BLP/N it had been archived. However, there seem to be something wrong with the link (?) Regards, Huldra 11:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Try the link again—the section you're looking for is the third one in that archive.  — Athaenara  12:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Suhayl Saadi

 * (In re discussion of Suhayl Saadi in Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 4.)

Suhayl Saadi may be correctly sent to AfD. What do you think? Hello Athaenara. I have you pegged as an inclusionist in my mind, so you may have another opinion on this article, which is now at the top of the list on the COI noticeboard. I'm the only one who put in a good word for it, while you've actually Wikified it. When an article is already a COI (written by the author), and doesn't have a club of supporters, and the 'unreferenced' tag has been there for two months, don't you think it's had its chance? The author has not done much on WP except edit this article. Since not much work has been invested in it by the general WP community, little would be lost. The subject is not so notable that we are incomplete as an encyclopedia without him. He can always come back when he has time to do the references. EdJohnston 20:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Um. No  :-D    — Athaenara  13:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, sorry I reverted your addition to the Glasgow article as it was placed in a section which was not appropriate, you may wish to add him to the List of Glaswegians article instead. Fraslet 10:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, I didn't know the list article existed. —  Athaenara   10:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Duggar family

 * (In re MedCab case, AIV, BLP/N and WP:AN/3RR reports.)

(3RR warning)  What the h? Well u know what, pls tell this to Joie de Vivre as well. Surely u see that she is reverting repeatedly. Also, how come u didnt sign ur msg? Lilkunta 20:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view, Disruptive editing, Tendentious editing, and the Three-revert rule are just that: policies and guidelines, not personal.


 * If you become familiar with their contents, you will be much less confused about how they apply and why good editors respect them. I am unsympathetic to editors who complain that policy pages are too long and don't do their homework.  — Athaenara  21:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to file an RFC on Lilkunta. I have tried and tried to explain why their behavior is not acceptable. They are increasing in hostility and I would just like it to end. One of the requirements for RFC on users is that at least two editors try and fail to resolve the same dispute. Would you please prod them to come to the mediation request, or otherwise "try" (per the RFC definition) to resolve the dispute? If that fails, I think the RFC would be appropriate. I am really sick of cleaning up Talk:Jim Bob Duggar after Lilkunta sprinkles their comments inside my comments, removes indentation, makes attacks, etc, etc, etc.

As I was writing this, they just started on another round of reverts at Talk:Jim Bob Duggar. Joie de Vivre 22:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have tried to resolve it as well: that requirement is met.  I will support such a Requests for comment/User conduct …  — Athaenara  22:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 *  Postscript : Remember that such an Rfc is not about article content but specifically about user conduct.  Be as succinct as you can and provide pertinent diffs.  — Athaenara  22:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

 I am not a disruptive user. Once again ppl r here labelling me but say nothing to Joie. This is very bias of you. Also, when did u try to resolve? U posted a support comment to Joie, that isnt aiding in a resolution. Lilkunta 23:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(A's overhaul)  Y did u overhaul Jim Bob Duggar? Isnt a consensus supposed to be reached b4 the page is overhauled. You took out alot alot alot of info. I think the chart with the kids names/DOBs is relevant but u took that out. Lilkunta 18:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

→ (Note: As of 01:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC) user Lilkunta is indefinitely blocked.)

→ (In re: Jim Bob Duggar article)
 * Duggar family 2

I agree. Way back I changed it to the Duggar Family, and the redirect was reverted within a few days. I never fought it, but I still think that should be the case. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 03:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One editor seems to think I've been trying to do that. I have not, but you may have the right idea.  There is far more news media exposure and notability for the family than for Mr. Duggar alone.  Please see Talk:Jim Bob Duggar/Archive 3.  — Athaenara 08:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Postscript: I checked contribs: that user has been using TW for only a few days (a new toy) but this article issue needs discussion, not disruptive editing. — Athaenara 08:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

→  (In re: long or short infobox for Jim Bob Duggar. —A.) 
 * Duggar family 3

I thought that the reason Wikipedia has infoboxes is so you can find basic information quickly and easily. I think it goes without saying that information in the info box is also included in the text. Anyway, I don't think it makes it overly long, since the fact that he has so many children is probably the main reason he has an article in the first place. So my point is just that it made it much simpler listing his children. What do you think? ~Phoebus 03:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but I don't think an infobox which is nearly as long as the article it informs is an asset to an article. — Athaenara  ✉  00:34, 6 August 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 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)

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)
 * in re RUSS
 * 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 &mdash; 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 --BozMo talk 15:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See also: Talk:X Japan, 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. 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 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)

Cat Porter
Thanks for your help with Cat Porter. Not being British, and having never heard of the person or the show, I have no idea why this anon keeps making these edits. Is there some sort of controversy? Corvus cornix 21:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, either, but the article was posted on the BLP Noticeboard today. I've begun going through the article history to identify repeat vandals and place warnings on their talk pages.  Want to help?   — Athaenara  21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I was the one that placed it on the noticeboard. I've been trolling Recent changes, and haven't gotten to the new BLP Recent changes page yet.  :)  Corvus cornix 21:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Gene R. Nichol

 * see also: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive14, Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive235, AIV report & related matters; fourth spa sock blocked)

I received your note re: the 3RR issue on Gene R. Nichol. As you noticed, I was reverting the changes made by users Too late gn, Hawaiibound and Onestop53. The same issue is going on with The College of William & Mary (with the same issues and the same users).

I should certainly have adhered more closely to the "step away from the Wikipedia" notion. However, I do want to note that I have asked those three for their input both on their talk pages (which they promptly cleared) and on the W&M talk page (to which I have received no response).

I will refrain from reverting their edits, as I should have previously, but, if you have a minute to look at the W&M talk page, I would certainly invite a third-party opinion.

Thanks, Cka3n 23:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I should have posted this here before, not in your gallery talk page. Cka3n 23:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's ok, it was easily cleared. — Athaenara  23:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a forum or a guideline akin to the BLP guidelines which I could refer to re: the William and Mary page (which is, to be honest, the true focus)? Thanks again for the information. Cka3n 00:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Conflict of interest/Noticeboard is a suitable venue. Edits of university articles by single purpose accounts with conflict of interest—see for example the Georgetown University and George Washington University sections in the COI/N Archive 3—have previously been addressed there in the past several months.  — Athaenara  01:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I will try that. Cka3n 01:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just want to mention that I think you've been conscientious throughout all this. Sometimes I'm juggling three or more things at once and my posts are a little more terse than I'd like them to be, so I might not have gotten that point across.  — Athaenara 06:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard Gere
→ see also: two sections in Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive15

The entry on Richard Gere has been re-added to the BLP noticeboard by user Sparkzilla. I did not post to it the first time the entry was added, but have decided to do so this time. I believe that first time round you concluded that the issue did not concern WP:BLP. I know you are a conscientious editor when it comes to WP:BLP, so I urge you to take another look at the issue. I have posted a lengthy explanation of why I consider that WP:BLP considerations do come into play regarding the false and unsubstantiated malicious allegations made against Gere. I hope you will find the time to take a look at my reasoning. There has also been discussion on both the Gere talk page (much of it prematurely archived in the "Gerbil archive") and the Jimbo Wales talk page. Thanks again for your assistance with a previous matter. FNMF 11:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am getting a bit tired of arguing with FMNF that this is not a BLP issue. I wonder if you would be so kind to try to make a final statement here: I would really appreciate it. Thank you. Sparkzilla 13:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Couldn't help noticing you're back. The Gere discussion at the BLP noticeboard has progressed extensively in the last day or two, but I believe it is worth reading through it (I don't just mean for my contributions, but hey!). All the best. FNMF 06:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really back—hard drive replaced, unfamiliar browser version, font/fontsizes/colours not displaying properly—also, that is a discussion in which I do not care to participate. — Athænara ✉ 08:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In re rumours and any encyclopedic meaning which rumours may be alleged to have: "…in 1972 it was calculated by the Paris publication France Dimanche, after an analysis of its cuttings file on the British royal family, that there had been published in France in the previous fourteen years 63 reports of Elizabeth II's abdication, 73 reports of her divorce from Prince Philip, 115 reports of royal quarrels with Lord Snowdon, 17 reports of rudeness to gossip column monarchs like Princess Grace of Monaco, and 92 reports of Elizabeth II being pregnant." From Majesty, a 1977 biography by Robert Lacey; pp. 286-287, footnote. — Athaenara 23:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Linksearches
→ In re Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

I saw that you appended linksearches to my postings on the WP:BLPN regarding the Jewish Virtual Library and the NNDB. I was just curious if you did this just as a point of information or if you were suggesting that since there are a lot of links that makes these sites more reliable. Or for some other reason? Thanks! Notmyrealname 22:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not appended to your postings so much as simply added to the subsections. Neither of those sites are particularly reliable, and it's easier to check the state of such things when specific Linksearches are readily at hand.  — Athaenara 04:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. Notmyrealname 05:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting
→ see also: Articles for deletion/Arbuthnot family, Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive18, Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 10

Please do not revert my edits to discussion pages as you have done here. I suggest you think before making edits if you are not happy to have people respond to them. Giano 11:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see and. Athaenara, if you've become ashamed of your post, please leave it on the page and strike it through, as Chris did with his. As for taking it on yourself to remove Giano's "peevish retort", that's actually vandalism, a word I don't use lightly. Don't do it. Bishonen | talk 13:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Removing other users' posts
 * No. An imputation ("ashamed") seems to have been contributed by your own imagination, and you are free to remove that conjecture from my user talk page.


 * I was annoyed that my direct response to Chris Croy, after posts had been interjected by at least four other users, was treated by User:Giano II as a springboard for further crosstalk stemming from his own annoyance.


 * I do comprehend the point you are making here. — Athaenara 14:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you understand me. But are not ashamed? I see. Your own post looked to me like a rather nasty attack on Giano and One Night in Hackney, but since it was merely a private message to Chris C, that other people weren't supposed to reply to, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Chris's user talk might have been a better place for one of those, though. Or perhaps a note "Please nobody respond to this except Chris" would have been useful? Bishonen | talk 18:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

No, my reply was a direct response your crude attempt at innuendo. When I replied you responded with vandalism. Please do not behave in such a fashion again. Giano 14:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To User:Athaenara
 * I posted nothing crude, and I have a question for you. Why did you not simply restore the crosstalk I had removed?  When I read your first post here on my own user talk page, I thought you had already done so, which would have been fine.  — Athaenara 14:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Crude as in clumsy and I do not choose to restore your vandalism. Giano 15:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Either removing minor crosstalk was vandalism or restoring it would be vandalism, not both. One can't have it both ways. — Athaenara 15:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This was the sequence when I posted: [1] "…Have you considered programming a bot to automatically delete all of his articles? I'm really worried you might miss one and leave a single spec of worthwhile information somewhere on Wikipedia. Chris Croy 16:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)"
 * To User:Giano II
 * [2] "One wonders if User:One Night In Hackney and User:Giano II have worked together on this. — Athaenara 16:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)"

I am a noticeboard volunteer who is dedicated to serving the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines, particularly the biographies of living persons policy and the conflict of interest guideline, and my primary bias is in favour of scholarship. I do not share the particular bêtes noires which not infrequently are displayed in noticeboard reports.

Specifically, in this instance, I am not on the warpath after Arbuthnot family articles. The most striking aspect to me of your report on BLP/N was an apparent antipathy to Arbuthnots which was similar to that evinced by another editor who had opened an Arbuthnot section on COI/N two weeks earlier. Through the lens of having witnessed two weeks of determined efforts to trivialise Arbuthnots and abase a respectful and experienced editor, Croy's post made me laugh. It was a brief light moment in what had been a distinctly humourless context.

The next day, when I saw your post (reproduced below), any continuity which had existed had been utterly obscured by messages interjected by other users and the redaction of Croy's post.
 * [3] "Not unless One Night In Hackney has been helping me for the last few days bringing up to FAC Class one of Kittybrewster's stubs - what have you been doing for them? Certainly nothing to improve them. Giano 17:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)"

In my frame of reference, I was being snarled at for failing to pursue your objective rather than the ongoing and painstaking task of preventing the noticeboard from being overwhelmed by reports which often outnumber the volunteers who may attend to them. Perhaps it would have been wiser simply to have ignored you, but I did not, and at 03:27, May 13 2007 (UTC) I removed both my response to Croy's post and your sideswipe at my response as crosstalk cluttering a noticeboard which addresses Blp policy matters.

However little you may care about the larger context of the noticeboards, there it is. It is quite possible to be not lightminded but lighthearted (the New Oxford American Dictionary antonym is "miserable") and still be devoted to serving the encyclopedia well. In retrospect, I might have been better off without a sense of humour in the first moment, simply noting for reasons which were raised not long after that the BLP noticeboard was not the most appropriate venue for your report, and left it to other editors to ignore or decide the crosstalk issue less briskly in the second. — Athaenara 19:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

These two whom I have so greatly displeased have apparently collaborated very productively in the past, as on the exemplary John Vanbrugh article. — Athaenara 19:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Apropros of nothing in particular
 * Your rhetoric (if that is what you wanted it to be) was misplaced and misguided. Your speculation as to whether I was working alone or in collusion was offensive and totally missed the point which is to improve wikipedia's standards. That is my goal - I sincerely hope that is also your aim. In short do not make clever snide little comments unless you want them addressed and are sure of your facts. Giano 19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, I have had about enough of your idle speculation, apolagise, substantiate whatever it is you are alluding to or lets's to to RFC and let someone else decide. Giano 19:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My praise is sincere. Whether or not I approve of how someone is approaching me on one matter, I'm still quite capable of appreciating and enjoying excellent work they may do in other areas.


 * You may see this as a contradiction. I don't.  —  Athaenara 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What..? Well, I don't see it as a contradiction, I see it as trolling. I'd advise you to say what you mean, because pretending that you're not hinting and alluding and hiding between the lines simply makes you look foolish. What's your point—writing Featured articles is disgraceful? Me and Giano collaborating on one in 2004 means what we say needn't be taken seriously? Or what? Bishonen | talk 20:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Comment from uninvolved third party
I stumbled upon this discussion because this page is on my watchlist following some technical help that I provided Athaenara a while ago. The tone of the comments surprised me, so I read through the discussion and some of the linked pages.

An accusation of trolling is way off-track, and inappropriate in this situation. I do see that Athaenara made a comment or two (including the removal of the "crosstalk" exchange), that may have came across as insulting though (as she said) no insult was intended. So maybe there was a mistake, and then following that, good faith attempts to clear it up.

Trolling implies that someone is using various methods to cause trouble on purpose. There's no way that Athaenara is doing that. Her contribs show page after page of hard work to improve WP, including lots of the relatively unsatisfying and difficult nuts and bolts noticeboard patrolling that most editors don't help with and just take for granted when they have a case they want heard.

I'm not taking a position in the arguments you've been discussing. I just wanted to point out that all of this is over a small thing, a simple mistake or miscommunication, and that no harm was ever intended.

What's the point of angry comments? Athaenara has explained her actions, even acknowledging that perhaps she could have handled it better; and to show she does not intend any disresepct, she's expressed praise for Bishonen and Giano's collaboration on another article.

That's not trolling or even antagonistic. Why not just agree that this was an unpleasant interaction and leave it at that? All of the people in this discussion are clearly dedicated editors. Wouldn't it be best to come back to the core and assume good faith? --Parzival418 Hello 02:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Noticeboard archiving
→ In re: sections added to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive18

Hi! In this edit you archived a discussion that had been active just five hours before. It's not a big deal, so don't bother moving it back, but now that I'm back from work I would have continued the discussion. Perhaps you could give things a couple of days in the future? Thanks, William Pietri 03:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Normally I don't archive any sections which have been active in the past week or more, but all three of these had been resolved (one had been redirected to another article, another had referenced information properly included, the third had been deleted).


 * If you tell me which discussion you want returned to the active noticeboard, I can easily do so. — Athaenara 03:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I just thought you'd want to know. Thanks, William Pietri 02:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute
→ Gackt listed, now in Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive19 

Hi Athaenara, there is a content dispute at Talk:Gackt (version 1 vs. version 2), coupled with increasingly aggressive reverts. Thought your BLP experience might be of help. - Cyrus XIII 02:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue seems to hinge on a reliable source for the year of birth. A report on BLP/N would bring it to the attention of a greater number of NPOV editors.  Edit warring is terrible for articles.


 * If I missed some other issue here, please let me know. — Athaenara 02:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That other issue would be the knee-jerk-reverts by the opposing editors, which by now have repeatedly re-introduced uncited information into a BLP (see my comments on the talk page). I was hoping for your actual participation in the proceedings, but I will take it to the noticeboard, if I must. - Cyrus XIII 10:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My own view is that dates of birth, as matters of privacy as well as security, should not be in biographies of living persons. It's my view, not policy.


 * Tendentious editors seem to delight in drawing other editors into bitter little one-on-one disputes if they can—see Talk:Subtlety and Talk:Entremet for example, where one user with ownership issues treats every neutral editor as a fly in his soup—and I do what I must to stay out of such self-defined and extremely limited spheres of influence.


 * Noticeboards, though daunting at first, can help.  — Athaenara 23:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Closing
On the BLPN board, should I stop using the template in favor of / or does my use of the  template help you use /? -- Jreferee  (Talk) 05:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The discussions on BLP/N and COI/N are not often as simple and straightforward as, for example, they frequently are on AN/3RR.


 * In any case, I read through the discussions themselves to see whether or not they have actually been resolved. There are times (e.g. here and here)  when closing is disputed.


 * I find the resolved template a sometimes misleading distraction. When it is used at all, it's more to the point at the end of a section than at the top.  — Athaenara 18:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think the resolve tag is a good way to let the person who posted the request know that at least one person thinks the matter is resolved. I usually post the resolve tag if it appears to me from the discussions themselves that the matter is resolved as far as the BLPN board is concerned. Before posting the tag, I may give the article a read and check the article history. If the discussion isn't clear on whether the matter is resolved, I may revise the article and/or add more to the discussion. I think posting the resolved template at the end of a section is a good idea since if the person disagrees, they can continue the discussion below the tag. Oh, I mentioned your signature gallery to Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  (ταlκ ) , who enjoys creating signatures (he did mine). He enjoyed your collection. -- Jreferee  (Talk) 23:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * → (In re: response to heads-up elsewhere.) 
 * I hope he will sign the Gallery Guest Book. — Athaenara 00:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Postscript: Resolved tags are pretty toys. I find them unsuitable for BLP/N and COI/N.  — Athaenara 08:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're sort of begging us to leave these all over your talk page (huge, wicked grin!). Seriously, the resolved tag is a way to say "I motion that we close this thread."  If somebody else agrees, they can archive it.  If somebody disagrees, they can pull the tag.  These are my own feelings, of course, but if they bother you, I won't use them anymore on the boards you frequent.
 * Did you know you can sign inside those templates? (Don't let me tempt you ;-)  — Athaenara 05:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Tom Barker
→  In re: &  

→  See also: 

I've recently run into admins who strongly disagree with my interpretation of how to address BLP concerns, so I'd appreciate your help with Tom Barker, where similar issues have come up. You reverted this editors previous edits for blp issues, so this should be much simpler. --Ronz 23:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * When I checked out Londoner1961's "Companies House records" hint last week, all I found was this "creditgate" page. It mentions Companies House but the connection between the two isn't clear.  I found no mention on the CH website of "creditgate."  — Athaenara  ✉  23:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're so on top of this. Great work! --Ronz 00:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks :-)
 * While I have your attention, would you perhaps have some npov for Requests for comment/Geoeg? — Athaenara  ✉  00:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If Londoner1961's claimed conflict of interest is true, it's good that s/he said so (“I was a shareholder in b consultants ltd… and remain a shareholder in, and am an ex-director of, SmartSlab Ltd…”) but as it's not independently verified I'm doubtful. — Athaenara ✉  03:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I mean that we don't know the motive for the user's repeated addition of very negative and uncited information.  We only know what the user has said it is.   — Athaenara  ✉  03:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Londoner1961 added to the SmartSlab article, without an edit summary, the line, "Investors in SmartSlab Ltd have so far seen no return on their money." I reverted it. — Athaenara ✉  03:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

→  In re: User 
 * Tom Barker 2

His edits are pretty consistently pointy, and I've now placed a npov notice on his talk page with two diffs. If you don't want to step in, I'll use WP:EAR. --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. The edits, the angle, and the patronizing talk page comments annoyed me so much that I took Tom Barker and SmartSlab off my watchlist for awhile.  I have no experience with WP:EAR myself, but my first impression is that it's a good idea.  — Athaenara  ✉  18:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Indra Sinha
→  In re: 

Nice piece. Incidentally, Rivergod is almost certainly Indra himself. I know him well and recognise his style, especially the bit about Indo-Anglian. You were right to remove his stuff :) -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 08:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you :-)  — Athaenara  ✉  08:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Athaenara, it appears that you have created a page for me on Wikipedia. I am not utterly thrilled with it, but understand that Wikipedia rules forbid me from changing it myself. What is the best way forward in a case like this? Are you now the de facto commissar of my life and career? Can I communicate with you privately? Is it possible to ask that the whole article be deleted from Wikipedia? Or have we entered the age of info-fascism where your version and yours alone, must prevail? Looking forward to hearing from you, one way or another, a toute a l'heure, Indra (indra at indrasinha.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.50.79.157 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 18 December 2007) (UTC) [ diff ]
 * Indra Sinha 2
 * I forwarded your post to the article talk page, which is the central location for discussing it.  The "rules" don't forbid but rather discourage conflict of interest edits.  No editor owns any article in this encyclopedia, and I am not the only editor of this one.  — Athaenara  ✉  00:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Francis Bok
→  In re:  →  See also: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive43 

Hi A, would you mind looking at Francis Bok's talk page? There is currently an RFC on whether or not using Bok's autobigraphy as a source to identify the man who Bok says held him as a slave violates WP:SELFPUB. On a broader note, are there any BLP concerns to be aware of since the sources for the article are almost all either Bok's autobiography or interviews with him or based on his version of his life story? I am pretty sure the autobiography does not violate WP:SELFPUB, but was uncertain as to the WP:BLP issues of autobiographical sources from reputable publishers. Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I contributed my comment there. Bok's autobiography was not self-published.
 * Have you considered posting the issue on BLP/N? — Athaenara  ✉  10:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - my understanding was that BLP/N was for cases where there were edit wars and such, but so far the other editor has not made any edits to the article itself or even responded to the RFC. There has been one other comment on the RFC so far. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Blp noticeboard addresses anything which relates to the biographies of living persons policy, including reliable sources. The Reliable sources/Noticeboard addresses the latter in general.  — Athaenara  ✉  00:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks - I will list it at the BLP noticeboard as soon as I can. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP archives
→ '' In re: Blp noticeboard archives. See also: Blp noticeboard header ''

Hi. :) I just wanted to point out to you that according to WP:BLPN, BLPN threads are supposed to be inactive for 15 days before archiving, and I don't believe that the ones that you archived today have been. For example, just to look at a couple: this and this. While MiszaBot doesn't get everything (especially stuff that hasn't been date-stamped) it is set to archive automatically every day all threads on BLPN that have not been edited in 15 days. I'm not sure if you archived them early because you didn't notice the date or if you disagree with it in general, but I thought I'd point it out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, p.s., with regards to the ones archived today, I don't imagine it's going to be a big deal. However, if you did think that the inactivity period is too long, that probably bears discussion at the talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The sections I selected to archive seemed resolved to me but, if I jumped the gun in any important way for any or all of the seven inactive discussions I archived, I will not be bothered a bit if the archiving is reverted. Thank you for messaging me about it.  — Athaenara  ✉  00:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think they need to be reverted. 15 days seems a tad on the long side to me. I just thought I would let you know, though, what typical practice seems to be and also that there is a bot handling it except in those cases where, you know, it doesn't. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood :-) — Athaenara  ✉  00:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: 3rr
→  See also: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive45 

Wow, major my bad on that one. I was attempting to deal with an IP user who was trying to censor some cited information about a drug bust that apparently involved the person who the article was about and I didn't realize I had reverted the page three times. My sincere apologies and thanks for letting me know I did that. Regards. Thingg <sup style="color:#33ff00;">&#8853; <sup style="color:#ff0033;">&#8855; 00:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! — Athaenara ✉  01:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are also welcome to remove my post from your talk page. As per don't template the regulars, I should have posted a more personal note.  — Athaenara  ✉  05:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The Rob Grill question
→  in re: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive44  →  See also: 

Hello Athaenara:

I understand that you moved my Rob Grill question in BLP/N to consolidate.

This is just to explain why I've put it back to the bottom of the list. It has now been on the list nearly two weeks without attracting an answer. I'm hoping the much greater visibility at the "active end" of the page will help.

I would really like an answer, or answers, or criteria to decide. It would be easy to say that it is a minor issue, because it is minor compared to many BLP issues. But it may not be minor to Mr. Grill, or his family and friends.

Best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but in my experience on the noticeboard it's more helpful to uninvolved editors if queries about one issue/article are not scattered throughout the page in separate locations. I think the three sections should be together but hey, you disagree, and it's your post, not mine.


 * PS - "Athaenara" - What an elegant name! I wonder if it is your creation or borrowed from somewhere.
 * Thank you for "elegant" (I created it). — Athaenara  ✉  00:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Chris Avenir
→  See also: Articles for deletion/Chris Avenir 

The discussion page for the article Chris Avenir raise BLP/notability issues. Avenir's issue even is poste in the article problem set, which may be a way to get more press for the Avenir incident. Would you look into this? Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you posted this on my talk page. I had never edited, or yet read, either article before tonight, though after I looked into it a bit I found you had linked the problem set article in a See also section in the Avenir article.  As it was subsequently linked in the first paragraph, I removed the duplicate link and the otherwise empty See also section.


 * The discussion on Talk:Chris Avenir questions whether the subject meets the notability guideline (which would in this case be Notability (people) specifically) with at least one editor treating 209 google hits on the name as if that's a significant quantity. I don't see hits under 1,000 as significant, myself.


 * Have you considered nominating it for AfD? — Athaenara  ✉  07:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Afterthought: It seems more suitable for Wikinews, actually ... I used the article as an example* on WikiProject Council/Proposals‎. — Athaenara  ✉  07:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * *  [18:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC) version link]. — Athaenara  ✉  00:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 

Scott Bedbury
→  In re: 

An article that you have been involved in editing, Scott Bedbury, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Scott Bedbury. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Katr67 (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Amazing, one edits an article twice
 * 21:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC) (Subject appears to be notable per WP:BIO. Removed prod template, could go to WP:AFD if necessary.)
 * 21:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC) (Added citation format for external links which had been used as references, added references/reflist section, added Category:Advertising people.)
 * and is hence "involved" ;-)   — Athaenara  ✉  21:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, gosh. I thought that since you had deprodded it you might like to know that I decided to take it to Afd. I guess I won't extend that courtesy to the "uninvolved" anymore! Happy editing. Katr67 (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ... don't take it that way ... — Athaenara  ✉  22:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Richard Marx
→  See also: User talk:Candy156sweet/archive 1 


 * Question

Maybe you can help me. There is an image of Richard Marx that he finds to be inappropriate for posting on Wikipedia. Is it possible to find a way to remove the photograph? It was posted by Itsmyright, but Richard really would like it removed. How would I go about removing the image if the editor decides not to comply? Thank you in advance for your help. --Candy156sweet (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Two different versions of Image:Richard Marx.jpg were uploaded, one by Itsmyright two weeks ago and one by Cyndeg this week. Image:Richardmarx2008.jpg is identical to the recent one.  No idea about your question myself, really.  BLP/N may be the best forum for it. — Athaenara  ✉  18:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the version Richard would like removed. That is the image that Itsmyright uploaded.  The grainy image on the lower part of the page is the one in question.  --Candy156sweet (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Itsmyright (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. — Athaenara  ✉  00:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all of your help in this matter. Have a lovely rest of your week.  :)  --Candy156sweet (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tucker Max Archive
→  In re: Talk:Tucker Max 

Hi,

I'm trying to archive Tucker Max's talk page, but I can't figure out the formatting. I noticed you worked on one of the archives awhile back -- could you help me out with this one? The current talk page seems pretty long, and would be foreboding, I would imagine, to any new editors that want to work on the article. Thanks a lot. Svernon19 (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a few inactive discussions back in July to one of the archives created by McJeff (talk), who seems to have been doing most of that. At your request, though, I created Archive 4 and added inactive July-August discussions, which leaves the active talk page under 40 kb.  — Athaenara  ✉  09:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks. Svernon19 (talk) 07:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Stacy McCain
→  see also: article history and talk page history 

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

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

Cheers, CWC 02:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an unpleasant situation because Goethean is tendentious and frequently incivil. I've a low tolerance for that sort of thing lately and don't want to get involved, sorry!  — Athaenara  ✉  01:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that answer is quite helpful by itself. I'll try some other BLP experts. Happy editing! CWC 14:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Daryl Hayott
→  see also: page histories for article and temp page 


 * If you could...

As you are someone uninvolved I wanted to ask this: Maybe I am missing something obvious with this but do you see any need for an earlier version of Daryl Hayott to be archived at Talk:Daryl Hayott/Temp? Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No idea, sorry. If I think of anything I'll come back to it. – Athaenara  ✉  03:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Steve Pieczenik
→  in re: (AFD) 

I noticed something that may alter your decision about not speedying the pieczenik article.. The Infowars [ http://www.infowars.com/top-us-government-insider-bin-laden-died-in-2001-911-a-false-flag/ article] that was cited in the article here itself cites the wikipedia article in an apparent effort to establish the seriousness/bonafides of Pieczenik. Although it may not matter much at this point as I edited the article severely, that makes it look a lot more like a promotional speedy deletion candidate to me. If my edits are reverted by one of the SPA's, do you think it would be worth just respeedy nomming it?Kevin (talk) 10:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think speedy deletion is appropriate, particularly as it would probably be challenged immediately, leading to more discord, drama, claims, and counter-claims. – Athaenara  ✉  20:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User:93.84.114.237
→  in re: anon IP 

I have reblocked this IP, for a year, since it is a proxy (and was used by sock accounts as well). My question to you, however, is why you didn't use revdel to delete the horrible BLP violations committed by this sexist, racist editor... Drmies (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * We're all specialists to one degree or another, it's nearly unavoidable. I have never done a revdel, don't consider myself competent to take that on, and am not in that category.  – Athaenara  ✉  19:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * (Drmies isn't in that category, either. – Athaenara  ✉  21:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Mike Braun Request
→  in re: 

Hello I was about to add to the infobox that Mike Braun was the Senator-Elect from Indiana but since the page is protected due to an edit war between two other users. If you could add that as soon as you could that would be good thank you.Wollers14 (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See Template:Edit fully-protected, use it on the talk page. – Athaenara  ✉  06:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Another editor did, see Talk:Mike Braun. – Athaenara ✉  23:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Harssh A Poddar
→  in re: (Afd)  →  see also:, Sockpuppet investigations/Harsh7agl 

Thanks a lot for your works for improving my article. Thanks a lot. Workmk (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks
 * You're welcome, I think it's worth saving and I hope you remove the db-g7 tag. – Athaenara  ✉  19:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workmk (talk • contribs) 19:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank You for your help. Workmk (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi I am extremely sorry for adding G7 tag. Actually,most of the article used in reference are paid articles. I researched upon the person and found that very less coverage from main stream media is there upon him. I will be working on it from starting again and write it with new references. I request for your cooperation and guidance. Thanks Workmk (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Douglas Emhoff for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Douglas Emhoff is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Douglas Emhoff until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Colin Keiver
→  in re: 

Hi Athaenara. Back in December 2018, Colin Keiver was BLP prodded for deletion and you subsequently deleted it per G7. The article was recreated about a month ago, but it doesn't seem to have been done so via REFUND. The edit that recreated the article seems to have been one big copy-and-pasted move from somewhere (maybe new content created somewhere other than Wikipedia or maybe from someone's sandbox). Can you determine whether the recreated version is the same as the one you deleted? If it is, then I'm wondering if the page's history should be restored for proper attribution purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. – Athaenara  ✉  00:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at this. For reference, I wasn't sure what needed to be done and only came across the article by chance after seeing a this dispute regarding some images that were uploaded and added to it. So, while looking at the images, I noticed this, but didn't see a Old prod template on the article's talk page. When I went about to add one myself, I noticed the page history seemed incomplete, which in turn led me to Special:Log and subsequently your user talk page. A bit of a round-about explanation perhaps, but I just want you to know that I wasn't digging through you contributions looking for things to discuss. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2021 (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_2.