User talk:Athaenara: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:33, 3 March 2019

Athaenara's Talk Page

Tuesday

4 June 2024

13:14 UTC

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

Athaenara's bulletin board

Did you know?

Albert Tangora

... that Albert Tangora (pictured), one of the most successful competitive typewriter speed typists, once had his hands insured for US$100,000?
... that the managing editor of Aujourd'hui was executed by firing squad in 1944?
... that football player Michael Jurgens never lost in 42 high school varsity games?
... that the success of the British band Shiva was cut short by the death of its lead vocalist?
... that Barron Trump signed for D.C. United Academy as a midfielder?
... that the 1972 Finnish film The Sheep Eaters gathered more than a million viewers opposite the 1975 Ice Hockey World Championships match between Finland and the Soviet Union?
... that according to second-century AD Greek rhetorician Athenaeus, the Phoenicians played a flute-like instrument called the gingras in their mourning rituals?
... that 55 Broad Street, a skyscraper in the Financial District of Manhattan, was called "an unlovable building in an unlivable neighborhood"?
... that when Sithu Pauk Hla was appointed the governor of Yamethin, he was also given command of a 50-strong company of war elephants?

Tip of the day

Tip of the day...

Placing interlanguage links

Interlanguage links are links from a page in one Wikipedia language to an equivalent page in another language. These links can appear in two places:

In the "Languages" list – a sidebar that appears on the left side (default position) of the current page. These links should go last of all.
Inline, in the text of a page.

Both of these two types of links are created and handled differently.

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip

Brosix Instant Messenger CSD Decline

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

Hi Athaenara. I am working with Girth Summit 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)[reply]

@Barkeep49: 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)[reply]

Epilogue: three or more Brosix pages salted. – Athaenara ✉ 01:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article drafts created by user Thieme Chemistry

→ in re: Thieme Chemistry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and

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: Wikipedia: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)[reply]

@Dr.Booom: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Dr.Booom: 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 Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. – Athaenara ✉ 14:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mobley, Wonder Wafers, etc.

→ in re: my edits to Ihelptocontribute's user talk page
→ See also:

David Mobley (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (AfD)
Crosswindz (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (AfD)
Wonder Wafers Air Fresheners (product) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hilettook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2015)

(formerly User:David Mobley Songwriter Producer)

Davidmobleymusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2016-18)
Gnuquick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2017-18)
Danielcraye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2018)
Ihelptocontribute (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2018-19)

Hello Athaenara,

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))[reply]

SAQI SAX ARTICLE

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)[reply]

@CLAIREYUAN2010: I looked through the page history and couldn't find any edits that mentioned trumpet. – Athaenara ✉ 05:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Athaenara: 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)[reply]

@CLAIREYUAN2010: 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)[reply]

@Athaenara:

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)[reply]

@CLAIREYUAN2010: 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)[reply]

@Athaenara: 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)[reply]

@CLAIREYUAN2010: 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Feel free to unblock, no problem. – Athaenara ✉ 18:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, actually. – Athaenara ✉ 18:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aprimo

Thalium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BeckieSch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
AbardaroPR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kturneraprimo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)[reply]

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 Chetsford 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Chetsford: I found no WP:AFD for Aprimo, is that what you meant? – Athaenara ✉ 19:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: The page created in 2009 by ~~AbardaroPR (talk)~~ was deleted almost immediately per WP:CSD#G12 as a copyright violation of the Aprimo website (see Aprimo page logs linked above). – Athaenara ✉ 19:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Self-correction: that was user Kturneraprimo. – Athaenara ✉ 07:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@Athaenara 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)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: 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)[reply]

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. ( Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 6#Aprimo ) Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Aprimo (2)

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)[reply]

Natzione

Request

Hello Athaenara, I am the user Natzione. I would like to explain why I am asking to delete my talk page and why this request is acceptable. The message left in my talk page was by another Italian user, and it was just an apology message in Italian by that user who had not understood some of my edits. I know that user talk pages are not "generally" deleted because they "might" contain pieces of discussions, notifications of bad behaviours, and other things we should keep recorded, keep track of. This is just an apology message, not even needed because our edits had ended before that message was written. Some days before, I had already received another message from another user, who was just thanking me for some of my edits. I asked for the page to be deleted and it was almost immediately deleted. I wonder why I could not do the same thing now. Really, I have done very few edits and I am going to do just a few more, I would like my talk page to be a "red link". Well, should I do or have done any vandalisms or something against rules I would not demand or would not have demand to delete a page where, for example, a block notification or a block warning was put, but this is not the case, there is just that personal message as there was another some days before. I am asking you, please, to delete my talk page, which is currently blank. As I have explained there is nothing deserving to be kept for any reasons there, so I would like to ask you this favour. In case there will be any need in future to restore it, I know that admins have the tools to recreate it and its history, so it would not be lost forever, just it will appear as if it had not been created yet. I hope you will do this favour for me. Whatever you want to answer please write here, this request is quite obvious. Thanks. 5.171.1.122 (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the page in January but it was re-created a few days ago, then deleted and undeleted (log) by another admin. I considered your request seriously, but I will not engage in what is called wheel warring. Aside from that, my view of it is different from yours: the welcome message was harmless, the subsequent message was harmless, and there would have been nothing wrong with just leaving those two messages undisturbed there. – Athaenara ✉ 20:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate my point, this is what the page would look like. – Athaenara ✉ 20:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for your answer. I did not thought at all that somebody would leave a thanks message and an apology message, I am happy that somebody wanted to tell me such things but I did not want my talk page to be created for that. Shortly I will be moving to the Italian version where I registered my account, I would rather my talk page not to exist here if there is nothing significant inside. Are you sure that you do not want to give it at least a try and delete it on my request? The admin who restored my page was the one who deleted it just before that, I do not know why he changed his mind but I am sure that he would not mind at all if the page is deleted again on my request, he had not been connecting for over a month when he deleted and restored it. In case I am wrong and he comes back to recreate it I will not ask for the deletion again, but at least give it a try, please. It is not a bad thing and I have done nothing bad, I just would like not to have a talk page here. 5.171.1.217 (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the other admin might not mind, but why not just ask him yourself? If you provide a link to this discussion in your message, you won't have to restate everything you've written here at length. – Athaenara ✉ 12:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could, but as I said that admin is currently inactive, his last edit before his intervention on my talk page goes back to 24 December 2017 (one year and one month, not just one month, I have just noticed it). Have a look here... It seems strange to me that he logged in just after my request and just to accept it and then revert himself, as if he wanted to "set a precedent" for that "wheel warring" you have talked about... If there were not these circumstances and he was still active I would have asked him instead of you, but against this background I am sure that this matter can be set easily with a deletion of my talk page on my request by a different admin than him. I am not asking the moon after all. 5.171.1.164 (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flattering as it is to be treated as your personal custom bespoke administrator (a little mild sarcasm there), there are lengths to which I do not care to go. It seems to me you'd like the page to be deleted every time anyone posts on it, or perhaps even protected so nobody can post on it. Having a user talk page is a normal part of having a registered user account on Wikipedia, why seek such special treatment here? – Athaenara ✉ 22:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored (diff) the two friendly messages which were posted to your user talk page. Please adapt to the reality that such messages are quite normal, are not vandalism, and interfere in no way with you or with Wikipedia. – Athaenara ✉ 22:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean what you said. If a discussion about anything had started in my talk page, or if I was notified that an edit of mine had been undone because it was against rules, I would have not asked for my talk page to be deleted as it was before such messages. It is just this, I am sincerely annoyed by useless messages such as those, and since they both are nothing important at all I asked to delete my page, that is to restore it as a red link, as it was before those messages. If you are not rconsidering your decision not to do this favour to me I will not insist any longer. But I could not believe that you unblanked my talk page and readded the messages, overall after you yourself said that "it's perfectly acceptable to blank the page". At least restore my previous blanking, I will not ask you again to delete the page and perhaps I will try with the admin who deleted and restored it, as you sugested, even if I have no real hopes he will listen to my request. 5.171.1.57 (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you could have done, and still can do if the situation arises again, is leave messages on the user talk pages of those who posted to you personally rather than on the article talk pages, asking them to please post such messages on article talk pages instead of on your user talk page. – Athaenara ✉ 13:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or, even more logically, respond to their messages on your user talk page, telling them that you would prefer they engage in such conversations on the article talk pages. – Athaenara ✉ 15:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... But this would not solve the present issue. The talk page was created, even if other users continued posting new messages the situation does not change for me, I should have anticipated the users who wrote those messages in my talk page by telling them in their talk pages not to write those messages in my talk page... And since you do not want to grant my request to delete my talk page at least you should not have restored the messages which I had removed ("it's perfectly acceptable to blank the page") so I am asking you the favour to reblank the page, please. 5.171.1.48 (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Thank you for fighting the good fight! Praxidicae (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! – Athaenara ✉ 12:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Bhutan

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)[reply]

@Doctor 17: 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#G12 section helpful. – Athaenara ✉ 03:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fit Club Deletion

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)[reply]

Recent deletion

Hi. I noticed you recently deleted Template:Evangelical Christianity-stub and linked to TfD in the log entry. It was actually discussed at CfD - is there any way to correct this after-the-fact? If not, its not a big issue, just wondering. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing that. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 3#Template:Evangelical Christianity-stub was the right place, but I neglected to notice that the canned deletion summary linked another discussion. Undeleted and re-deleted now. – Athaenara ✉ 07:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requests related to Wiki Ed Class

→ in re: Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Washington/COM 482 Interpersonal Media - Online Communities (Winter 2019) and:

user Realyuang (talk · contribs) and KITH NYC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (sandbox)
user Alice0129 (talk · contribs) and AmorePacificCorp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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 Alice0129 and Realyuang 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 Alice0129's sandbox, which was deleted, so that she can recover her draft and begin improving it.
Realyuang 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 Realyuang 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)[reply]

@Groceryheist: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Groceryheist: 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)[reply]

@Athaenara:, 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. Realyuang indeed re-created a page that was deleted. I still do not fully understand why he did so. @Realyuang: 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 Alice0129 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)[reply]

@Groceryheist: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I just moved Realyuang's reply below mine to keep things organized Groceryheist (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Groceryheist: @Realyuang: It seems to me that Wiki-Ed students aren't getting enough supervision, and instructors aren't, either. Doesn't the Wikipedia: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#Speedy Deletion: MONQ, LLC). — Athaenara 08:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]

@Athaenara: Wiki Ed certainly provides guidance. They provide real human support and Elysia (Wiki Ed) and Helaine (Wiki Ed) 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)[reply]

Do you know about the Wikipedia:Articles for creation project? – Athaenara ✉ 08:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

DanielleNeal2

→ in re: user DanielleNeal2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)[reply]

@Yunshui: Yup, it's a wait and see situation now. – Athaenara ✉ 21:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 DanielleNeal2 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 Yunshui for review. Sound good? (ping response pls) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 00:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MattLongCT: 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)[reply]

Module:URLWD

I see that you have closed Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 19 #Module:URLWD as 'delete' even though the debate seems to favour merging, not deletion. You have since speedy deleted Module:URLWD as WP:CSD#G7, which I believe is out-of-process as I am the author and I have not requested deletion. Please reverse your closure and deletion to allow proper consideration of the option to merge the functionality of the modules. Thanks in advance, --RexxS (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done @RexxS: I misinterpreted your 23:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC) post as supporting deletion. – Athaenara ✉ 21:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Athaenara, I would be quite happy to see the module deleted after it's been merged, but we need to see it to do the merger first! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: Btw, I never edited the TfD page, much less closed any discussion on it (it was closed by AnomieBOT, an edit which was reverted by Pppery). – Athaenara ✉ 01:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Athaenara, but your CSD deletion automatically triggered AnomieBOT to close the TfD discussion, that's how it works. Technically, the bot closed the TfD; in reality you were responsible for it. Without your undeletion, any attempt to unclose the TfD would be reverted by the bot. --RexxS (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about automatic triggers. I didn't close a discussion, and I'm not "responsible for it". – Athaenara ✉ 02:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Plan

Page deletion

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)[reply]

Pure Planet

AaronSharp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lumjam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TobiasBignell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
HarryWillis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

@Tomtr2: You'll find it at User:Tomtr2/sandbox. – Athaenara ✉ 18:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

→ in re: user Farhan Rana Rajpoot Pakistani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for your assistance in handling that promotional account earlier. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenFolf: Thanks! – Athaenara ✉ 05:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that

was getting very confused - think I need to stay from that bit for a bit - wheatbelt western australia - thank you JarrahTree 13:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree: I'm not surprised! I got confused too, but I think it's OK now. – Athaenara ✉ 14:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warning Tour

→ see also: WWE Global Warning Tour:Melbourne page log, WWE Global Warning Tour page log, WWE Global Warning page log

I see that you recently salted WWE Global Warning Tour: Melbourne. A compromise was recently made at Talk:Professional wrestling in Australia#Global Warning compromise to include the related content at WWE in Australia#WWE Global Warning Tour: Melbourne. Could you please redirect WWE Global Warning Tour: Melbourne, WWE Global Warning Tour and WWE Global Warning to that section? Thanks.LM2000 (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done @LM2000: As the page logs show, at least five of us salted them. – Athaenara ✉ 06:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a problem for years, hopefully it's over now. Thanks for the help.LM2000 (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!

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)[reply]

@DrVogel: No problem, you're welcome. – Athaenara ✉ 15:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tamer el-Refai

→ in re: Fitzcarmalan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
→ see also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1003#My very best wishes

Hi Athaenara,

Regarding your speedy of this article; the user is retiring, and nominating many of their articles for deletion. My recollection from seeing this a few times is that we've generally not considered this a "good faith" nomination; the most recent example I can think of was Seraphim System. While I have zero concerns about your deletion of this page in isolation, I wanted you to know the pattern. If you agree, perhaps you could gently add a comment at User talk:Fitzcarmalan? They're upset, so I don't want to bludgeon them, and I'm probably coming off as a jerk there in spite of my best efforts. And, of course, if you think we should be deleting all these, and I am being a jerk, then that would be good to know too. We could ask at WT:CSD or WP:AN or someplace. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: The guy is edit warring over this. I looked at a few of these and related talk page exchanges, deleted just one small page, and backed away because I don't need strangers melting down on me today. – Athaenara ✉ 22:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Of all the articles he nominated, the one you deleted is the most obvious candidate for a G7, so perhaps I'll just leave it deleted, cross my fingers on the rest, and see what happens. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: And btw I don't think you've been being a jerk. – Athaenara ✉ 22:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page creation about me

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)[reply]

Template:Infobox Wightman Cup

I don't see how, exactly "unused redirect" is a valid reason to G6 a template. This seems like it should have gone to RfD rather than be speedy deleted. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Restored, {{Lt}} links above for both for comparison. – Athaenara ✉ 20:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to restore the doc page (in my opinion, doc pages of redirects do not meet any CSD criteria and should be redirected instead of deleted). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Connecticut Invitation

Thank you for your recent contributions to Nathan Hale. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Connecticut? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's Venezuela-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. Please see our list of open tasks for ideas on where to get started.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 14:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 440: / Line 440: @@
 : {{Reply to|Pppery}} Restored, {{tl|Lt}} links above for both for comparison.  – [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara| ✉ ]] 20:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 :: You forgot to restore the doc page (in my opinion, doc pages of redirects do not meet any CSD criteria and should be redirected instead of deleted). [[User:Pppery|&#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]])  20:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
+==WikiProject Connecticut Invitation==
+{| style="border:1px solid #C0C090; background-color:#fdffe7;"
+|-
+| rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" |[[File:Coat of arms of Connecticut.svg|80px]]
+|-
+| Thank you for your recent contributions to {{#if:Nathan Hale|[[Nathan Hale]].|one of Wikipedia's Connecticut-related articles.}} Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut|WikiProject Connecticut]]? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's Venezuela-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut/Members|list of participants]]. Please see our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut#Current events|list of open tasks]] for ideas on where to get started.
+If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Connecticut|project talk page]]. We look forward to working with you in the future! &#8213;<span style="font-family:CG Times">[[User:MattLongCT|<span style="color:black">MattLongCT</span>]] <b>-[[User talk:MattLongCT|Talk]]-</b><sup style="font-size:75%">[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut|☖]]</sup></span> 14:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
+|}

Numbered archives	discussion topics
0000	moving files to the commons
000	adminship
00	deletions
0	did you know, signatures, meetups
1	miscellaneous
2	biographies of living persons
3	third opinion project
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12	conflict of interest, spam