User talk:Athaenara

Civilisation is High Maintenance. 

IFF the topic of your post fits in none of the sections in the table of contents, Click here to post a new message. If your intended post is part of a discussion on another talk page, I am more likely to reply there.

Contents 1 Words of wisdom 2 Signature talk 3 Miscellaneous 3.1 You're a genius? 3.2 Nonspecific comment intended to be hard to classify 3.3 Wow 4 Conflicts of interest 4.1 Bullfighting 4.2 Newton Falls 4.3 Guru issues 4.4 Pointers 4.5 Anchor 4.6 Marie Killick 5 Third opinions 5.1 Thanks for your intervention 6 Biographies of living persons 6.1 BLP noticeboard 6.2 Thank you 6.3 Duggar family 6.4 Langan entry 6.5 John T. Reed 7 Vandalism reporting

Wikipedia Tip of the Day         →

Tip of the day... Collaborations A collaboration is when users work together to improve an article to featured status. They can be on almost any subject there is. These are usually run by the wikiprojects that work on articles in that area. Everyone is invited to work on the collaboration of their choice. Read more: Wikipedia:Collaborations Prior tip - Next tip To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}. Become a Wikipedia tipster

VANDALISM THREAT

Guarded __ __ __ __ __

[edit] Words of wisdom

Why we're here

This project is here to build an encyclopedia.  Please limit your actions here to things that help that goal.   • A Man In Black   — 21:46, March 1 2007 (UTC)

You know it ain't easy

Oh, good grief, it took me 5 months to find the undo button on edits, you expect me to see the obvious alert you posted right above your message?       •  KP Botany — 20:01, March 18 2007 (UTC)

Assume no clue

Has anyone else noticed how spammers and other conflict of interest editors think the guidelines are for the other guy and what they are doing is "useful" and shouldn't be questioned? And they are completely sincere about that.

It's entirely plausible that an editor can plow blithely on, unaware of guidelines. Perhaps we need a corollary to Assume good faith called Assume No Clue.       •  Jon Harder — 03:27, January 19 2007 (UTC)

Protect the encyclopedia

The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on Wikipedia is overwhelming.

If we are to remain true to our encyclopedic mission, this kind of nonsense cannot be tolerated. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy.

I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation. This is simply out of hand, and we need your help.       •  Brad Patrick — 09:53, September 29 2006 (UTC)

Wonkish & Arbish

We have dialogues here in two languages. Let's for the purposes of discussion call them Wonkish and Arbish.

In Wonkish, discretion stands for certain vague and disreputable areas of policy where what should happen is not yet properly regulated.

In Arbish, you have always to look behind applications of policy to see intention and the application to the mission of writing the encyclopedia.

In other words, discretion in Arbish is read as saying that proactive admins are the main lines of defence of the project. It is much better to have them out there doing their best, taking the mop and bucket away from a few, than to do up the constraints ever tighter to preempt misuse of admin powers.       •  Charles Matthews — 03:23, October 1 2006 (UTC)

See also • Quotes from Wiser Editors • Template:Wisdom

[edit] Signature talk

→ Subsections archived in Archive 1.

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

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

    Thank you! — Æ.

[edit] Miscellaneous

→ Subsections archived in Archive 1.

[edit] You're a genius?

I hope this doesn't offend you, but you didn't seem like a genius. And you don't edit anything particularly brilliant, but rather, your edits seem to be just simple fixes here and there. How about completing the table of logic symbols? That's something I actually wrote on the article's talk page that I was going to do, but never did. Or how about "dumbing down," the articles on advanced mathematics and physics, so that, for example, the average reader can understand what the hell this means? At least maybe you can help me correct the article on Classical Liberalism. Robocracy 07:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC) aka HP_Owner in the IRC

No, I really cannot imagine why Mensa let me in. Given your low estimation of my intelligence, you won't be disappointed that I decline your offer of an assortment of ambitions in which you've lost interest. — Æ. 14:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonspecific comment intended to be hard to classify

Not sure any more that a normal person can add anything to your Talk page, without first spending a week to study your archiving system :-)   Anyway, I'm giving it a try. Your change here does show a fantastic attention to detail. I'd just like to throw in my two cents that it may not matter so much if archive pages get large (over 81kb), because I think no one ever goes there (I mean normal people, not like us). If you truly can't classify this comment, it's fine to delete it! EdJohnston 20:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, I studied the "puzzling change" you reverted. The guy found a previous version of the page in its history, added a comment, hit save -hey presto- all current discussions disappeared while previously concluded discussions returned in their earlier incarnations.

		Barnstar of Exemplary Reversion
		Awarded to EdJohnston for saving a Wikipedia Project Page from destruction. — Athænara ✉   03:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For your act of vigilance, I award this very fine Barnstar. — Æ. ✉ 03:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Very nice star, I'm honored! Now I'll have to go resolve a conflict somewhere. EdJohnston 05:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

I don't think I've come across anyone on wiki that works as hard as you. You rock. Keep up the good work! I wish I could work the way you do, I'm serious. I've had a bad two days, suffered some personal attacks and stuff, and I've been thinking about quitting Wiki. I'm not going to do it. Looking at your edits was pretty inspiring. I've resolved not to let certain people get me down, and get back to fighting vandalism, something I'm pretty good at. Thanx for renewing my inspiration in Wiki.

Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you, it is very kind of you to say so, and I'm glad you're back on the job. — Athænara ✉ 09:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicts of interest

Conflict of interest & Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Subsections in Archive 2.
Aaron Klein · Aliweb · Suite101 dot com AfD · PSK Vanderbilt · The Embarcadero · Newton Falls, Ohio · Bloodless Bullfighting · Company username and WP:EL · Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath ·

[edit] Bullfighting

• (In re AIV, COI/N, AFD, ANI and DRV.)

Thanks for all of your help. Unfortunately, I had to open a topic on AN/I on Pebs96. If there's anything I've forgotten from the COI/N discussion and the AfD, please chime in. Thanks again! fethers 15:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And a DRV too. For another user (IDs 1, 2) who similarly specialises in incivility and personal attacks, have a look here and here. — Athænara ✉ 07:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I'm amazed that people are this...me-me-me-me-me around here. Clearly we're all members of The Cabal. I feel a little better though knowing I'm not the only one. fethers 12:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:AN/I protocol, I left a courtesy notification on the user's talk page. — Æ. ✉ 13:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, interesting, section already archived. — Æ. ✉ 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newton Falls

• (In re substance of an archived talk page and an AMA page, also discussed in Archive 2.)

Do you have any advice on how to proceed with the other user you referred to above? I have been letting the RFC run its course but since the process is supposed to end with all parties agreeing, I don't see that happening there. I had thought about opening an RFC on the User (or telling him about it and letting him be hoisted by his own petard assuming he would open one on me). I have also thought of doing nothing since he seems only to respond and react lately. I just figure an RFC that leads to him being blocked as a user or blocked from editing his favorite page is better than having to go to ArbCom with this. Since I have not been involved in a situation like this before though, I am not sure what the options are. Thanks, as always, Ruhrfisch 15:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

PS Sorry to have gotten you involved in this mess. I don't think you're an admin (and apologize if you are), but if you ever have an RFA I would support it. R

Yikes, don't scare me like that—thanks for the confidence, but adminship is not something I want. As to the other, you're right, all parties are not going to agree: all parties except one do. Don't worry about that. It was an informal process with no mandated conclusion.

Wikiquette alerts and user conduct RFC come to mind, but this is a clueless pest who will abuse any and all processes and participants. Arbcom is farther up the chain and not, I think, anywhere this will ever need to go.

Ignore him for a few weeks. Then let it become months. — Athænara ✉ 20:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, for your sage advice. As another trusted person told me, I shouldn't be the oxygen for his fire.

In other thoughts, perhaps you need to add "assume they forgot their meds" to your list too? ;-)

I am done with this conversation then and am fine if you archive it (as you have one of the neatest pages here, in both senses of the word). Please let me know if I can ever be of assistance. Take care, Ruhrfisch 20:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, you're welcome as always too. — Æ. ✉ 21:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Rührfisch, as you offered, could you have a look at this and perhaps offer a fresh perspective? It involves a recalcitrant editor with conflict of interest issues who tries to re-cast matters as trivialities having nothing to do with policy. — Athænara ✉ 19:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

After a quick look at the links and some of his contributions, it seems clear to me even without disclosing a client list that there are COI issues with this editors links to and images from the company/companies that holds the name Poweroid as a trademark. I am also somewhat surprised that a name which the editor himself admits is a trademark is allowed (even under a grandfather clause) but that seems to be a dead issue.

While he seems to make some constructive edits that are not COI (mostly on things Indian), I agree that there are definite COI issues here and have now weighed in on COI/N. Ruhrfisch 04:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guru issues

Hello Athaenara. Any wisdom on how to handle guru issues? I don't think we can ban adherents from editing articles. If so then Martin Luther could not be edited by either Catholics or Protestants. Yet it seems that there are real editing problems on some of those articles. (I note that Arbcom has had to deal with some of them). Should we just flush those out as not really COIs? That seems harsh, but what else can we do under our mandate? What brought this up was Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. I sense that the COI noticeboard will be more respected long-term if it sticks to its apparent mandate. The only fallback I can see is to try to ban actual employees of a religious institution from editing articles about their group, but that's harsh as well. EdJohnston 20:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of brochures. The neutral point of view trumps everything.

Before and after versions of another guru article illustrate very real COI issues which also show up on BLP/N. Ban employees? Sometimes we have to, but beware the Wonkish side.

I think whatever encourages editors to "experience what it's like to write something neutral" (WP:3O talk 21:51, 25 December 2006 UTC) is good. — Athænara ✉ 08:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pointers

Did you use a template for this diff? Just curious, I had linked the AfD at the bottom but your way was more likely to be noticed/cleaner. Thanx for the input. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's not a template, it's just a format I've developed informally over time to draw attention to small additions of significant information. — Athænara ✉ 16:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anchor

• (In re COI/N report and AN/3RR report.)

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

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

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

[edit] Marie Killick

• (In re Marie Killick article and COI/N report.)

Thanks for the formatting. I'm not sure where this is going to go. As there are big COI and single-viewpoint issues with the main sources, access to contemporary newspapers is really necessary. It seems to have been a popular story with the lowbrow papers; The Times mentions only the bankruptcy proceedings. Tearlach 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This inventor's story is a significant episode in the history of audio engineering. — Athænara ✉ 22:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The Killick vs Pye Ltd case seems also significant on the patent law circuit, as an often-quoted precedent that a patent doesn't need to be a major developmental leap in a technology to be valid. Tearlach 01:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(Taking time out from reading about sabre-toothed Thylacosmilus, Creodonta and Nimravidae)—Killick's daughter's website has several photographs showing datelines for contemporary 1950s newsmedia. Would that we could find text online to cite them more directly. — Æ. ✉ 02:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, someone did! The New York Times (1958) and Chicago Tribune (1959).

Way to go, Crockspot! — Athænara ✉ 03:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinions

Third opinion

Subsections in Archive 3.
Naming conventions · Talk pages · Pike disambig · Tire companies · Kingsmill massacre · Infobox · X Japan ·

To Fresheneesz, for injuries suffered in steadfast defence of Wikipedia:Civility in the face of determined attack, I award the Purple Barnstar. —Æ. ✉ 03:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for my first barnstar! I'm honored. Fresheneesz 03:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You truly earned it! — Athænara ✉ 03:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your intervention

Thank you for your participation in James Clark McReynolds. I appreciate the third opinion. Once I get home I will post the full quotes from the sources I have in the talk page to substantiate the statements given. Magidin 18:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I happened to notice it because the user who repeatedly reverted your edits came off a 3RR block (see report in WP:AN/3RR archive 41) in late March—that user's talk page is on my watchlist. — Athænara ✉ 19:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies of living persons

Biographies of living persons & Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Subsections in Archive 4.
Seth Swirsky · Carla Martin · Fans and brand management · Burt Reynolds · Naeim Giladi · Suhayl Saadi ·

[edit] BLP 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 that require outside intervention" and continue through "editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes." Piece of cake. — Athænara ✉ 06:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

A - You've only heard from me when I needed help but I just wanted to say a sincere "Thank You" for being of great assistance to me with "you know who" (dare I say his name!). You are a fantastic editor who really cares. Again, thank you! Seth Swirsky 14:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Duggar family

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

In re 3RR warning

What the h? Well u know what, pls tell this to [another editor] as well. Surely u see that [user] 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. — Athænara ✉ 21:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC

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 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct … — Athænara ✉ 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. — Æ. ✉ 22:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Langan entry

• (In re Christopher Michael Langan article 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)

[edit] 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! [1] 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.[2][3] Not withstanding that, as you pointed out, all the books were right there on Reed's site, my edits were reverted[4] for not verifiably proving the number of books written among many other things.[5] 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[6][7][8] by the same SPA who tried to speedy the article twice.[9][10] There was a passing comment soon deleted about Reed's personal life.[11] Not exactly a BLP issue but odd was this tagging of the article for notability[12] 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[13] 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)

in re Mel Etitis

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)

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)

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)

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

• (Yesterday's post from mel etitis removed.) — Athænara ✉ 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism reporting

Just to clarify: my message wasn't directed at you; there was some kind of edit conflict. I've briefly blocked the IP. Jkelly 21:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know so quickly what happened to my AIV report. I was writing a post to you with all the diffs when your post arrived here. — Athænara ✉ 21:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)