User talk:Athana

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Athana! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use HTML and CSS. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those ot(er ways. Here are a few links to get you started:

There are a lot of policies and guides to read, but I highly recommend reading over those first. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your name on Talk using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? :)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. Sincerely, Ryan 00:44, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Çatalhöyük

Hi, just popping in to say that I love your edits to Çatalhöyük - it's always very valuable to Wikipedia to get cited references in the articles, and you seem to be doing a great job! Ziggurat 03:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ziggurat. I do agree that it increases the value of (and trust in) Wikipedia to have cited references in the articles. Athana 20:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minos

While I can admit I was a little rash in maintaining your sources (which I did not realise at first), this: "If you were in academia, you'd be out of jobs by now, boys." is no more appropriate than my earlier arrogant tone (and I frown at boy; guys, however, seems to have been accepted as relatively gender neutral). Now I can understand some excesses, you seem to be about as recently come as I do, but... I do not seek an apology, but there are some things that will be badly interpreted, and some people whose pride is much more fragile in front of such comments. Snapdragonfly 08:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The First Sex

Pleas justify your edits on the talk page before making them, and remember that wikipedia is not a place for advocacy or speculation (WP:NOT). Also, please use the references properly - it makes it easier for others to read and work with the article (WP:REF). Finally, please read about how to use talk pages, they are not a forum for the topic or for discussing conspiracy theories and personal views; they are there to discuss changes to the article (WP:Talk). Yours, --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:The First Sex, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Removing other peoples comments is considered vandalism SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The First Sex. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:304px-PredynasticFemaleFigurine BrooklynMuseum.png

A tag has been placed on Image:304px-PredynasticFemaleFigurine BrooklynMuseum.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image with an unknown source or an unknown copyright status which has been tagged as such for more than 7 days, and it still lacks the necessary information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:304px-PredynasticFemaleFigurine BrooklynMuseum.png|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag as some information appears in the file history. If you could fill in the table on the page with the required information, that would be great and ensure it doesn't get deleted. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:The First Sex are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Do not change other peoples talk page comments, this is considered vandalism. (WP:TALK) SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:304px-PredynasticFemaleFigurine BrooklynMuseum.png

A tag has been placed on Image:304px-PredynasticFemaleFigurine BrooklynMuseum.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is a redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:304px-PredynasticFemaleFigurine BrooklynMuseum.png|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

So, in your opinion, we should repeatedly fix your citations (even when they are redundantly listed a dozen times) each and every time, ignoring the fact that you have been shown repeatedly the proper format for citing articles. Well, perhaps we just aren't as charitable as we should be. Maybe that's a failing on our (my) part. Phiwum (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Phiwum, they aren't "my" citations. They belong to the article. They were put there to increase the information in the article, not to somehow benefit me. And I'm not the person who has deleted them probably 20-25 times now. Also, their format doesn't subtract from the information they carry. It's you, not me, who has time to repeatedly reformat someone else's (not my) trashing of your citation format. There's no Wiki law says I have to format citations in a certain way. Readers can find the citations just as well without your formatting

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:The First Sex for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. Verbal (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Talk:The First Sex

Please stop soapboxing on the above page. Talk pages are meant to be used for discussions regarding improvement of articles, they're not general discussion boards.

Thanks. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:The First Sex for inappropriate discussions you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Verbal (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for soapboxing and disruptive editing.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tan ǀ 39 18:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Athana (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason I shouldn't be blocked is this: I am trying to get through to Wiki that this article has been hijacked by thugs. These people have repeatedly -- over 50 times or more -- deleted statements I've contributed. Often there's no reason given. I'm a responsible person with more than one advanced degree. I'm a homeowner. I'm a respected citizen of my community. I have a book coming out in Nov. commissioned by a respectable UK publisher. If these thugs are allowed to shut me out of Wiki, then I'm sorry to say there's something deeply wrong with Wiki, and that Wiki deserves to know about it. If I were the owner of Wiki, I'd certainly want to know -- from responsible, well-educated, and well-thought of citizens like myself -- what is going on at Wiki sites. On the other hand, if Wiki wants to shut out responsible, well educated, published writers like me, and keep the kind of people inhabiting this article, then I guess I'll just go on over to Google's new Wiki-competitor site. Given my degrees and publishing status, I know I'll be appreciated there -- not to mention paid for my work. So, sorry to say, unless you can find a way to keep people like me and weed out the outright vandals inhabiting this article at the moment, it's clear as mud that Google will leave Wiki in the mud faster than anyone can say 'spit.' But know what? I have no faith whatsoever that even what I've written here will be saved anywhere. Like everything else I've given freely to Wiki, it'll probably be erased -- and erased -- and erased again. Sorry -- I know I'm rambling, but it's been a long time since I've felt as angry and frustrated as I do now. Hopefully someone sane will read this. I realize I should probably dig into Wiki to see if there's any recourse in a situation such as what's going on at The First Sex article, but I keep thinking I'm just going to drop the whole issue -- I don't have time to be doing this for no reimbursement. Then I think about the fact that if these vandals are allowed to take over the article, the world is going to once again be fed false information. But I guess that won't be the case for long, since given what I've experienced here I doubt Wiki will last much longer. Or if it does, it certanly won't be read by anyone with half a brain. I know I'm certainly going to warn everyone I know about the advisability of trusting anything they read on Wiki.

Decline reason:

To be brief, I don't think my lifting this block would benefit Wikipedia: as a measure to prevent further disruption from your end towards the articles in question, I fully support this block. You need to take another look at wikipedia:disruptive editing and learn how to contribute constructively to the project; do that, and you'll be on the road to being a better editor, Athana. Anthøny 19:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Echoing the sentiment from Anthony, above, I realize that you feel strongly on this subject; quite frankly, a lot of people around here do too. In this case, though, you appear to have continued posting very strongly-worded messages about Wikipedia in general, and the conduct of its editors in particular, on the talk page for The First Sex. Talk pages for articles are only for discussion of that particular article, and not for the project in general or other topics unrelated to that specific article. There are forums for Dispute Resolution if you believe a particular editor has treated you unfairly, and there are forums for discussion of the project in general (such as the Village Pump), but continued posting of off-topic remarks was deemed disruptive - moreso given the fact that you were warned above for such conduct. I'm not sure about the specifics of your edits on the article itself - it looks like there was some confusion about how a source from someone named "Eisner" was cited - but accusing other editors of being biased due to their gender (as you did here, for example) is... problematic. Please take a deep breath and consider the possibility that we're all here to do the same thing - improve the encyclopedia. Best to you, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Athana, I am an uninvolved admin here (and clearly the blocking admin). I'm not an unreasonable man, and I'm hardly a thug. However, I think there's two things going on here - one, emotions are running high and are eclipsing some important priorities of Wikipedia. Two, I believe - believe - that while you may be very intelligent, wise beyond your years, and a highly respected citizen in your community, you have at least a few fundamental misunderstandings of how Wikipedia works. I think if we just cleared up those misunderstandings and you could relax with me and chat about it here, we could lift this (short) block and we could move forward with what's important - contributing to Wikipedia. If you're willing to discuss this in a non-passionate manner, let me know, and I'd be more than happy to discuss various issues with you. Tan ǀ 39 20:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eisler

I see you are the editor (at least it appears to be you) that added the list from Eisler. You didn't give a page number, which you should have done. But that isn't my concern. I would like the full quote in context that includes the list, as from what I've been able to find out it looks as though you are interpreting Eisler, not actually telling us what Eisler actually said. I hope you can provide this as I was about to delete that section until I found out you had added it. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our conflict of interest policy

Hello, Athana. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Note that the subject of the article has zero say in what a Wikipedia article says about them and people who are close enough to them to ask for their blessing of a version shouldn't be editing the article, either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your edits to Idiopathic environmental intolerances are disruptive. They have been reverted several times because they are not neutrally stated and have no sources. If you add this material again you may be blocked from editing. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Athana. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Athana. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Athana. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Athana. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul-Henri Bourguignon moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Paul-Henri Bourguignon. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul-Henri Bourguignon (August 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

I am not persuaded he passes WP:NARTIST nor WP:NJOURNALIST. Better referencing is required please. Vimeo is unsuitable as a reference

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Paul-Henri Bourguignon and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Athana! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Paul-Henri Bourguignon has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Paul-Henri Bourguignon. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul-Henri Bourguignon (August 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Still not remotely clear how they pass WP:NARTIST and Facebook is not a reliable source

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Paul-Henri Bourguignon and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul-Henri Bourguignon has been accepted

Paul-Henri Bourguignon, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, theroadislong, for being patient and persistent. I will continue to work to improve the article. Athana (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]