This is an

archive of deletion

discussions from 2022.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, do so on the current talk page.

2007-2021 deletion discussions

• 2007-2010: User talk:Athaenara/Deletions 2007-2010
• 2011-2016: User talk:Athaenara/Deletions 2011-2016
• 2017-2021: User talk:Athaenara/Deletions 2017-2021
• (2008-2009 discussions about deleted hoaxes: Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Jean Girard)

2022

Can you please delete page Agnibaan which redirects to

]

 Done. Note: you can tag a self-created page {{db-g7}}. – Athaenara ✉ 13:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshdeep2021 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern with deleting that one is that I've seen an editor redirect to similarly formatted article titles from, say,

, because people aren't likely to type the "–" version of the dash in the search, so the inclusion of the hyphen(?) redirect solves that. Made a bit of sense to me, but I don't think it's a biggie; I don't see many people typing such an address into a Wikipedia search.

Edit: seems a bot has taken care of it now. Seasider53 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

→ in re: Draft:Paul Chiy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Athaenara,

I requested the page Paul Chiy to be deleted which you did a few weeks ago -- thank you. I am now recreating the article to a standard which meets Wikipedia's requirements and declaring my conflict of interest. It said to contact you to tell you that I am recreating the article so I am contacting you here to let you know. I'm not sure if I need your approval before continuing, but will wait to hear back from you. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJC12345 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

→ in re: Matt Dunkley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Good morning, I need your help please. Yesterday I wanted to revise my article MATT DUNKLEY as the text was written as an essay. Instead of deleting only the text, I deleted by mistake the whole article. Can it please be restored? Thank you very much in advance HNP-MUC (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done. – Athaenara ✉ 06:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieval

Dear Athaenara,

Quite some time ago you deleted Template:Bahram Beyzai sidebar. Could you please revive it, so I can update it? It has a very honorable equivalent in the Persian Wikipedia . . . and I believe I can develop it to the point of usefulness.

Thanks,

Mirza gashamsham (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Athaenara! Could you do this for me?Mirza gashamsham (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, sorry for the delay! – Athaenara ✉ 11:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now, I'll begin to make it look more like its Wiki-fa equivalent.Mirza gashamsham (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

→ in re:

)

Athaenara, when you delete a page to move another page there, you need to make sure that the page you deleted becomes a redirect, rather than creating a bunch of orphan red links all over wikipedia and external links. I've created

Garuda Indonesia Flight 542

as the redirect, but if I hadn't had it on my watchlist, this would have been a redlink with links all over the place.

Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks. Generally I avoid that category because it's not always clear how (or when!) somebody else is going to follow up on those pages. – Athaenara ✉ 05:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as the admin, you must be the one to make sure the redirect works, since we have no idea when anyone else will see it, and you're the one who knows exactly when it was deleted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I undeleted the previous revisions so the entire page history will be preserved. – Athaenara ✉ 11:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

→ in re: E-Daakhil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi Athaenara. I observe you have deleted this article after I got it restored. This article is of high importance for public and hence relevant. Kindly help me restore it in the interest of public. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gardenkur: Undeleted at 19:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC). – Athaenara ✉ 19:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

→ in re:

)

This is to let you know that I have restored

also has a previously contested PROD and reference to an RfD discussion (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 17 § Administrators' Noticeboard), albeit from 2011. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for letting me know, I wasn't familiar with all that backstory. – Athaenara ✉ 21:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Athaenara,

I hope you are doing well. Earlier today, DaxServer tagged a lot of old User pages for CSD G13 deletion that were not eligible for that criteria. As a reminder, the only pages that qualify for CSD G13 deletion criteria are any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in:

• Draft namespace,
• Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template
• Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.

Most of the User pages he tagged were just old sandboxes and had never been submitted to AFC for review or utilized the Article Wizard so they were not eligible. I hope that one day we might have a discussion at the Village Pump and come up with a solution for the hundreds of thousands of old User pages that don't fit the rather strict speedy deletion criteria. But as of now, the feeling, by and large, has been "No big deal, let them be". So, they sit there for years, hell, decades, until the community views them as a problem. Thanks for everything and I'll probably run into you, patrolling those CSD categories! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

→ in re: Aaron Chatterley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), see also WAAPHC (talk · contribs)

I'm not the author of that page, but I believe it would have been a better idea to move that article to draftspace rather than delete it. I don't believe I saw much of anything in that article violating G11, and G12 could have been easily blanked and then have the article sent to draftspace. If I'm wrong about this, please tell me. ~XyNq ^{(talk)(contrib)} 01:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:TNT applies. – Athaenara ✉ 01:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Right, I see. Thanks ~XyNq ^{(talk)(contrib)} 01:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the note I added to the talk page? OK, I realise I'd forgotten that the CSD only applies to a very narrow category within the larger set of "Unnecessary disambiguation pages" (ie not "what it says on the tin"), but although it's a valid dab page in itself if it useless: the base title points elsewhere so no-one would ever find it.

I've now PRODded. Just thought it worth a mention - if you see an unexpected CSD it might be worth checking the talk page for explanation. PamD 08:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On third thoughts, I've redirected it to the existing dab page. Leaving this as a redirect makes it less likely someone will re-create it. PamD 08:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: No problem, I'll leave it to you. – Athaenara ✉ 08:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

→ see also: Shein's Contributions to Global Climate Crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (AfD)

Hi Athaenara,

I just wanted to leave you a quick note about the G11 you placed on User:Cianna.brie/Shein's Contributions to Global Climate Crisis. As you will gather from the log, I initially agreed with your assessment and deleted the page under G11. However, I went back and took another look, coming to the conclusion that the page is a personal essay of sorts. It is surely unsuitable for the article space, but I thought I was wrong for deleting it as a G11. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Haoreima/About myself was moved from User talk:Haoreima before you deleted it. Any problem with me restoring and merging? Cabayi (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind, Graeme Bartlett handled it. Cabayi (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

→ in re:

)

Hi there. I am a little confused why the article was deleted so quickly. It was suggested I edit to address the WP:PROF issues, and I did. Reid held two endowed chair positions (currently holds one of them) and presented at the ICM, one of the highest honours in mathematics. This kind of recognition is enough for other mathematicans, why is it not enough for Reid?

By your standards, we could delete many other mathematician wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rybu (talk • contribs) 06:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About: Speedy deletion of User:Atomic Sphere/United States of America (set in 2902)

I don't get why I cant make articles set in the future as a prediction, after all, it is an encyclopedia, and sometimes those have predictions in them. AtomicSphere 19:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atomic Sphere: You need to take a good look at What Wikipedia is not, particularly the "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" section. – Athaenara ✉ 21:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I read through it. AtomicSphere 21:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I was just wondering why you G7 deleted Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:ATINER Athens Institute for Education and Research? I can't seem to find any deletion requests for it, and I'm not sure if G7 applies to a closed MfD that had multiple editors contributing to it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised it was the talk page for the MFD and not the MFD itself that was deleted! My bad. Sorry for the double notification. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

]

@ToBeFree: Well, it was tagged {{db-g11}} as many of that new editor's pages have been, and I haven't been disputing that. She's told us she's here to compete in a contest to see who can get the most articles up about her country's cuisine. – Athaenara ✉ 19:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the wording "tagged G11 but" looked to me as if you had declined the G11 deletion request in parallel. As that isn't the case, the deletion is fine with me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Matt Apodaca · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Article was deleted under speedy deletion for promotion. I'm not personally affiliated with the article subject and was preparing the article as he has in recent years become notable. As an example, he is cross referenced in a number of existing Wikipedia articles by users other than me, is among a group of comedians receiving significant exposure, and the other two hosts of his notable podcast have existing articles. See for example the reoccurring guests section of the episode page for notable Podcast Comedy Bang Bang! Nearly all comedians with a similar level of appearances on the program meet notability requirements and have their own pages. [[1]] I have read the article concerning first article creation and would like to try and make the article more appropriate and neutral without having to start from scratch. Could you move the article back to drafts or my user space so I can continue to try and improve the article? Thank you. —AntilonGS (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AntilonGS: The links in two articles ("cross referenced" in your words) were added by you. The sources you used were primarily twitter, twitch, instagram, linkedin, facebook, imdb, and other similar sources which are not independent reliable sources. – Athaenara ✉ 05:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I red linked Matt Apodaca's name in those articles as I had just uploaded an article related to him. It is not accurate that I added the references to him in those articles. As I stated, there are multiple existing Wikipedia articles that make reference to the person I was attempting to make a bio for. I've reviewed the noteworthiness guidelines, and a comedian frequently appearing on top rated podcasts, interviewing dozens of notable comedians with their own pages, and hosting a podcast that has received high ratings from independent journalists would seem to meet the criteria. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Get_Played&action=history and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Comedy_Bang!_Bang!_episodes&action=history which reflect I did not add Apodaca to the referenced articles.

You also added conflict of interest language to my talk page. As I stated, I am in no way affiliated with any of these parties other than having an interest in comedy podcasts and wanting to contribute to Wikipedia. What is the basis for tagging me as having a conflict of interests?

I would like to work on adding additional sources, please move the article to my user space so I can work on improving the article. AntilonGS (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:TNT won't save it. Give it up. – Athaenara ✉ 17:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Deletion - Justin Alliman

→ in re: Justin Alliman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (AfD)
→ see also: User talk:Mcfarc2, User talk:BBoyNeptune06, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bodiadub, Archived WP:ANI legal threats discussion

Just writing you regarding the deletion of Justin Alliman. I’m not sure what was the unambiguous promotion aspect of the page created. The Justin Alliman articles detail his career and hardships. Could you elaborate on what the issue was specifically and why you were unable to edit that yourself, instead of deleting the page? 49.227.139.107 (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons are in the page logs; who are you when you're logged in? – Athaenara ✉ 04:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am BBoyNeptune06, I spent allot of time researching this person. If minor adjustments is needed in wording, this can be applied. From your user history you have reputation for speedy deletions. I have no knowledge of any of the Sockpuppet Investigations but the article in question has valid sources from his training of 2 Players, Both players are wikipedia indexed, His Stats from 2 Universities with references, Adidas Canada's connection, Family history and book publication. I understand the page was deleted previously, linked to a User who is either banned or under investigation but that does not negate authenticity.

I am confused on how this article that highlights a troubled history and person to family flaws is seen as promotional. Can you please elaborate on what the issue was specifically around unambiguous promotion? Could this not have been moved into drafts or corrected by yourself since you are active on here? BBoyNeptune06 (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BBoyNeptune06: I'm chuckling here at being told that I've a reputation for speedy deletions and that I should have moved your article or corrected it. For one, if you look just a tad more closely at my "user history" as you say, you'll see that nearly all the deletions are per {{db-g11}} as unambiguous advertising/promotion. For another, there's no reason for you to expect me to rescue your page. It is (for now) undeleted, so you can see in the page history who was tagging if you want to bother them too  ;-) – Athaenara ✉ 10:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not chuckling. Composing articles is someones time and effort. Your history on your page is filled with articles being pitched for "speedy deletion" is not an insult, its visible. Your reason for focusing on this is none of my business but you clearly feel empowered by this and I'm not here to abuse people. Anyones work being removed would be disheartening to any writer and or editor that took the time to compose. Offering feedback or correcting is one thing, but deletion is another. I am not implying more than what is visible and factual, which is what wikipedia is about. Starting out with "Im chuckling" is in the least not professional and is abusive, which goes against wikipedia's policy (as you do know even if you are accustomed to implying someone asking for clarification is "bothersome".

My history is 2 articles being removed, which includes this one. One for lack of sources and this one having substantial sources. Deleting articles bc you personally do not like the sources is biased, is (ByBlacks not a trusted source bc its By Blacks?).

I did not ask you to rescue a page. I asked you could you elaborate (3rd time now) on what the issue was specifically around unambigous promotion? You are taking the time too write back defensive. You could've taken the same time to correct the article or help assist, not condescend an editor.

You have 16 years experience here and that's not reason to be abusive when someone is asking for clarification for context. BBoyNeptune06 (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No years of experience can kill my sense of humor, and "not professional"? I'm a volunteer. No one pays me to work here. Are you a professional being paid to edit? – Athaenara ✉ 11:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sense of humour involves emotional Intellegence to read the tone (or read the room). Writing, editing and investing into understanding a subject is time and effort and that's not something you "chuckle at" bc you had a misunderstanding that could cause a poker face instead of "my bad".

Asking for clarification to improve and getting offended bc your history is visible for being active for "Speedy Deletions" is perplexing. Perplexing especially while you seem to have a focus on regulating other users, articles. The goal as an editor is to help improve the encyclopaedia on Wikipedia with neutrality, not relish in deleting pages for the sake of (previous deletion) and demeaning others who want to improve for context as "Bothersome", then mask abuse as "sense of humour" when people care about their work.

Once again, I am not asking you to restore a page. So no, I am not a professional or being paid. I am also volunteering my time, effort and that took me 3 days and 7-8 hours each outside of my other life obstacles. There is a typical implication that goes on when someone asks a question here, people depending on their level of understanding that day or of the message resort to a tacky "You seem be close to the subject matter or are you being paid? I'm a human dude, not a bot on an app flagging people automated or for fun. Not hard to comprehend if viewed from the grounded point of view of another volunteer. BBoyNeptune06 (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your messages seem very heartfelt, and I can easily sympathize, but from my point of view it amounts to pointless space-wasting and time-wasting bickering. If you care about my editing, read some of the articles I've written, and go in peace. – Athaenara ✉ 11:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the "Heartfelt" Remark. When I stated "least not profession", I was speaking in terms of respectful discourse and online ettiquete to be ethical in your approach to responses. With that said, you redirecting me to some of the articles you have written does not answer the question I had in specific terms to the article removed.

Can you please elaborate (4th Time) on what the issue was specifically around unambiguous promotion, in the article you deleted?

Once again, you are responding defensive, impatient towards another editor that wants to improve (if you can highlight the fault instead of resorting to "look at my work"), citing my query as "bickering" and I'm still having patience enough to be transparent. You are showing the antentisis of of Heartfelt and you "can easily sympathize". Taking time to abuse your editing experience, focusing on deleting pages or editors that have queries in the community is troublesome. Please apply more time to being helpful to other editors, ethical and answer the question if the deletion of this article is justified for you to explain "unambiguous promotion"? BBoyNeptune06 (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guess this is the same impatience exerted into "speedy deletions". I'll cite this as abuse then. BBoyNeptune06 (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Location: User:Athaenara/Entries, most of them 2006-2008. – Athaenara ✉ 11:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's next, insults on typo's? You have been absolutely toxic while trying to flex your worth but can not answer a question. That's ok. I'll report the matter. BBoyNeptune06 (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BBoyNeptune06: I think you want me to care about the work you have done, but I think also that you are not interested in caring about the work I have done. Like you, I do care about my own work (and yes, that does include my administrative work now). All of the full-length articles I wrote took, as in your words, "time, effort and" usually more than "3 days and 7-8 hours each" of research, writing, and re-writing. A sampling of a few, some of which were featured in Wikipedia:Did you know:

• Ernesto de Quesada
• Ingpen & Williams
• John Pitre
• Ben Finney
• Jon Lomberg (this one includes the only image I ever uploaded here)
• Dorothy Canning Miller
• Romany Marie
• Chryssa
• User:Athaenara/Gallery (featured in Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Gallery in February 2019)

My contributions to all of these were primarily during my first three years here, from 2006 through 2008. Obviously, you may care as little or as much as you please. – Athaenara ✉ 14:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you "think" is irrelevant. I'm responding off your online behaviour and do not know you town you to "care" about my work. I am barely on the site and certainly not targeting multiple pages for deletion or being condescending while posing as an administrator that cares about the ethics. Your whole approach to answering a question that I was seeking understanding of shows poor conflict resolution for Wikipedia's community of editors that makes your unsolicited resume irrelevant.

In fact, if you are so great at contributions, you could've edit the article you took issue with or simply refrain from the "Bickering" you implied and just shared what you took issue with.

Clearly you can not explain your issue and that is because you did not check the sources of the article. You only took delight in being able to delete it. That's "small accomplishment" from a small source of power. Life is much bigger than the internet but if that how you get your thrills behind a computer, you haven't proven much sharing about your first three years to behave as such. Abusive to other editors and hunting pages that you aren't patient to edit.

Btw, clearly this is not my career, its a hobby. But if you take this so seriously to take the time to be condemning and poor attempts to belittle (repeatedly), and value in helping the platform contributing more than abominate attacks. Not impressed dude. You are abusive on a platform where you are trying to regulate abuse. Terrible. BBoyNeptune06 (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BBoyNeptune06: It is not "my issue", I merely agreed with the taggers. I also undeleted the page so more admins could look at exactly what I saw the day I had deleted it, and eventually another admin did the same. As to your wholesale condemnation of everything I do or have done on the site, I'll just leave it all lying there where you put it ;-) – Athaenara ✉ 16:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your name was listed under the removal. So my query shouldn't have caused you to be on the defence and escalate you disregard for another editor saying "You expect me to rescue your page" when that was NOT what I asked. It was a ton-def reply.

There was no "wholesale condemnation of everything" you do. Those are your words. I am merely holding you accountable for being demeaning using the words "Chuckling", Implying "Professional" means paid when I was referencing tone (Something you are aware of as an editor), saying "I can empathise" but then called my question for context "Bickering" all bc you mistook my mentioning of your current editing history incorrectly as an insult and you held onto maintaining a poker face about it.

Misunderstandings happen. I made it clear I was perplexed on your offence and only asked for context on what you sited as "unambiguous promotion".

You can't be rude, then use your resume to cite how great you are at contributions to show "superiority" assuming throughout our talk instead of reading exactly what I stated. I do not put feelings over facts. Once again, that is the purpose to encycopledia on Wikipedia. Having administrative powers is pointless when you attack people for questions, then cyber bully using (other editors to threaten me for responding to you which feels like Twitter) through relational aggression "Karen" tactics to play victim about you sending me your resume as an attempt to 1 up a person assuming I wanted you to care about my work.

Treat editors (new or not) better. Nobody deserves your attitude and tone for asking for clarity. I am holding your responsible not for your history but your interaction with me has been poorly handled. BBoyNeptune06 (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read the page logs if you haven't already done so, they're linked in the first line at the top of this discussion section. – Athaenara ✉ 16:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the logs and you cited I complained, which is false.

Now having other users (User: Praxidicae) attack me with threats.

All I asked you was Where in the article was there "unambiguous promotion". You opted not to explain and if there were "unambigous promotion" you could have explained it by now. Your issue is with the page being recreated, yet implying pages are about to be place back in drafts and update if changes can be made. No editor wants to risk trying to create in drafts or sandbox for a page being deleted previously from another editors mistakes bc you just do not like the sight of a page beingg recreated.

You are simply abusing your power and abusing me as an editor for daring to ask you a question. You know your tone WRITING and therefore know exactly what you are doing. BBoyNeptune06 (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now having other users (User: Praxidicae) attack me with threats. @BBoyNeptune06 I never threatened you nor did Athaenara ask me to do anything - I warned you for personal attacks, which you've continued to create. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have your message:

Praxidicae‬ left a message on your talk page in "‪August 2022‬".

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:Athaenara, you may be blocked from editing without...

Your intentionally started to flag my uploads, to which I am now sending the OTRS for.

Asking for context is not "attacking". This user, Editor, Admin was defensive at the very start of replies and began to imply bc they have 16 years experience that negates my importance. The person misunderstood my statement and was rude Grimm then on out without simply stating what could have been improved on the article. Abuse of power is not applauded when people ask for context. BBoyNeptune06 (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one attacked you - you violated multiple policies by creating personal attacks, such as the one I removed here from this very talk page and uploaded blatant copyright violations to Commons. Unless, somehow, you expect us to believe you are in fact 3 different photographers? Keep up this combative, inappropriate behavior after you've also been warned by multiple editors and you're going to find yourself blocked here too. In fact, if you make a single edit that contains any sort of unfounded accusation or personal attack again, I will take this to ANI immediately and ask for an indefinite block. And to clarify, that's not a threat, I'm simply telling you what will happen if you continue being disruptive. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and this doesn't even begin to address your clear

undisclosed conflict of interest, which you've neglected to disclose for years. But by all means, if you'd like to continue digging this hole for yourself, be my guest. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Personal Attacks? Like her saying

- "Im chuckling"? over a misunderstanding regarding the word reputation & her page history reflects as of late a focus full of "speedy deletions"?

- " Asking to Rescue a Page" Which I did not

- "Asking am I paid to edit" when clearly that goes against policy

_ "Your messages seem very heartfelt, and I can easily sympathize, but from my point of view it amounts to pointless space-wasting and time-wasting bickering."

- "I think you want me to care about the work you have done" ..I am a casual user, that makes no sense looking at my history.

This person was in a mood and misunderstood me at the start. Nothing was personal. In fact I explained it was a misunderstanding and I was perplexed at the offence. The user was repeatedly being condescending down to trying to invalidate me based on years of experience.

Nothing is combative bc you are being falsely accused of violations and inappropriate behaviour when your admin started off with "I'm chuckling" after the initial reply.

Btw, if I get blocked here, Im a casual user ..and based on the user experience here, I'm not missing much. You actions to get my account banned are deeply troubling. You are not obligated to reply. but you can not falsely accuse people of violations that suit your narrative when the "order of events" in text says otherwise that I offered clarity the user had a misunderstanding. BBoyNeptune06 (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BBoyNeptune06, I am an administrator and the deletion of that article was entirely correct. You need to stop harassing Athaenara now. Cullen328 (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the deletion was incorrect. I simply asked for context on where was the "unambiguous promotion" (which in itself can be deemed "subject"). That is not harassment. Only conclusion I could see was irritability for recreation of a deleted page (to which I did not know would be this much of an issue to escalate conversations in militant distain.

Her belittling of my query, while saying their years of being an editor or admin was unnecessary. Also, melee'ing now by 3 users is cyberbullying, outside of the vandalism I just experienced from (User: Praxidicae) to get my account banned.

Sorry, but this is very unethical and deeply troubling. BBoyNeptune06 (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heya!

I just deleted this page (G7) and saw that you undeleted it a few hours ago because it was in use. I checked the "What links here" tool and couldn't find any. Can you double check whether these uses were removed or whether I screwed up? Thanks! -- Luk ^talk 09:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I see now: Module:Bracket builder/doc and a couple of user sandboxes. – Athaenara ✉ 10:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

→ in re: Heshui County Grotto Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Heshui County Grotto group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Draft:Heshui County Grotto group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Athaenara, may I please retrieve the article: Heshui County Grotto Group?

Hello there, thank you for your swift response on the deletion of the article. I have contested the deletion nomination by stating the "group" in the title simply means a group of grottoes (caves) of Buddhism. But I did not talk to the tagger to have her remove the tag unfortunately. In this article, there is no sign of promoting any company, organization or product, it is simply a scientific documentation of the grottoes in Heshui County.

May I please retrieve article and if you have any suggestions for any revision, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thank you so much!

Veronica

KeruKnowledge (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Athaenara, for the quick reply and response. I am working with the deletion tagger to figure out what's needs to be changed to avoid the promotional vibe.

Thanks again for your vigilance and work!

Veronica — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeruKnowledge (talk • contribs) 01:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

→ in re: Ntosh Gazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Draft:Ntosh Gazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey

You deleted the article ‘Ntosh Gazi, please assist me that i may write an article that can stay on Wikipedia. i was not trying to create an advertising page but writing an article for the public Ntendeni Razwinani (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ntendeni Razwinani: The page you wrote was entirely promotional rather than encyclopedic, including claims such as "has made quite a name for himself" and "now is his time to shine". You claimed that the image you uploaded on Commons, which looks like the kind of image any agent or manager would want for a client they were promoting, was your own work. Is it really? If it is, you are part of the team promoting him. (If it is not, you have falsely claimed authorship.) Deletion per {{db-g11}} was appropriate. – Athaenara ✉ 14:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Athaenara I believe the mistake I made was the ownership of the image which I will fix and I understand your point ,I will fix everything accordingly Ntendeni Razwinani (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

→ in re: Jackson Premium Outlets (A Simon Center) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
→ see also: Draft:Jackson Premium Outlets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello @Athaenara,

You deleted my article on Jackson Premium Outlets a year ago. I understand that you cited (

: No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events), however I would like to contest those two reasons.

For reason G11, I do not hold any stake or involvement in Jackson Premium Outlets, I am merely just a normal resident who lives within the vicinity of the outlet shopping center. Now, if you felt that the article might had been too 'flowery' or 'promotional' in its language, I would've rather (as stated in the general policy of handling these situations) you simply made edits to the article that might had portrayed the article too promotionally, by editing the words in as much as of a neutral of a viewpoint as possible, rather then a full deletion of the entire article.

For reason A7, with all due respect I find this genuinely perplexing. Considering the Jackson outlets are a real place of economic significance in the State of New Jersey, I find the assertion of it 'lacking importance' compounding. The outlets are down the street from Six Flags Great Adventure (a major generator of the state's economy), not to mention close to the Jersey Shore and Trenton (the state's capital), connected by Interstate 195. There are many other outlet centers across the northeastern region that have dedicated Wikipedia articles to them (The Mills at Jersey Gardens, Grove City Premium Outlets, Wrentham Village Premium Outlets, among others), so I find it quite dubious that there aren't similarly expressed concerns of 'lack of importance' in the existence of those articles.

Once again, if you are willing in allowing this article to being restored, I am open to any feedback on improving the article so that it complies to the 'neutrality' framework in presentation. I also think the existence of said article is warranted, not a promotional dump.

Thanks for your time,

Freeholdman12. Freeholdman12 (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Freeholdman12: Well, I undeleted it per your request, and it was deleted again by another administrator. – Athaenara ✉ 19:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks hearing my case and for undeleting it. However, is there any reason as to why the other editor chose to delete it again? If so, is there any way to appeal? Freeholdman12 (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can try reading Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, which specifies that it is not for {{db-g11}} cases but should have some pointers on it. – Athaenara ✉ 20:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I don't know how well you understand the speedy deletion processes: I did not review the page or tag it, it was in two speedy deletion categories where I saw it and had no reason to disagree with the tagger's "nominating article for speedy deletion due to blatant promotion of nn entity" summary (nn = non-

notable). – Athaenara ✉ 20:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, yes I am genuinely unaware of that process. So, if I wanted to appeal another reviewers discretion on speedy deletion, who exactly would that secondary reviewer be? Also, would I simply just regurgitate my disagreements on the opinion, as I expressed to you. I once again appreciate your patience in explaining this to me (I've been editing for wikipedia for 2 years now and I'm still learning more about this). Freeholdman12 (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of "reviewers" as such, but maybe Wikipedia:Articles for creation has something about that. – Athaenara ✉ 23:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

→ see also: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Kaffeeklatsch pages

Regarding the deletion of User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch and its talk page: the page had already survived a deletion discussion and so I do not believe it was eligible for speedy deletion. isaacl (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl: The page owner has been gone since 2015, I see no reason for Wikipedia to host it. Do you think it's a significant part of Wikipedia's history? – Athaenara ✉ 00:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; it was part of the efforts being made by various editors to reduce the gap in articles related to females versus males. It played a role in an arbitration case. If it were to be deleted, there ought to be a discussion first. isaacl (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl: OK, undeleted. – Athaenara ✉ 00:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your rapid response. Thanks for your consideration! isaacl (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One more request: could you consider undeleting User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch/Pledge? It was a part of the criteria that had been set up for contributing, and so it too is a part of the space that was established. isaacl (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll create an mfd because that is the proper forum for discussion of these issues. Joesom333 (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

isaacl, just alerting you to this MFD where a discussion is occurring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Wikipedia user page. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Athaenara/Archive_00.