User talk:Athena2019

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Oopali Operajita have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Oopali Operajita was changed by Athena2019 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.864125 on 2021-10-11T08:58:08+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Oopali Operajita, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Oopali Operajita, you may be blocked from editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. That's fine, but, the Wikipedia page of a woman of colour, a Senior Parliamentary Adviser and a Distinguished Fellow at Carnegie Mellon, is mutilated by a bunch of men, some not coloured, and we cannot seek any redressal? Excellent. We'd like to have this page deleted.

2. Equally, we find it disturbing that some editors are prying into other areas of her life, sending messages hither and anon, and, really, exceeding their mandate. That's saturnine.

3. It's crucial that ad hominem statements aren't made, or ad hominem conclusions not arrived at. I am definitely not Hillary 1900. She's an attorney, and, I've learned, a hugely successful one.

4. Again, sexist and xenophobic comments about this page being paid for are false. I got on this page today, per the advice of a Trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation, and disclosed my identity in good faith.

5. Misogynist and xenophobic language from Phil Bridger (What is your profession? And why is attacking a woman of such consequence to you?): "Why do you call her a professor?" Ask President Richard Cyert!

6. MrOllie: thank you for pointing out that Professor Operajita belongs to one of the most fabled Colleges of Fine Arts in the USA. Tons of Emmy awards, Tony awards (over a 140), and a bunch of Oscars too. You might sit back and think of what qualities one must possess to be appointed by the president of a New Ivy League university at such a CFA (it's not an 'art department': there are 5 departments, all outstanding).

7. Finally, it's convenient, but not very brave, for a bunch of men to be hiding behind the wall of anonymity and desecrating and fiddling with the Wikipedia page of an accomplished woman of colour.

Ultimately, Wikipidea editors don't determine someone's career trajectory: the real world does. So do edit away, and mutilate away, and please yourselves, but remember that your edits are xenophobic and misogynist.

BlackLivesMatter #AsianLivesMatter

AmyAthena2019 (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad the professor has had success in her life. If independent reliable sources discuss that on their own, it can be on Wikipedia. Hillary 1990 was blocked for making legal threats, which aside from being against policy were wholly unnecessary and blew the matter way out of proportion. If they withdraw the threats, they can be unblocked. If you are not that user, you may request unblock and explain how you came to be involved with this matter.

Wikipedia trustees do not dictate content or have authority over editors. If they wish to comment on this matter, they are free to do that just as any other editor.

No one is desecrating anything, and the gender of editors is not relevant. Again, this has been blown way out of proportion. Discussion would likely address many of the issues here. You are welcome to request unblock. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's too much there for me to reply to each point individually, so I'll just say that I can't ask Richard Cyert why you call the subject a professor as he died over 20 years ago, as I'm sure you know as you were such a friend. I do know that there is no suggestion in the article that he appointed her as a professor, so I will simply ask the question again. Where did she get her professorship? There is nothing xenophobic or misogynist about asking a simple question that should have a simple answer. And, by the way, I am not anonymous, as I edit under my real name. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding point #4: you've said you're an employee of Ms. Operajita. You've said that "we would like this page deleted." That certainly implies, at least, that your edits here are associated with your job. Even if you're not being explicitly paid to edit Wikipedia, that constitutes paid editing, and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. In one of your edit summaries, you stated that "I have been asked by Wikipedia, to whom we articulated our concerns, and a trustee of the Wikimedia foundation to make necessary edits to her page." Can you disclose which of the nine trustees gave you this advice? I ask because it's clearly contrary to Wikipedia policy. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For a second stint on Wikipedia, after your couple of edits in 2019, it'll help to keep in mind that a way to move ahead on content disputes will be to Discuss edits, not editors. Jay (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI notice

Hello, Athena2019. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Oopali Operajita, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Note that you were already informed about the COI guidelines by multiple editors at the discussion you started - Talk:Oopali Operajita#Oopali Operajita's Wikipedia page Jay (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on oopalioperajita.com

Hello Athena2019, if you are interested in improving the Ooopali Operajita article, there is one way you can certainly help. The press section of oopalioperajita.com includes a number of reviews that would be useful sources for the article, once they're properly cited. In particular, the Subbudu review from The New Statesman and the Vranish review from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette would be very useful Reliable Sources for the article, but neither clip includes information on the date of publication, which would be necessary to verify the source. For the Vranish review, I've searched the Post-Gazette archives, and been unable to find the referenced story. It doesn't look like The Statesman has online archives, so a publication date and page number would be critical in finding the story and properly referencing it. Thanks! (Note, I've also included this on Talk:Oopali Operajita. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Interlocking Axes of Racism, Defamation, Prurience, Sexism and Transgressed Boundaries by a Bunch of Predominantly White Male Editors and one Indian Jay on Professor Operajita's page #AsianLivesMatter #BlackLivesMatter

1. User Jay is quite clearly stalking Professor Operajita. I'm not sure what he does for a living, but his attempts to connect with every place Professor Operajita has been at is egregious and, in the final analysis, profoundly pitiable. You don't use the veneer of Wikipedia to stalk women. I do believe Jay has been set up by someone to stalk Professor Operajita and defame her. His rabid obsession with her life and its minutiae since early September (we have discovered) are risible, and, simultaneously, unethical.

2. Feel free - get on the daily rampage as you have been - a singularly honourable attempt at marauding, and molesting the online reputation of a distinguished woman of colour (that's exactly what a couple of leading feminist scholars are saying, as I share the details of this page with them). Guess who ends up looking just marvellous?

3. God forbid Professor Operajita should have to explain her positions, anywhere in the world, to one Phil Bridger, another white male Eurocentric/Americocentric contributor. When I said he needs to ask President Cyert, it was couched in irony, which is a figure of speech. Of course President Cyert has been gone, not 20, but 25 years. The belligerence with which you're unleashing edits and prying each day, in a rather prurient manner, is both exiguous and amusing. But it is also an illness (read up on social media illnesses, and not in articles by Wikipedia, but peer-reviewed articles by genuine scholars and experts in the field.)

4. It's a free-for-all on this page: no accountabilty behind the cowardly shield of anonymity; stalking, hallucinating, blocking, unblocking, displaying a dire paucity of cross cultural awareness, little logic, and a manic obsession with the details of one woman's private life (Jay, you are of Indian origin, and stalking away - keep at it! Why don't you use your real name if you should dredge up the courage to do that? Come on! And on whose payroll are you?).

5. And MrOllie: hoist in your own petard, are you? "Mention the CFA" he says. Lol. You bet! A CFA like few others, across the world. BUT, you could be at this CFA and be a Computer Engineering or Operations Management professor too. Ah the sheer viciousness afoot!

6. Mercifully, the foundation has sound folks who are achievers in the real world, and don't spend reams of time editing Wikipedia.

7. I'm not Hillary, yet again, and I'm not a lawyer. But you can continue dwelling in the realm of hallucination. Go for it!

Good luck! Happy Maha Saptami! May the great goddess destroy all the evil and save this planet.

Amy RosenbergAthena2019 (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC) Administrative Assistant to Professor Oopalee Operajita, Distinguished Fellow, Carnegie Mellon University, Adviser, Public Policy, Communication and International Relations[reply]

Because you are not requesting unblock, and continuing to blow this way out proportion to the point where you are now making unfounded allegations, I am removing access. See the message below for how to appeal. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

331dot (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]