Jump to content

User talk:Paisleypeach/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

welcome

to wikipedia.   :-)

September 2013 message from Anne

Dear Daniellagreen: Your article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gernatt Family of Companies, has a lot of imbedded references which make it hard to read. I have taken the first one and fixed it to show you the proper format. While you are waiting for your review, fixing up the rest of these would be a good project to improve your article. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gernatt Family of Companies (September 24)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Zach Vega (talk to me) 23:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! Daniellagreen, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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!

October 2013

Information icon Hello. Your recent edit to Hamburg, New York appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gernatt Family of Companies (October 26)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Multiple cites of the same reference

Hi. I am not going to re-review your article at this time. I am thinking I would deny it again, as I do not like its unclear subject (the family vs the company). I do not have time to re-read it in detail, but from what you have said on my talk page I am thinking WP:NPOV may be an issue too.

The reason I am writing you is to give you a little Wiki markup lesson. There is an easier and clearer way to cite the same reference multiple times, which you have done on numerous instances in the article. Doing that is not a problem (it is actually more like the norm), but when you do, you should use the correct markup for it. I changed the very last reference about the man from Cuba getting hurt to show you how to do it. See this diff. You define a reference the first time you use it and give it a name (by using <ref name="whatever name"> in place of the opening <ref> tag or by clicking the extra fields button on the pulldown "cite web" template and filling in "reference name"), then after that all you have to do is insert <ref name="whatever name" /> every time you want to use that reference. It makes your reference list much clearer.

Also, please get rid of ALL the in-article hyperlinks. It is fine to put a link to the company's website in the external link section, but do not use it, or any other hyperlink in the article. In most cases, you could probably just make them references. This is per the manual of style. If you wish to read further on what is appropriate for the external link section, see WP:EL. For the "See also" section see WP:SEEALSO.

I wish you luck. If you work on it while you wait the 2-3 weeks AfC is backlogged now, you should be able to get an article that will pass. I think you have made the notability now. Happy editing. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Paisleypeach. You have new messages at Gtwfan52's talk page.
Message added 21:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Gernatt Family of Companies was accepted

Gernatt Family of Companies, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Paisleypeach. You have new messages at Gtwfan52's talk page.
Message added 21:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
It is a pleasure to work with a new editor that accepts criticism for what it is; an effort to improve, rather than demean. You did a great job and deserve praise! Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar

A new editor on the right path
On behalf or The Editor's Retention Project, I want to thank you for joining the community of Wikipedia Editors! You are a valued addition and any member of the project will be more than willing to lend you a helping hand whenever you need it. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


What next?

There is a whole world of things to do on Wikipedia. You can copyedit (see Guild of Copy Editors); you can write on more New York topics (see WikiProject New York). You can chase vandals (see The Counter-Vandalism Unit); you can write about newspapers (see WikiProject Journalism). There is a Wikiproject for almost everything under (and beyond!) the sun. See The Wikiproject directory. You will run into people much nicer than myself, you will also run into complete jackasses. This is a wide and varied project. I notice no one has left you a welcoming template yet (Oops--my bad!), so I will leave you one right after this. There you will find a load of links to various policies. Please take the time to read the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia. That is basically the corporate philosophy. Just use the rest for reference when you need them. And I encourage you to keep coming to the Teahouse! Answers to other editors questions will help you with your journey through wikiland, and of course you are free to ask all the questions you need to ask. My dear departed Daddy always said, "The only stupid question is the one you don't ask!" Once you get your sealegs, so to speak, you are free to also answer other editors questions at the Teahouse! That is the way they teach doctors you know. You are shown a procedure, you do it with help, you do it on your own and then you teach someone else how to do it. It is an extremely solid way to learn! P.S. Now that you told me you were a newspaper editor, you have me intimidated. I actually copyedited this message (lol). And I will let Buster know you are not a gent, too. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

elcome to Wikipedia Paisleypeach/Archive 1, from WP:WER
Thank you for registering! We hope that you find collaborative editing enjoyable. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that started in 2001, is free for all to use and edit within the guidelines and principles users have established and adhere to. Many of these principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information. REMEMBER - each policy and/or guideline page has a discussion you can join to ask questions, add input and contribute your voice towards any current policy or guideline change underway! Join the discussion by going to the talkpage of the article. Please take a minute to view a number of quick start pages for an overview of how to work within these guidelines and more information to help you better understand the practices and procedures editors are using. These include: The Newcomers Manual and User:Persian Poet Gal/"How-To" Guide to Wikipedia.

Sometimes new editors become frustrated quickly and find their experience on Wikipedia less than enjoyable. This need not be. If you are having a difficult time for any reason, please feel free to ask me for assistance!

Policies, guidelines and peer assistance Help and Tutorials
The five pillars of Wikipedia.
The fundamental principles of the project.
Tutorial.
Step-by-step guide on how to edit.
Main policies of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines.
How to start a page.
If you want to create a new article
Style Guide.
The complete guide to how articles should look.
Help.
The complete help guide
Copyright.
Addressing copyright concerns.
Quick reference.
A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki.
Help Desk.
Here you can ask other editors for assistance
Your user pages and your sandbox.
Editing in your own "personal" space
Adoption program.
Request an experienced guide for your first steps of editing.
Frequently asked questions.
Some common questions and their answers.

This is being posted on your Talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss issues and respond to questions. At the end of each message you will see a signature left by the editor posting. This is done by signing with four ~~~~ or by pressing or in the editing interface tool box, located just above the editing window (when editing). Do not sign edits that you make in the articles themselves as those messages will be deleted, but only when using the article talkpage, yours or another editor's talkpage. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance and contact information.

Again, welcome! Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

I think I found an appropriate infobox to use. I have started working on it in one of my sandboxes. You are welcome to add to it. It is at User:Gtwfan52/infobox sandbox. The way infoboxes work is that you only fill in the fields you need and the rest of them will not show. One thing that really needs to be addressed is the city it was founded in. That goes on the same line as the founding date (curiously, this field is named "foundation", which somewhat confused me). I will get back to it when I can, but you are welcome to add as much as you feel confident in doing and as you see appropriate. I have copied the graphic of the truck off their webpage and once we put the infobox into the article, I will add it as the logo. Actually, it would be more beneficial for me to talk you through that.... The logo is no doubt copyrighted, but there is an exception that allows wikipedia to use it, with limitations. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

infobox in! And I managed to find an article to put a link to gernatt in (Family Business). One more and the orphan tag can go. I will re-rate it to "C" when we can get rid of the tag! Huzzzah! Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Paisleypeach. You have new messages at Gtwfan52's talk page.
Message added 03:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested in....

...reading about one of your fellow collaborators at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Reviewing the Anne Delong phenomena. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Anne is an absolutely fabulous new editor! Buster read my mind...I was going to give you a heads up on her too. She does a ton at AfC, along with serving as a tireless Teahouse host, and creating quite a bit of content too. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: your edit summary "Removed 3 hyperlinks because they don't have their own Wiki pages." - Please be aware that not having their own article is not a reason to remove any red links. If something is notable, the red link should be maintained, to make it possible for users who are going to write an article on the subject can find the places where the subject is mentioned, using the "what links here" tool. Kraxler (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: "It's my understanding from a Wiki reviewer that subjects with red links have not proven their notability." That's not true. Subjects with red links have not yet had their articles written. Whether these subjects are notable or not, must be decided individually, if possible. Holding the office of New York State Solicitor General may be enough to establish notability (it would be necessary to check out the notability guidelines for politicians), anyway it is enough to leave the red links in place. Kraxler (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
My read of WP:NPOL puts me in agreement with Kraxler on this. If the subject of a redlink is most likely notable, it is ok to redlink. You will find many many redlinks that are not appropriate, but it is equally not appropriate to just remove them. FWIW, there is some disagreement in Wikiland on this, but for now, the policy is that some should stay and some should go. I mostly work on settlement and school articles, and when I find an unlinked high school in a settlement article, I redlink it, because high schools are virtually certainly notable. Same with school districts in school articles. They are automatically notable, so I red link them. Most if not all state level or higher elected officials are notable per WP:NPOL, so redlinking the Solicitor General would be appropriate. The assistant SG, no. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gernatt Family of Companies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Erie County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Gernatt Family of Companies--last bit!

It has been fun working with you and I look forward to seeing you around Wikiland. If you decide you wish to work further on this article, I think it would benefit from a more concise description of the interworkings of the various companies in the group. which ones do what where, that kind of thing. It certainly isn't a requirement; indeed for a first article, you have done a damn fine job and you have earned the barnstars you have gotten. But, if you have any more reference material laying around and feel like writing some more on it....

Any thoughts as to what your next foray into wikiland might be? Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You are too funny, lol! For this, I've just been doing my research as I go along. That's why there has been more information and references added during the past several days since your acceptance of the article. So, really, I don't have anything else lying around, though it's just what I come across in my research. I also agree that more specificity would be helpful regarding the various companies, and I haven't found any specific listings of that information. So, thank you, again, and I will keep all of this in mind. You also earned your barnstars, as well, and I'm very proud and encouraged to have worked with you; what a blessing! Anyway, I'd like to step back for awhile with a good feeling, remembering what my contributions have been, and not what others in other articles have simply deleted or created conflict about. Cheers! :-) Daniellagreen (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It kinda sucks, but that conflict is part of the process here. Jimbo believed when he started this that whatever the community came up with for a consensus must be pretty close to where the truth lies. In practice, it frequently turns into whatever version the editor with the strongest tolerance for drama prefers. It isn't always that way, and I am sure that if need be you could calmly and rationally argue your position and reach a consensus/comprimise that would be pretty close to the truth. If you want to see how well I personally handle that, take a look at Talk:Salem, Missouri. I reached my "this is too stupid for words" point long ago there, but alas, it still goes on, and for some reason, I just can't let it go. Woof, Woof! Just to let you know, editors that work daily on Wikipedia like myself have to periodically archive there talk pages. Some use automation; my old-fashioned self does it by hand monthly. I consider the original discussion we had on my page closed and it is in archive 20. The one titled "Red links" is still on my main talk page. Happy days, my friend. see you around! Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. - I always appreciate your insights and wisdom. I was actually going to ask you a general question about that issue, and then, I found that it had already blown up. I understand about the notability issue, though I don't believe my intentions were being understood or respected. The way I look at it, I don't have the time to spend on it, and if they desire to maintain an exclusive section that actually includes people who are mostly only world-renowned, they can have it. Though, there are others who have lesser notability. I just observe a closed-minded type of attitude toward the issue by the two other editors involved. It's okay, I can walk away. There was a chance for collaboration, and it was escalated into conflict, which to me, was unnecessary. They don't speak my language, and I don't want to sink to their level. About the Talk:Salem, Missouri, I didn't read the whole discussion, but my jist of it is that some dog bit somebody. The media overly reported about the incident, and now, there are 3 sentences with 4 references about it in the article's 'history' section. To me, I think it would be just fine to leave in the first sentence, and then attach the four references to the end of it. Wow, it just appears that the media wanted to blow up that incident simply in order to make a name for the town. There are lots of people who are bitten by dogs, and one doesn't hear anything about it. So, the 'dog bite' issue and coverage in the article seems silly to me, and I definitely understand where you're coming from, especially having past editing experience, myself. I also understand about archiving, and that is fine - I would do the same if need be. Thanks again for everything, and happy trails! :-) Daniellagreen (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gowanda, New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free states (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Saint Francis High School (Athol Springs, New York) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ref>http://www.fredonia.edu/business/advisory.asp SUNY Fredonia School of Business Advisory Council], ''SUNY Fredonia'', Retrieved 1 November 2013.</ref><ref>[http://www2.erie.gov/socialservices/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jack Quinn III, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Paisleypeach. You have new messages at John from Idegon's talk page.
Message added 03:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John from Idegon (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Bill Greiner was accepted

Bill Greiner, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

John from Idegon (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Bill Greiner

It is in mainspace now. congrats on another fine effort. I am going to let someone else re-rate it. I get nervous messing with bios at all. You can go ahead and remove any references from the lede that are repeated in the body of the article.. Also, as your copy stated he was "better known as Bill", I applied one of the main rules for naming articles, WP:COMMONNAME and put it in the right spot. John from Idegon (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

re your edit summary [1] . 1) You do not have any right to tell other editors whether or not they can edit any article. 2) when multiple experienced editors tell you you are on the wrong track, its likely that you are on the wrong track. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Red, I can see that you are person who enjoys conflict, and so, I have told you to back off. I have kindly asked for you to allow me to make more neutral edits rather than you and EricEnfermero (as I have also asked him) to allow me to do so. More "experienced" editors should practice more professionalism; more is expected of you, and you have reflected less. When I attempted to make my edits, you were already again deleting 2,000 characters and 4 references worth of work. I have not told you what to do; you have not even provided any courtesy in allowing me to make edits for neutrality, nor to provide a learning experience for me. And so, I say again, back off, be patient, and give me a chance. Do not judge, because you have also judged incorrectly. It appears that you enjoy making a bad experience for others, and that is not what I appreciate. Perhaps a lesson in cooperation would be beneficial here. Daniellagreen (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Daniellagreen (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

public service message

Hello Daniella, you can call me 74, nice to meet you.  :-)

  I'm here today to alert you to a very serious problem in the wikipedia community: Wikipediholism. This mortal illness — all who have contracted the disease eventually die! — is something that every wikipedia participant should be aware of. But wait, there's more!

  This fatal horror is not a natural occurrence, but an insidious plot. Some people here profit from the destruction of the lives of others. These evildoers have no morality, no rules, and often allegedly refuse to deodorize! You may think that such Bad People are far away, and nothing you need worry about. WRONG!

  You are already nearly in the clutches of Notorious WikiCriminal User:DeereJohn, one of the worst wiki-dealers in the entire northwest, going by a variety of aliases including User:Give_them_wikidrugs_52 and User:Gtwfan52 and User:John_from_Idegon and User:Beverly_from_Atahuacu, with thousands of wiki-victims under their belt. You.Could.Be.Next.(!)

  These predatory creatures of darkness may seem friendly at times. They may seem helpful. Do Not Be Fooled by their wiles! This is just a velvet cover-story, over the skeleton-claw of wiki-addiction, which is made of iron (and also bulk calcium), plus just the right quantity of wiki-markup to generate Wikipediholism in unsuspecting victims. LIKE YOU!

  Now that you are properly aware of the incredible danger you are in, here are the keys to detecting dealers-in-the-Drug-Of-Wiki, gathered from intensive surveillance by law enforcement personnel that have infiltrated the lairs of the kingpins like John. These are just the most common phrases; the exact details may vary, but the pathway is always the same, and the end result is ALWAYS DEATH.

  1. the first one and fixed it to show you ... I do not have time ... give you a little Wiki markup lesson
  2. all you have to do ... If you work on it ... Please take the time
  3. would be a good project ... If you wish to create ... welcome to add to it
  4. world of things to do ... as much as you feel confident in doing ... you might be interested in
  5. ask all the questions you need ... help you with your journey ... people much nicer than myself
  6. I encourage you to keep coming ... I encourage you to keep coming ... I encourage you to keep coming

The first time is always free, muuaahhhahahaha! Then the awful scheme truly begins: they pretend to be "too busy" and then they "suggest" you continue. More demands soon come. THEN THEY WANT THE WORLD! Having confirmed you as a new 'customer' for their drug-of-wiki, they send you to the WP:TEAHOUSE, an opium den of sorts, shrewdly disguised as a de jure pharmacy, to suck other unsuspecting humanoids into the vortex of despair! They encourage you to keep coming. UNTIL YOUR DOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmm........!

  Thank you for your attention, and feel free to contact me on my talkpage if you have any information that may lead to the capture of a Notorious WikiCriminal, please remember that your life, your liberty, and your pursuit of happiness are all at stake here. I encourage you to keep coming.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I am hoping this is [sarcasm]! John from Idegon (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
"Sarcasm works well in online media, because it's easy to pick up on without all of those pesky nonverbal cues" <gif: nuclear test footage>    Hooo boy.  :-)   No, this is not sarcasm, it is a serious warning that Daniella looks like a great wikipedian, and she may someday soon suffer the pangs of WP:ADDICTED, if she's not exceedingly careful. "One edit is too many, and a thousand is never enough." Enablers like John and Anne and myself are not here to help her escape such a fate ... we are just going to clap, whistle, and cheer ... while Daniella gets sucked into the gaping maw of the encyclopedia anyone can edit ... just like us. So this is probably the only warning she'll get, while there is still time to voluntarily flee.  ;-)
  Anyhoo, happy ending, I've called in somebody official,[2] to hat this mess. Don't worry, those folks are serious professionals,[3] and I'm pretty sure this will all soon be gone, or at least, I'm reasonably certain. In the meantime, thank you both for improving wikipedia, see you both around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I would assume that these messages were anonymously left by TheRedPenofDoom due to the edits and vandalism he/she made to the Bill Greiner article. I may be incorrect and am, of course, unable to prove it, however that is my assumption. It's unfortunate that there are folks out there on Wikipedia whose sole purpose appears to act contentious and difficult in everything. This is really messed up, and I'm just sitting here shaking my head, feeling sorry for this person. Also, thanks for your support, John; I appreciate you. Daniellagreen (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

These edits were not left by RedPenOfDoom. It may be an attempt at humor by "74". I'm not sure. ```Buster Seven Talk 09:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I do not find it funny, but in fact, very sick. Daniellagreen (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand them either. I just wanted you to know that your assumption was incorrect as to who it was. Nothing more. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Buster. Daniellagreen (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Advice

This is very important to understand. Your comments above and on your user page implying that fellow editors are intentionally trying to harm you are in error. They display a complete misunderstanding of our mutual roles here at Wikipedia. Editors Enfermo and RedPenofDoom are not your adversaries. They are your fellow editors, fellow collaborators, fellow teachers. They have ONLY the best intentions for the article and for Wikipedia. That you can be sure of. To continually imply otherwise shows you really don't yet understand the role of your fellow editors. Most times new editors are concerned only with the article they have just created. But, experienced editors like the two mentioned are more concerned with the Encyclopedia as a whole. They have no grievance with you. I know you are a new user and you hold this the article and your edits to it and your word choices and your particular references as precious and you can't bear to see them changed. You have great pride in your work and rightfully so. But saving them in their original form has become a mission. Because you have misunderstood some basic facts, you see experienced editors like Eric and RedPen as having a "cruel hands". That could not be further from the truth. Once you change your opinion of them and what they are doing you will be on the path to a happier Wikipedia career. You have a wonderful mentor in User:John from Idegon. He will not steer you wrong. Once we submit a contribution to an article we irrevocably release it to the Wikipedia community and our fellow editors. That's just the way it is. Your efforts are appreciated. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC) 

"Fair-minded people CAN come to agreement. Compromise is hard...not everyone gets what they want." President Barack Obama 11/15/12
Buster 7, The fact is, there has been damage done to the article, including vandalism by RedPenOfDoom that another editor corrected. Wikipedia suggests that editors talk with each other their talk pages to work things out if there are disagreements, however neither editor (EricEnfermero and RedPenOfDoom) did this until I did so with them. A spirit of cooperation and professionalism is essential to promote patience, understanding and learning on Wikipedia, and that was not evidenced by either editor due to their sweeping deletes of almost 2,000 characters to the Bill Greiner article. I kindly asked both editors to allow me the opportunity to make the article less promotional and more neutral, as was their interest. I have done so. I went in and reverted both of their sweeping edits, and was successful in editing 1,500 characters on my own. Other experienced editors such as John_from_Idegon understand that it is better to make suggestions to an editor, and allow her or him to make edits independently. That is the true type of spirit of cooperation that is necessary here, and is borne from more professionalism, understanding, and wisdom than that which I experienced from both Eric and Red. So, perhaps it is they for whom it could be very important to understand that to go in and make sweeping changes to an article without communicating with another editor, and/or to actually vandalize and damage an article, and leave it for others to fix, does not have their good intentions in mind. I believe that once they learn how to be more cooperative, and less conflictual, as has been expressed repeatedly, for example, on RedPenOfDoom's talk page, that is where the true learning experience for them will occur. Daniellagreen (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
There was no damage done to the article. Every article is in a state of flux...waiting to be edited. No editor owns an article or any entry or a reference, just because they were the original author. Editors edit...that's what they do. They don't need permission in order to remove or edit what they feel is inappropriate material. Sometimes the best way to find an interested editor is to make a bold edit and see who turns up. What you "read" as a attack is mearly an editor doing what editors do. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Buster, You assume that just because I am new to Wikipedia that I am less experienced, but have experience in writing, teaching about writing, and journalism. What I experienced with the Bill Greiner article sweeping edits was unprofessional, and could have been improved, and you could take the opportunity to support me on that. I have never experienced any editors being as sweeping as both Eric and Red, ever. A lesson in cooperation and communication will go further than making sweeping changes without consultation and/or communication with others. Not doing so is a great way to drive away editors such as myself who happen to be "new" to Wikipedia, but who are quite experienced in this area. I participate in Wikipedia to contribute, not to experience the conflict that was evidenced in the situations with both of these editors. Sugar works better than salt. My spirits have definitely been dampened by the lack of sensitivity and professionalism of these two, as well as your support of them. This was not your conflict in which to enter. Rather than provide support, the reflection is that a gang of bullies is against me. I have better things to do. Daniellagreen (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you see my input as choosing sides against you. That was not, in any way, my intent. My intent was to reduce your stress over what is a typical process that happens thousands of times an hour at Wikipedia. Editors make sweeping changes without consulting anyone. I thought I was helping but I see now that my efforts have been misconstrued. Seeing your fellow editors as a gang of bullies will not work, just as seeing me as an interloper in this conflict will not work. Anyway, good luck and best wishes on a long and happy WikiCareer.```Buster Seven Talk 19:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Buster, I'm calling it like it is. It's all too easy for folks to hide behind a computer screen and behave insensitively to each other. Like I say, I have never experienced anything like this before in the writing arena, ever. To say that someone is simply doing their job in what was done with this article reflects the need for better policies on Wikipedia. I have never experienced anyone to make such sweeping changes, at any time throughout my career in writing, without first consulting with the writers. To do so is a professional courtesy that I see is not followed here. That's not the way it's done here on Wikipedia, as I see now, but that doesn't mean its right or that such behavior can't be improved. You all have left me nearly in tears; such conduct leaves much to be desired. The teachable moment was lost on everyone involved. Daniellagreen (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you're seeing "ganging up" activity here as much as you're seeing multiple editors who are very confused by your expectations of us. Writing on Wikipedia is a lot different than most other types; it's not a professional activity (ideally), but one that is best undertaken by volunteers. I guess my question is this: In actual practice, how do we take this issue of professional courtesy and make it work on a wiki with 4,000,000 articles and countless contributors? If I'm thinking of making big changes to an article, do I just message the last person to edit an article to get their permission? Do I message all such contributors? How long do I wait for them to give me the green light before I make edits that are already within WP guidelines in the first place? Do we post a note on the article's talk page saying that we're going to remove a few references because the entry has more refs than it has sentences? What purpose would that notification serve in the end? How could we do that and not have our productivity come to a halt?

Typically, when large changes are made to an article, it gives other editors a chance to learn more about WP guidelines and about neutral, verifiable writing. Your phrase, teachable moment, is perfectly applicable. As an example, I write something, it undergoes large changes by another editor who explains why, then I understand not to write like that again. It has happened to me and to almost everyone else here. There's no crying, no hurt feelings and certainly no huge talk page disruptions or requests to change WP practices just because an article lost some of what I wrote in it.

No one is against you personally here. We want to see you succeed as a Wikipedia editor. That's why we're spending so much time - time that could be spent improving encyclopedia articles or doing something productive in real life - to try and calm you down. 1500 bytes of text just isn't worth this much stress or conflict. Help us out, either by letting this one go or by giving us some real and realistic solutions that can be used to not hurt each other's feelings. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 06:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Eric, I have already moved on from this issue. I don't see it as something that is going to change. I understand where you're coming from, but I also understand that there are also differences in perspectives between men and women. Often, I see men placing policy before people and feelings. Men often chalk issues up to "just doing their job," but don't realize they've trampled on women's concerns. And then, when they are called on it, it is often denied, even when the evidence is right there in plain sight. I have already resolved for myself that I made my contributions to this article, and have moved on. We can beat this to death, or we can learn from it. Right now, I have learned that I'm not going to be creating any articles for awhile. I'll stick to the simpler aspects such as making contributions and minor edits. I hope that you have also learned that your making sweeping changes to an article are unnecessary prior to communicating with an editor who has an investment in the article. All kind of excuses can be made about it being unrealistic, having confusing expectations, or being condoned by policy rather than professional courtesy. What I experienced in the edits on the article from you and Red were nothing short of devastating, and has completely changed my outlook for the worse. That is the effect it had on me, and is why I will be sticking to simpler things. My general experience in writing and journalism has been much different to what I experienced with just this one article, so if that's how things are generally done, then I really don't need to be a part of it. There can be all kinds of reasons that you would like to give, however that doesn't change how I feel in regard to the manner in which 2,000 characters were deleted in an edit war between the three of us. We approach this from a different perspective. The damage was done, and I'm done with that article. I'm still licking fresh wounds, no matter how you would like to characterize it. 'Nuf said. Daniellagreen (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Follow-up to reply on Eric's talk page: :Eric, I would like to offer up some more information for understanding about my approach to this article. Obviously, I took the edits very hard. It was painful, though I will work through it with time. There is alot more that I invested in this article than simply creating the article. Prior to creating this article, I had created a couple of others, and have done lots of edits to others. My general experiences with all those were good, so, emotionally, I was not prepared for what occurred with this article. I had alot emotionally invested into the article, and I was just unprepared for what occurred, and I took it very hard. Really, it just hurts, but as I say, I will work through it. There's just alot that I don't want to share and would prefer to remain confidential for myself. Just the edits dredged up alot of hurt, so you might imagine that it took much for me even to entertain the idea of creating the article, let alone to do it. I was actually surprised and disappointed that an article on the subject did not already exist, so when I discovered that, it took me some time and the building of my confidence to actually do it. So, I realize that you did what would come naturally for you. It was just that I had not before experienced such sweeping changes that I believed I could have also made more of an effort to make myself. I understand that articles should be well-balanced, providing both sides of the story. And, I also realize that article should not include potentially unreliable sources, though I also believe that every effort should be made to locate similar reliable sources in their place. Thank you for editing the article so that it is more balanced. Certainly, not everything that Greiner did was great, and that was not my point in creating the article, although I do believe in the importance of providing as much information about a subject as possible so that there is a well-rounded perspective shared. So, this is my feeble attempt at an apology to you. Perhaps I just should not have done the article, as I see now. I just had too much emotionally invested in it, and was not prepared for what occurred. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Daniellagreen (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Hamburg, New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Jack Quinn
Muriel A. Howard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to United Way
Sam Hoyt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to William Hoyt

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

All disambiguation links about which I have been informed regarding all articles involved have been corrected, either by me or other editors. Thanks! Daniellagreen (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Muriel A. Howard may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • applauded, honorary degree and granite state award presented at Keene State College convocation], ''Keene State College'', Keene, New Hampshire, 31 August 2010, Retrieved 12 December 2013.</ref>
  • achievement-at-34th-commencement/ College recognizes student achievement at 34th commencement], ''Csi Today: College of Staten Island'', Staten Island, NY, 1 June 2010, Retrieved 12 December

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Muriel A. Howard may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • applauded, honorary degree and granite state award presented at Keene State College convocation], ''Keene State College'', Keene, New Hampshire, 31 August 2010, Retrieved 12 December 2013.</ref>
  • achievement-at-34th-commencement/ College recognizes student achievement at 34th commencement], ''Csi Today: College of Staten Island'', Staten Island, NY, 1 June 2010, Retrieved 12 December

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Already corrected, thanks. Daniellagreen (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Sam Hoyt

Note to myself: WP:PP describes the Wikipedia Protection policy. Daniellagreen (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paisleypeach/Archive_1&oldid=1141443239"