Jump to content

User talk:Paisleypeach/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Talk

For past talk discussions, please refer to my archives. Daniellagreen (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Keep the faith. Remember, you do great work! ComesMisPantalonesCortos (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I needed that. :-) Daniellagreen (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Note to myself

My follow-up comments requesting a cease and desist from User:Montanabw have been deleted from the Standardbred talk page and her talk page. My original request can be viewed in my Archive 3. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers Also, I sent her an award for all of her hard work. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Just what I needed!

Thank you for the barnstar! I have indeed been through a lot, and I was just writing my resignation from Wikipedia when I received your barnstar. So now I will call it a break. Even if I never come back (unlikely), this is a good note to go out on! You rock!

Ben Culture (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Ben, I am there, too. Perhaps I could direct you to a really great mentor, User:John_from_Idegon. He has always been helpful to me, from the start. Best to you, Daniellagreen (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Question

I like this color for my signature. Does anyone know how to make it an official signature when signing, or do you have to copy and paste it in each time? But, then, the date and time don't appear if you do that. Hmm. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) Daniellagreen (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to go to Preferences (top of the page), then on the first tab of that page ("User profile"), put it in "Signature:" and tick "Treat the above as wiki markup". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I'll try that when I have a moment later, Daniellagreen (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOCK

Hi, Daniella, here's another comment I expect you'll want to blank. Using alternative accounts for legitimate purposes is permitted, but using them to mislead is not. Creating a new account to give yourself a barnstar is ridiculous. Please review WP:SOCK and don't do it again. Bishonen | talk 21:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC).

I have one account - this one. Daniellagreen (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Really? If that's the case, shouldn't you be more indignant? Check out the sockblock here. The blocking admin, Coren, is a Checkuser, and he has confirmed the other account is your sock. Bishonen | talk 23:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC).
I thought people were innocent before proven guilty, but have been misjudged here yet again. I'm not sure exactly what has been done wrong here. Do you really think there is necessarily one person living in a home where there is only one computer? We have several computers, and any number of people who use them at any time. Why not update your system to that which is more sophisticated so this type of thing doesn't happen? We went through this same stuff with Amazon last year. If I didn't know better, I'd say you're looking for a reason to argue. Peace to you, bro, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 02:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I will also follow-up with Coren, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 02:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, if Wikipedia should ever be interested in updating it's system, I can recommend some great models by which to follow, including AT&T, PayPal, and various credit card companies. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 02:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

(←) While I'm quite certain those system provide better automation, in this particular case it's human inspection that is the decisive factor; there is no question that a computer that you have used to edit has been used to create that account whose sole actions were to edit a reference then deposit a barnstar on your talk page. As I've said on my talk page, if that really is another member of your household, you should instruct them to not do things like that as they make you appear to be deceptive. — Coren (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Coren, A family member was trying to show support for me. I've already addressed the situation, and have been assured that the account will no longer be used. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 04:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Daniellagreen, it doesn't seem like such a big deal so I hope everyone stops harping on you about it and we can get back to giving you barnstars. :) Viriditas (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 14:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sig test

Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 23:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 02:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Understand (instead of getting angry)

The Good Heart Barnstar The Good Heart Barnstar
As you wander around Wikiworld keep a kind heart for those you think are hurtful to you. You will eventually see that they were helpful rather than hurtful. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Buster, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 02:07, 29 June 2014 (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.

Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr.
added a link pointing to Hambletonian
Flavia C. Gernatt
added a link pointing to Hambletonian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Note to myself - fixed both, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 19:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Dan Gernatt Farms lead

The first sentence of Dan Gernatt Farms should be changed to something like: Dan Gernatt Farms is such and such, owned and established by Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. and Flavia C. Gernatt in 1938. Otherwise, the article looks nice! Piguy101 (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I appreciate your compliment, and will make the change. :-) Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 18:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Flavia C. Gernatt for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Flavia C. Gernatt is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flavia C. Gernatt until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Carriearchdale (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The article, Flavia C. Gernatt includes relevant sources that are according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including widely reliable sources such as The Buffalo News, a nationally-recognized newspaper, and the widely-dispersed journal, Pit & Quarry. The article should remain as an individual article, and not merged or deleted. This article meets relevant guidelines and policies to be an independent Wikipedia article. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 22:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Paisleypeach. You have new messages at Talk:Flavia C. Gernatt.
Message added 01:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Piguy101 (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

If article has been tagged, it will send itself to administration category for maintenance. If you find tag to be non-constructive and unexplained, you are allowed to remove any of them. Although tags such as "orphan", "underlink", "dead end" requires no explanation if they are added due to following reasons.
  1. Orphan - Page receive no links from any other en.wiki page.
  2. underlink - Page has less than 3 wiki links.
  3. dead end - Page has no wiki links.

Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Piguy101, I reverted her revert again, the one that you also reverted. The tag was never removed, as you also have seen, but only hyperlinks added. She appears to be edit warring about this, trying to make a non-issue into an issue. Also, I see where your comments were archived; and I appreciate your follow-up here, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 03:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
OccultZone, I appreciate that, and just read about it in the tags section related to disruptive editing without explanation on the article's talk page. I really do not see what the issue is, and am glad that you are more familiar than I, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 03:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Paisleypeach. You have new messages at Talk:Flavia C. Gernatt.
Message added 03:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You asked for suggestions for the article; here's one. Piguy101 (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Telling us you are done

If you have completed a suggestion I have given you on the talkpage, do you think that you could add: {{done}} ? It looks like this:  Done This way, we can know if the issue has been addressed. Thanks Piguy101 (talk)

Okay, thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 04:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Flavia C. Gernatt

Hi, Daniella. Just wanted to notify you before I acted on your request. Both articles are fine pieces of writing. However, I have some reservations about the above named one.

I am afraid your actions of inviting me, and other editors to the AfD discussion is a violation of WP:CANVAS. Your request was written fairly neutrally, but asking specific editors is not appropriate. Instead, notification, written in a completely neutral style, to projects interested in the article would be more appropriate ("There is a deletion discussion taking place at WP:Articles for deletion/Foo that may be of interest to this project." posted at the project's talk page).

The proper thing for me to do in this situation would be to ignore your request, but since I have looked, my conclusion is that it should be redirected to her husband's article and I will be !voting that way at the AfD. I see nothing that indicates any notability independent of her husband. I realize that may be sexist, but it isn't me that is being sexist, it is the sources. Find some that talk about her alone (other than her obit) and my opinion might change. I would also suggest that you heed the suggestion you were given and thin out the citations that are mostly about her husband. Perhaps it will be easier to see her notability if it isn't buried in her husband's.

Lastly, trade journals such as Pit and Quarry are seldom reliable sources.

I have come to expect fine writing from you; you do not disappoint. But without the requisite references to show notability, even Mark Twain would not be able to get an article on here. John from Idegon (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. This is a reason that I have inquired with you as you have been helpful in giving me suggestions, and you have. I will take all of what you have stated into consideration and see what I can do, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 15:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Half Barnstar
I hope you have a fabulous rest of the weekend!!! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
It should be noted that this user has been indefinitely blocked due to several conduct issues, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 23:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground

User:Carriearchdale: Wikipedia, in my understanding, is not to be a battleground. The following diffs in regard to me and my editing reflect that you are unnecessarily making it your personal battleground. You have followed me around for several days on at least five articles that I recently created, in most cases editing out relevant information and references, and/or adding tags that other editors have removed and described as not useful. You have also unreviewed 3 articles that I recently created, and gave no rationale for any of it. Now, you have accused me of paid editing. I have responded to you, and respond again, that I am not paid, nor have I ever been paid for any of my efforts on Wikipedia. I am not affiliated in any way, shape, or form with any of the articles that I edit and/or that I have created. Your actions are those of stalking, and they are discouraging me from doing further editing. As I have stated, people on Wikipedia should be working together to improve it; I have not seen that reflected in your words or actions directed at me or regarding my edits. Your accustations are unfounded, unnecessary, and offensive. To date, I have refrained from communicating with you on your talk page, however, I would like for the record to show my rebuttal to your comments. See: [1], [2], and [3]. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 20:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that Carrie has not responded to my comments, and she has already archived them. I have followed-up with her, requesting a response, and informing her that I am aware of her archival. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 22:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I am waving off for awhile as I am only being further discouraged. Later, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 23:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Follow up

Be advised that archiving or deleting another editor's remark from your talk page is acceptable and considered acknowledgment of those comments. On another subject, please read this. It is a comment from an admin I respect highly to another editor and I think it applies well to your situation too. John from Idegon (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: (talk page stalker) "Be advised that archiving or deleting another editor's remark from your talk page is acceptable and considered acknowledgment of those comments." I wholeheartedly agree. However, the user should at least respond to comments (except those in bad faith) when archiving or deleting. Carriearchdale deleted my request for comment as well. [4] To avoid the 3RR, I asked Carriearchdale why she (he?) was reverting with incorrect edit summaries. And I got no response. Piguy101 (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Understood. I am planning on looking into that editors editing momentarily. There was no judgement on Daniella's behavior implied there. Nor the other editor either. After I look at some more things, I'll let D know privately what I think. Thanks, {{U}Piguy101}}! John from Idegon (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, User:John from Idegon and User:Piguy101, for your comments. This is why I asked...because it is my perception that when someone doesn't respond, he/she is deliberately ignoring the question and choosing not to reply, for whatever reasons. Doing so is just another manner of control, and does not help to improve the issue, but can potentially exacerbate it, which is not necessary. This user has commented and responded to other issues on the talk pages and/or afd page(s) of articles, but has not responded to any comments or questions on her/his user talk page. The user has not behaved respectfully at all toward the efforts of myself, User:Piguy101, User:OccultZone, and User:Pink Bull. It appears that the user attempts to supercede us in whatever ways possible. That is my perception, and that is why I've reached out to ask some of you for suggestions on how to proceed. I have taken a couple days away from Wikipedia as it had become upsetting to me. Thanks to those of you whom I've identified by user name for your diligence and professionalism, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 16:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ways to improve Sir Taurus

Hi, I'm Carriearchdale. Daniellagreen, thanks for creating Sir Taurus!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This article has twelve links in the lead of the article. Some or most of the links may be irrelevant and or duplicated.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Carriearchdale (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This horse "biography" isn't too bad for a start-class article, I did some editing on it. The footnoting is pretty random (you don't need multiple footnotes to verify the horse's name), but at least the research is there. You may want to model your article on the flat racing horse "biographies" such as Australia (horse) (for an actively racing animal) or Sunday Silence (for a horse that is deceased). The pedigree table is a good one to learn how to use, that allows you to present bloodlines in a graph format instead of text that reads like the "begats" in Genesis ( smile). Post at wikiproject horse racing if you need help, there are several people who lurk there and are usually willing to lend a hand. Montanabw(talk) 23:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I actually used Meadow Skipper as a model for this article and Gallo Blue Chip. Meadow Skipper is also a relative of Sir Taurus, I believe. When I have some more time, I will take a look at the suggestions you've provided, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 17:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Continued difficulty with editor

This is for the record that Carriearchdale has made 5 deletion requests regarding five original photos that I took and uploaded to Wikipedia, and that are currently being used on Wikipedia. She has used unreasonable and irrational reasons for her requests. He/she obviously has nothing better to do. This is ridiculous, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 18:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you link? Also tell that what happened to this pic. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The following is a link to my talk page on WikiCommons: [5]. You should be able to get to each photo from there; if not, I can provide the links to them. User is trying to say that my photos are copyright violations, however they are scans of my originals that I uploaded to WikiCommons. There is no copyright violation. I have noted that on each discussion page, and also on my talk page regarding each photo. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 18:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Interesting, certainly the matter is also off en.wiki. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The image sourcing issues can be solved easily by uploading the back of the print or the original negative. I don't see any indications that the images are copied from somewhere else but it would silence the naysayers if you still have the print. Froggerlaura ribbit 20:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to go back through my storage and locate the photos and/or negatives. If its that big of an issue and good faith would not potentially be provided to me on this, I'll chance them to be deleted and then re-upload using different titles after going through and locating them in my storage. Really, someone could upload the back of any photo, just to accomplish that task. Most of these photos are digital prints, so I believe I have a negative only of the one with Greiner and Gorski. I'll see if the decision is made to delete them or not first, then decide whether or not to take additional time to locate them again. This editor has concocted whatever "reasons" he/she thinks gives him/her authority, and nearly all of the edits he/she has made to my documents have been reverted by many other editors. So much for good faith. Thanks for the suggestion, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 21:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

One of the images is a photograph of a logo, which generally is not OK on Commons, though sometimes they can be used on en.wiki under a fair use license. I have no opinion on the rest. Montanabw(talk) 04:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The photo of the drawing of horses is most likely problematic. Unless you are the creator of the work of art photographed, it is most likely a copyvio. The others appear to be fine. John from Idegon (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello, Paisleypeach. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Comment & note: Thanks for the information. The user who reported me should have been the one to also inform me of the report. For the record, the user's allegations are completely untrue and unfounded. I appreciate the discussion and support that I have received because this is nothing like what I've ever experienced before in any online forum. Note: See [6]. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 22:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome Daniellagreen!!! I always do leave a templates as is the policy when reporting to ANI.

"02:29, 9 July 2014‎ Carriearchdale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,279 bytes) (+318)‎ . . (→‎paid editing and personal attacks done by user:Daniellagreen: new section) (undo)"

ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that this template was not left by Carrie, but another kind editor - thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 04:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

SPI Investigation

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OccultZone for evidence. Make sure you are familiar with these notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

Note: I didn't open this, simply notifying as the user who did, failed to notify those listed. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 06:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I use different computers, and have only one account. How can your system be updated to reflect this? Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 17:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I read the investigations that I could locate on this, and found that another editor deleted this as a hoax. Carriearchdale is harassing OccultZone and me because they appear to have nothing better to do, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 17:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I edited that part for you, but you can revert if you want. So far I see Carriearchdale, bar none. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I really don't know what's going on with it, and didn't want to do anything with it myself in case I made it worse or messed it up. My head is spinning. Thanks again, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 20:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

My Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. edits

Hi. I was just reading through it and made some changes as I went, to reflect Flavia's joint ownership of the horse business, from my one reading of her article. If I've got that wrong, please don't hesitate to revert me. (Nice work, btw.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 17:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflicted?

Hi Daniellagreen, I saw this edit of yours at ANI with the edit summary "comments". I'm guessing your edit got edit conflicted? Because you added no comment and only removed another editor's comment. I reverted you. If you had commentary to add that got lost as a result of an edit conflict, it might still be in your browser history. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi thanks. Yes, I was typing a lengthy comment and got an edit conflict. I didn't realize that another editor's comment was removed - sorry - didn't even know that. I tried to save my comments three times. Luckily, I copied my comments before trying to add them the first time. It took on my third attempt at saving, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 17:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
It happens. Glad to hear you were careful enough to save your comment. It's really, really aggravating when you end up losing a long comment like that. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Right, thanks. It has happened before, so I've learned from it, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 20:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

:Hi. Please be careful about using the "L" word ("Libel") as it could be interpreted as a legal threat, which can get you blocked from editing. I don't believe you meant it that way, so, if I am correct, you should make a statement on Carriearchdale's talk page on the order of "I have no intention of taking legal action," if that is indeed the case. Please take this advice very seriously. BMK (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Got it, okay, thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 03:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Made report on WikiCommons

This is for the record that I have made a report regarding the conduct of Carriearchdale at the administrative noticeboard at WikiCommons, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 03:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Link to it please? John from Idegon (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi John, I didn't know if it was appropriate to provide a link about it here since it is in a different Wikipedia venue, so I had not. Here it is: [7]. I will also go back, then, and add the link from the report here to over there. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 15:59, 10 July 2014
(From talk at Commons): Hi Daniella. Do you know exactly when the flier was published, maybe in a trade publication with a verifiable date? It's important because if it was published before March 1, 1989, since there is no copyright/trademark notice, it could be included with this tag provided there is no indication of attempt to renew 5 years after. If it was published after March 1, 1989, the rules change because the US adopted the Berne Convention in 1989 which meant company copyright notices were optional and there is assumed copyright for all publications. Froggerlaura (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)(UTC)
User:Froggerlaura, Thanks for the info. I actually didn't know that, and I really don't know exactly when the document was published, nor could I prove it. I just have an original of the document as having been an interested party in the horse at that time. Thanks again, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 19:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: The user in question (Carriearchdale) actually responded to me on my talk page at WikiCommons - a first! I believe this response was made after her/his case was closed on the administrative noticeboard here, and which outcome was not favorable to the user. It should be noted that the user stated to me that the outcome of this will not be good for me, with emphasis added on the word directed to me. This can be seen at: [8]. I really have no idea who this user is, nor why he/she is doing this. Clearly, he/she still does not understand the serious magnitude of her/his actions and refusal to understand or improve. I would like to take this time to thank everyone who has been involved in this situation, and who has supported me. It has truly been like nothing I've ever experienced, online, before. As can be observed at WikiCommons, it is continuing there, though I have obtained a great measure of peace in the decisions obtained regarding the user here on Wikipedia. Thank you so much! Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 23:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A courtesy heads-up

I have just nominated Daniel and Flavia Gernatt Family Foundation for deletion at AfD. One of the worst cases of "footnote stacking" in a lead that I've seen, which is a pretty dead tip that notability is likely being fudged. best regards, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I have replied to the editor who made the nomination, and I also commented on the afd page for the article. I've never heard the manner in which I reference called "footnote stacking," but if you have some suggestions on how I can improve on it, I'm open to it, rather than just going for a complete deletion. I'll see what I can do to add to the article, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 19:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem is a lot of the refs you have added are not directly related to the Foundation. They are about the Gernatt's, obituaries of Daniel, speeches about them etc. For a ref to be valid, the article's subject has to be more than a passing mention in the ref. (WP:GNG: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.) There is a lot of precedent where editors try to make a subject appear notable by piling on the refs, some of which don't really help to assert notability as required by WP:GNG. It does appear like there is a bit of that here. Thirteen refs are not needed before the article is more than eight words long. One or two to show that the Foundation actually exists is more than sufficient. The other refs should be about showing why the Foundation is actually notable. Why is this Foundation more notable than the thousands of others out there? Right now, I'm not seeing that in the refs provided that actually have the Foundation as their main topic. Hope this helps. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Harry, thanks for your comments. That is the type of information I was just requesting at the article's afd page. I'm trying to locate sources to support notability. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 20:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from a talk page stalker

I've been watching your talk page over the last few days, and although I am fairly new myself, I would be glad to help you with what you might need (I would enjoy to collaborate on an article with you, perhaps even the one up for AfD if it does survive, if you'd like).

I'm sympathetic to your issue with Carriearchdale, as she seems to be continually following, harassing, and accusing you and others for no reason at all. I expect she will see consequences, so worry not :) It does also seem that you are being treated without proper accrediting for the work you have done in your first months, much more than I can say I have done in my busy state (in real life). I have learning to do as well, so perhaps this would benefit us both! A few recommendations with formatting to start,

  • When you have something to add to your own comments, you can do it the same way that you do to reply to someone else's comment, by inserting the colon ( : ) before the new addition, on the new line, so..
How you would type it (minus the quotes):

":I am making a comment"

"::I am adding to my comment"

It would appear as,

I am making a comment
I am adding to my comment
  • When you create an article, people can already see you have done so through the article's edit history, so you don't need to let them know in the talk page!


I hope I've helped, and perhaps we can help each other with things in the future! Take care. FlipandFlopped ツ 23:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Flipandflopped, Thanks for the suggestions and support. I appreciate your inclusion of comments regarding Carriearchdale' as well; that was quite an experience that no one should have to have. Also, I actually do use the colons, so I appreciate the reinforcement regarding that. And, regarding some particular edits, I am aware that they can be viewed on the article's history, but sometimes, I believe it is useful to specifically point out the detail, or those who've already made comments may not be aware that improvements have been made. Thanks again, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 23:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok! I just wanted to reassure you that you can use the colons when you're editing what you've said already, as well, in case you were unaware :) I also did notice what you said to Montana at the AfD, who is an accomplice of mine (I guess I could call him that, lol!), and how you were relatively discouraged. Anyway, to clarify, I would be glad to provide support to you in creating articles wherever I'm needed (if you even want to collaborate), as it's disappointing that what is happening to you is occurring, and it would be a shame if you were scared away from or discouraged by wikipedia because of it. Cheers! FlipandFlopped ツ 23:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Flipandflopped, I appreciate your offers and just may take you up on them sometime. Thank you, :-) Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 03:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding recent events

The Purple Star The Purple Star
Many of us get subjected to witless conduct by others sooner or later, and I'm sorry you had to join that number.You've conducted yourself well, though, and that can be very hard to do sometimes. John Carter (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Please see my follow-up at your talk page, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 01:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I'd like to echo John Carter's words. I've rarely seen anyone subjected to that kind of vindictiveness in my time here, and you have comported yourself in a very dignified manner in the face of intense provocation. I do hope it hasn't put you off continuing your contributions, and I hope the support you got will help assure you that the community does stand behind its members when they need it. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Boing! said Zebedee. I so much appreciate your support, and that from everyone that I received. I will definitely remember all of this forever, and apply it the next time someone gets me down. Thanks again, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 15:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your Support - Please Read - My Comments to Jimbo Wales

Something you Should Know

User:Jimbo Wales, It is very nice to 'meet' you and to discover that you are the founder of Wikipedia, a source for knowledge and information that I often use, and to which I have contributed during the course of the past year or so. I wanted to take the time to compliment the editors and the process regarding an unfounded report that was recently made against me there by another, now indefinitely-blocked, editor. Having become disillusioned regarding a prior, separate matter, I could have but did not report the editor on Wikipedia (but have done so on WikiCommons, after being inspired by the absolutely overwhelming support that I received on Wikipedia). What occurred is that the editor reported me on Wikipedia with entirely false allegations, quite honestly leaving my head spinning at the very least. The situation was quite like nothing I have ever experienced before in an online setting, what with the false comments by the one particular editor, but also in a wonderful way in regard to the incredible support that I received on Wikipedia at the ANI forum. There are so, so many people (about 30 or more) who supported me that I am quite beside myself because I had really thought that the particular editor's behavior directed toward me and my work here was acceptable, and had been extremely discouraged. I would also like to recognize User:John Carter for making a statement in the ANI discussion that posts were being made at your talk page, otherwise I would never have known to come here and check it out. There are just so many people who have been supportive in this matter that tears are literally coming to my eyes right now; it has all been quite an experience. I'm glad that I reached out for advice and suggestions because I really was unsure about what to do, and did not desire to escalate the situation. So, I just wanted to take a few moments to come over here and let you know that you have created a wonderful resource, and that you have so, so many outstanding editors here. I am really thankful for all of that! Those folks who are genuinely doing the right thing and contributing here in good faith, particularly in my recent experience, are to be recognized and commended for their professionalism, diligence, support, kindness, and good faith. I am going to re-post this on my talk page, also, so that our fellow colleagues are aware of my comments to you. Thank you, again, and God bless, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 04:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

May I ask you why you think he is "the founder of Wikipedia". QuackGuru (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, according to his user page, "I founded Wikipedia on January 15, 2001." Harry the Dog WOOF 05:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
There is certainly no need to hint at Larry Sanger's increasingly irrelevant grudges here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, honestly, prior to yesterday, I didn't know who Jimbo Wales was, nor Larry Sanger. I see on Larry's page that he is the co-founder of Wikipedia - that is awesome. The point is that there were discussions made on Jimbo's talk page that were in relation to what I had recently experienced, and I followed-up with him about it. Simple as that, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 15:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar, and my apoloies for the delayed response. I think I logged off just before you sent it. And thanks as well for the compliment on Jimbo's page reproduced above. I honestly don't remember seeing anything like that before. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. It is definitely a relief. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 18:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for your contributions. Like you've been told that now or later, everyone is targeted. Behavior and aim may differ but it is as important that how you handled the situation. Remember we all learn everyday. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, both, User:OccultZone and User:Harry the Dirty Dog for your compliments and support. It really helped me alot! Thank you, again, :-) Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 15:18, 11 July 2014 (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.

Flavia C. Gernatt
added a link pointing to Meadowlands
Gallo Blue Chip
added a link pointing to Horse of the Year

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Note to myself - corrected, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 15:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Hello! Regarding this edit, normally Xfd discussions run in chronological order, rather than being sorted into sections by keep/delete !votes. Editors simply add their new comment to the bottom of the discussion. For example, have a look at WP:Articles for deletion/Robert Murić. It's also usually considered poor form to move or alter another editor's comment, though I'm sure you did so with good intentions. I didn't revert your change because it really doesn't matter and our discussion is a complete mess anyway, but just leaving you a note for future discussions. Cheers! Ivanvector (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Ivanvector, thanks for your information. There were a couple of editors who had suggested and/or who had organized the information into sections, and then, those sections were eventually completely removed. This afd discussion is my first, so it is a learning experience for me. Really, it is easier to read if it is organized into sections, but I understand about maintaining it chronologically. I will remember that for future reference. Thanks again, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 15:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Whenever you want AfD closed just contact Northamerica1000 or Armbrust. But make sure that they have commented on that AfD or not, if they haven't, you can ask them. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 15:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I see that, yeah, and it was a good idea to do that. Some people go batshit crazy if you touch their comments anywhere, but this was a mess anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Time to leave her alone

Please stay off Carriearchdale's talkpage. She's permitted to remove anything she wants from her talkpage, with no need to archive anything. After all, the contents are always in history. I would highly recommend that as it was her interactions with you that eventually led to her indef, that you should stay as far away from her as possible - we often call it "gravedancing", which is never good. Thanks for understanding the panda ₯’ 21:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, no problem User:DangerousPanda. I believed my actions to be helpful, though I'm glad to understand that there is still a history of everything, even if it's deleted. I want to be sure that what occurred is remembered. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 21:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paisleypeach/Archive_4&oldid=1251256348"