This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
HAPPY HOLIDAYS! Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 01:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
There was a previous decision at AfD that Gernatt Family of Companies should be redirected to a section of the article on the founder. You have just constructed an article on one of the companies, which would certainly seem to have been included all the more in that community decision that a separate article for the companies was improper. I have therefore redirected it also.
I warned you previously about editing in this subject area. I have been active enough in this that I can personally take no administrative action against you for this, but that will not prevent any other administrator from acting with respect to obvious promotionalism and very probable conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
All of you appear to desire for me to "out" myself, and by keeping my reasons to myself, I plead the fifth on this issue. Even if I exposed my true identity here - which is against Wikipedia policy - and explained my reasons, those of you who have repeatedly attacked me on this issue likely would not believe me anyway, would blame me, and would stick with your incorrect judgments anyway. I know how the world works. I have been made guilty when I am innocent. You all can think what you like, as I have repeatedly explained that I have no connection with this family. It is you all who have made the focus of my work on this family, for which I have repeatedly defended myself. To me, it has just become an issue of harassment and cyber bullying. I came here to create and contribute, not to be involved in petty issues that all too many of you have created, which really leads me to believe that some of you have nothing better to do than create and maintain conflict, including by not adhering to your own policies. Because you have already judged me, and judged me incorrectly, what further need is there for me to explain anything additional if none of you who are my accusers will not view the issue with a fresh and unbiased perspective anyway? Further, I have stated before, this is not the appropriate forum to go into the issues that you would like me to, and therefore, I will not. For you all, the issue appears to be about winning and being right (even when you're not), but it's really about how you play the game. It's unfortunate that people have to play dirty just in order to edit on Wikipedia. Shameful. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 14:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Daniellagreen there are a significant number of experienced editors who are familiar with your editing history, and your defense of said record, and who find it incompatible with the guidelines and policies of the project. I have neither the time nor any interest in further debating this with you. You have been repeatedly cautioned on this and have been asked not to edit on this subject by multiple editors of considerable standing, because you cannot do so in a neutral and non-promotional manner. I repeat that request again. However, if you choose to ignore this request, please be aware that you are courting a topic ban. This is the last time I am going to address this issue outside of ANI. Please regard this as a formal and Final Warning. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
To Softlavender: Why do you insist on tracking me and my edits? I must say it seems obsessive to the point of harassing on your part. Do you have nothing better to do? Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 01:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
This has been going on for 6 months. I'm sick of such freakish behavior. I have reached out to Softlavender several times, requesting that said behavior cease, though he/she continues to track and stalk me and my edits. I've both observed and experienced the manner in which things are handled and/or not handled on administrators' pages, and for me, it leaves much to be desired. On one occasion in the past regarding another editor, I made 3 reports and none of them were taken seriously. Why should I believe this will be taken seriously, and then of course, there is the issue of it coming back on me and me getting blamed as the victim. As I stated above, I know how the world works. Let the record be known, then, that this is now my third attempt at requesting that Softlavender stop harassing and stalking me. In attempts to reach a reasonable conclusion, Softlavender has repeatedly denied such behavior, refuses to take responsibility for it, and when confronted about it, deletes all discussion from their user page and refuses to acknowledge such behavior and cease it. Further discussion is far from pointless when freaks are allowed to stalk and harass others for months at a time and get away with it. To make such an offensive comment that such further discussion is pointless is offensive and far overlooks the seriousness of this issue. I have been patient and professional about this long enough. So, enough is enough! Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 01:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Note that the prior comment was made by Ad Orientem who neglected to sign their name. It appears that Ad prefers to continue this issue by having jumped in the argument, and now, is unable to tolerate being talked back to. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Such immaturity that is here is incredible and never ceases to amaze me. I have the liberty of placing the comments where I chose. If you can't handle it, as I've stated before, then butt out and don't get involved in the first place. Because you are unable to let this go and leave me alone, you are also a stalker and harasser of me. Really, just back off. Stop looking for trouble that you, alone, are creating. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 17:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
The discussion can be found here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Daniellagreen, please don't post on Ad Orientem's page again. He has asked you twice to stop, to which you responded "I have the liberty of placing the comments where I chose." [4] You're mistaken; after a user has asked you to stop posting on their page, you need to stop. For you to post there again would rise to harassment, in my opinion, and I would consider some sanction. I have also asked AO to stop posting here.
I'm sorry to see on this page that you seem to have a sense of entitlement to speak just as nastily as you like to and about other people, while you're outraged if anybody criticizes you, however civilly. Has Ad Orientem said anything to you that's remotely in the same realm as the insults I see you lobbying at him? "Just another sexist guy", " you are also a stalker and harasser", or this edit summary? (You've called other people "freaks" all over the shop, too.) Not that I've seen. I make allowances for the way you act on your own page, but not indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC).
Daniella, you need to immediately stop casting aspersions at other editors. Please take a break from Wikipedia and think over the good advice provided by DGG at the top of this page. He is one of the kindest people I've met here. No, we won't try to out you, but if your editing looks promotional, it will be treated as such, and you could be excluded. Thank you for listening. Jehochman Talk 06:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC).
At least there is one fair and insightful editor on Wikipedia. Thanks again, OccultZone. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 21:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Just stopped in today, and found a whole different Wikipedia, headed up by MetaWiki... Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 01:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Happy holidays. | ||
May you enjoy restful and blessed holidays. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 00:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC) |
Hello, Daniellagreen. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I happened across a discussion with positive mention of your editing along with concern expressed about what I gather was harassment of you as an editor here having likely driven you away. I notice Pat McGee Trail and other nice contributions on your part, and am sorry that you have largely withdrawn, as the world would be better if you were contributing more. :) I have edited a lot of upstate New York articles, and have hiked some trails, and have in general enjoyed contributing photos and editing about non-controversial historic sites such as are listed here. Unexpectedly I encountered a lot of negativity and it colored my entire experience here, although I persisted and currently am cautiously optimistic that people and processes have somewhat changed and/or I have better skills to deal with awful stuff when it happens, including to help editors being treated badly. I hope you might consider returning more in 2017 or eventually; if you do please feel free to contact me (at my Talk page or by email) at any time, and allow me to possibly be helpful. Happy trails! -- do ncr am 20:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
As of today, I am now Paisleypeach on Wikipedia. Paisleypeach (talk) (cont) 22:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Glad to see that you feel able to contribute again.
However, I do caution you that the unanswered questions from the past have not gone away. Specifically, I see that you are drafting an article on Carol A. Greiner. That article (and several others) have photos that you claim to have taken, and yet you also say that you have no connection at all with these subjects. Both cannot be true. I would urge you to address this discrepancy now before you find yourself embroiled in more controversy and get frustrated again. It shouldn't be difficult to clarify what your connection is (or that you did not in fact take those photos). Having a connection does not automatically preclude you from writing about a subject, but if your fellow Wikipedians feel that you aren't being straight with them, you will face further challenges. Thank you. Lard Almighty ( talk) 08:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
HAPPY HOLIDAYS! Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 01:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
There was a previous decision at AfD that Gernatt Family of Companies should be redirected to a section of the article on the founder. You have just constructed an article on one of the companies, which would certainly seem to have been included all the more in that community decision that a separate article for the companies was improper. I have therefore redirected it also.
I warned you previously about editing in this subject area. I have been active enough in this that I can personally take no administrative action against you for this, but that will not prevent any other administrator from acting with respect to obvious promotionalism and very probable conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
All of you appear to desire for me to "out" myself, and by keeping my reasons to myself, I plead the fifth on this issue. Even if I exposed my true identity here - which is against Wikipedia policy - and explained my reasons, those of you who have repeatedly attacked me on this issue likely would not believe me anyway, would blame me, and would stick with your incorrect judgments anyway. I know how the world works. I have been made guilty when I am innocent. You all can think what you like, as I have repeatedly explained that I have no connection with this family. It is you all who have made the focus of my work on this family, for which I have repeatedly defended myself. To me, it has just become an issue of harassment and cyber bullying. I came here to create and contribute, not to be involved in petty issues that all too many of you have created, which really leads me to believe that some of you have nothing better to do than create and maintain conflict, including by not adhering to your own policies. Because you have already judged me, and judged me incorrectly, what further need is there for me to explain anything additional if none of you who are my accusers will not view the issue with a fresh and unbiased perspective anyway? Further, I have stated before, this is not the appropriate forum to go into the issues that you would like me to, and therefore, I will not. For you all, the issue appears to be about winning and being right (even when you're not), but it's really about how you play the game. It's unfortunate that people have to play dirty just in order to edit on Wikipedia. Shameful. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 14:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Daniellagreen there are a significant number of experienced editors who are familiar with your editing history, and your defense of said record, and who find it incompatible with the guidelines and policies of the project. I have neither the time nor any interest in further debating this with you. You have been repeatedly cautioned on this and have been asked not to edit on this subject by multiple editors of considerable standing, because you cannot do so in a neutral and non-promotional manner. I repeat that request again. However, if you choose to ignore this request, please be aware that you are courting a topic ban. This is the last time I am going to address this issue outside of ANI. Please regard this as a formal and Final Warning. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
To Softlavender: Why do you insist on tracking me and my edits? I must say it seems obsessive to the point of harassing on your part. Do you have nothing better to do? Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 01:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
This has been going on for 6 months. I'm sick of such freakish behavior. I have reached out to Softlavender several times, requesting that said behavior cease, though he/she continues to track and stalk me and my edits. I've both observed and experienced the manner in which things are handled and/or not handled on administrators' pages, and for me, it leaves much to be desired. On one occasion in the past regarding another editor, I made 3 reports and none of them were taken seriously. Why should I believe this will be taken seriously, and then of course, there is the issue of it coming back on me and me getting blamed as the victim. As I stated above, I know how the world works. Let the record be known, then, that this is now my third attempt at requesting that Softlavender stop harassing and stalking me. In attempts to reach a reasonable conclusion, Softlavender has repeatedly denied such behavior, refuses to take responsibility for it, and when confronted about it, deletes all discussion from their user page and refuses to acknowledge such behavior and cease it. Further discussion is far from pointless when freaks are allowed to stalk and harass others for months at a time and get away with it. To make such an offensive comment that such further discussion is pointless is offensive and far overlooks the seriousness of this issue. I have been patient and professional about this long enough. So, enough is enough! Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 01:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Note that the prior comment was made by Ad Orientem who neglected to sign their name. It appears that Ad prefers to continue this issue by having jumped in the argument, and now, is unable to tolerate being talked back to. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Such immaturity that is here is incredible and never ceases to amaze me. I have the liberty of placing the comments where I chose. If you can't handle it, as I've stated before, then butt out and don't get involved in the first place. Because you are unable to let this go and leave me alone, you are also a stalker and harasser of me. Really, just back off. Stop looking for trouble that you, alone, are creating. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 17:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
The discussion can be found here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Daniellagreen, please don't post on Ad Orientem's page again. He has asked you twice to stop, to which you responded "I have the liberty of placing the comments where I chose." [4] You're mistaken; after a user has asked you to stop posting on their page, you need to stop. For you to post there again would rise to harassment, in my opinion, and I would consider some sanction. I have also asked AO to stop posting here.
I'm sorry to see on this page that you seem to have a sense of entitlement to speak just as nastily as you like to and about other people, while you're outraged if anybody criticizes you, however civilly. Has Ad Orientem said anything to you that's remotely in the same realm as the insults I see you lobbying at him? "Just another sexist guy", " you are also a stalker and harasser", or this edit summary? (You've called other people "freaks" all over the shop, too.) Not that I've seen. I make allowances for the way you act on your own page, but not indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC).
Daniella, you need to immediately stop casting aspersions at other editors. Please take a break from Wikipedia and think over the good advice provided by DGG at the top of this page. He is one of the kindest people I've met here. No, we won't try to out you, but if your editing looks promotional, it will be treated as such, and you could be excluded. Thank you for listening. Jehochman Talk 06:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC).
At least there is one fair and insightful editor on Wikipedia. Thanks again, OccultZone. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 21:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Just stopped in today, and found a whole different Wikipedia, headed up by MetaWiki... Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 01:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Happy holidays. | ||
May you enjoy restful and blessed holidays. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 00:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC) |
Hello, Daniellagreen. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I happened across a discussion with positive mention of your editing along with concern expressed about what I gather was harassment of you as an editor here having likely driven you away. I notice Pat McGee Trail and other nice contributions on your part, and am sorry that you have largely withdrawn, as the world would be better if you were contributing more. :) I have edited a lot of upstate New York articles, and have hiked some trails, and have in general enjoyed contributing photos and editing about non-controversial historic sites such as are listed here. Unexpectedly I encountered a lot of negativity and it colored my entire experience here, although I persisted and currently am cautiously optimistic that people and processes have somewhat changed and/or I have better skills to deal with awful stuff when it happens, including to help editors being treated badly. I hope you might consider returning more in 2017 or eventually; if you do please feel free to contact me (at my Talk page or by email) at any time, and allow me to possibly be helpful. Happy trails! -- do ncr am 20:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
As of today, I am now Paisleypeach on Wikipedia. Paisleypeach (talk) (cont) 22:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Glad to see that you feel able to contribute again.
However, I do caution you that the unanswered questions from the past have not gone away. Specifically, I see that you are drafting an article on Carol A. Greiner. That article (and several others) have photos that you claim to have taken, and yet you also say that you have no connection at all with these subjects. Both cannot be true. I would urge you to address this discrepancy now before you find yourself embroiled in more controversy and get frustrated again. It shouldn't be difficult to clarify what your connection is (or that you did not in fact take those photos). Having a connection does not automatically preclude you from writing about a subject, but if your fellow Wikipedians feel that you aren't being straight with them, you will face further challenges. Thank you. Lard Almighty ( talk) 08:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |