User talk:Paisleypeach/Archive 2

Ratings

Note to myself: general criteria Daniellagreen (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

And, WP:BIOG/A. Daniellagreen (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mario Cuomo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. John's University (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) 08:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments on your user page

Hello Daniellagreen,

I was invited by the Feedback Request Service to comment at Talk:Bill Greiner, which I have done. That motivated me to take a look at your user page. I see that you are a relatively new user who has already done some excellent work. I hope that you will continue. But I want to remind you that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit in compliance with our policies and guidelines, that no one owns any article, and that collaboration between new editors and those with broad experience both improves articles and enables new editors to develop a deeper understanding of our policies and guidelines.

Accordingly, I encourage you to remove all statements such as "the 'slash and burn' ideology of conflict and destruction" and criticism of other editors by name from your user page. Maintaining enemy lists and holding grudges against other editors is highly discouraged here, and is very likely to create problems for you going forward. Assuming good faith is an important behavioral guideline here. I encourage you to study it and act in accordance with that guideline. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. I would just like to say that it has been helpful for me to be able to vent about some of my experiences in editing. Understanding that no editor owns any article, it is not, nor ever has been my intention to "own" any article. For that, I believe I have again been misjudged, and I do believe that greater understanding and consideration can be afforded to those who are experienced in writing such as myself. Regarding experience on Wikipedia, there is always room for improvement, whether or not an editor is experienced. I will remove my comments, however the experiences that I had have deterred some of my further contributions to Wikipedia. Daniellagreen (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up to talk:

Cullen, Certainly, I understand your viewpoint here, and I can appreciate that, however being "new to Wikipedia" has often been thrown into my face, causing me to feel inferior, misunderstood, misjudged, disrespected, and unappreciated. I can also appreciate that you were not born yesterday, as neither was I. I do understand the policies, as well, however to say that I have maintained an "enemy list" is inaccurate in that it should be viewed as an opportunity for improvement on Wikipedia by all editors. When editors get into a conflict over one revert, and then do not respond on their talk page after being contacted about the revert, but escalate the situation into a blown out argument defies any professionalism with which I am familiar. This has not just happened on the Bill Greiner article, but also with other editors on the State University of New York at Fredonia and University at Buffalo articles. Why is it okay that those editors appear to own those latter articles, and rarely accept edits from other editors? This makes for an atmosphere that condones exclusivity in regard to particular individuals who edit articles. So, my concern is that whether editors are experienced or not, a higher level of professionalism could be practiced and promoted for all, and that policies could be improved that cause Wikipedia editing to be more user friendly for everyone, much as I have experienced with John_from_Idegon. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up to talk:

It's not necessary that you review the Fredonia or UB articles. I found that the same editor who began the conflict on the Fredonia article had also reverted information I added on the UB article. My perspective is that if they want exclusive articles that they can control, then I don't need to contribute to them. Also, I would like to add that EricEnfermero and I had discussion about the Greiner article on both of our talk pages, and had reached increased understanding about each other's perspectives. I do appreciate your comments, though to have this issue crop up again with this article has gotten me all upset all over again. I do appreciate your advice, though I believe that for my own best interests, it will be good to take a break for awhile. Daniellagreen (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States House Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (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) 08:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation Update

Note: All disambiguations have been corrected. Daniellagreen (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

James T. Walsh

Talk to User: Thargor Orlando:

Regarding this article, the external links provided in said section adhere to Wiki guidelines because they provide additional information about the subject. Most of these links have been attached to the article for more than 7 years. I am wondering why you are choosing to remove them now? If you look at other politicians' articles, such as Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush, for examples, all of these types of external links are included and maintained in the article. Therefore, the same should be done for this article regarding James T. Walsh. Adding a tag about excessive external links that may not conform to Wiki guidelines is inappropriate, incorrect, and misleading because this, in fact, is not the case. Should you insist upon including such a tag, then you should also do so for every politician's article. Also, I have noticed your repeated removal of references regarding information and quotes provided about Rudy Giuliani and the subject. All references included regarding this topic are genuine and relevant to the topic and subjects. The references are from reputable and recognized organizations, and also conform to Wiki guidelines. Please add to and build up the article rather than unnecessarily removing information from it that will help readers better understand and be knowledgeable about the subject. Daniellagreen (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

My Portion of Discussion on Talk Page for James T. Walsh:

Additionally, in your first removal of external links, you noted that it was a "trim," however you simply removed 9 of 10 external links. If there is a desire to remove external links, then the links should also be provided within the article, as per the tag in this section that you have added. It is good policy to add and/or replace links within the article rather than just removing them. Removing 9 of 10 links is not simply a trim. Daniellagreen (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine that the external links may not be relevant to the subject at this moment, however the article is a biography, and as such, to me, they continue to be relevant. Much as George W. Bush or Bill Clinton are not currently US Presidents, the external links are still maintained in their articles because they provide additional information about them that is not found in the article. In my reading of the Wiki guidelines, this is a legitimate reason for including and maintaining the external links. I think it would be unfair to be required to include every single detail that is in the external links, placing those details in the article, itself. This is another reason why external links are added to the article. People who want to know additional information and details about the subject are provided such information by going to the external links - they simply add to and build up information and sourcing regarding the subject. This is my argument for maintaining the external links. While you state there may be a burden on the individual including the links in the article for citing them as references within the article, they, therefore, also should not simply be axed without any effort being made to include them. It's easy just to delete information without making an attempt to add to or replace it. That should be done first. For these reasons, the external links should be maintained, as well as that they are relevant and included in most politicians' biographies in Wikipedia that I know of. Your actions regarding the deletion of them appear that you are simply singling out those related to this subject, James T. Walsh. About the FreeRepublic reference, it appears to me to be a reference from a reputable and recognized organization. Whether or not there are copyright issues is not the case; the issue is that it provides legitimate information about the subject. Is there anywhere in Wikipedia that states, specifically, that FreeRepublic is an unreliable source? As for the inclusion of multiple references regarding that particular information relating to the subject and Rudy Giuliani, the more references that can support a topic, the better. Therefore, if one link becomes dead or unavailable, there are others that can be reviewed. Providing multiple references builds up the article, the subject, and the topics at hand. Daniellagreen (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Understood, but here again, that hasn't applied to any other politicians' articles on Wiki that I know of, nor in which I have been involved in editing, but this one. The guidelines also state that external links are included so that additional information about the subject is provided. Again, nearly all of these links have already been attached to the article for more than 7 years. Again, it appears that this article is being singled out with the outright, prior deletion of 9 external links without any attempt to include all of their information within the body of the article. And, if that was to occur, the article would probably be 100 pages. Just the Peace Corps link, alone, would provide dozens of pages of information. All of that information is relevant to the subject for providing additional information that is not provided in the article. Per Wiki's guidelines, that is why external links are attached to the article, to provide information about the subject that is not included within the article. That is the best reason for maintaining these external links attached to the article. That also applies to all other articles on Wiki, not just biographies, that include such external links. It is unreasonable to expect any editor to include every single piece of information within a Wiki article from every external link. So, by no means do the external links here rise to the level of being a directory. The meaning of "directory" is subjective. To me, a directory includes dozens, hundreds, or thousands of pieces of information. To you, a directory includes only 10 pieces of information. About the FreeRepublic, I had no familiarity about the site prior to acquiring the one particular reference for the article, and including it. I read the entirety of the links that you provided, and this is the type of information I was really seeking regarding perspectives about references related to this website. It appears that most people simply have very negative thoughts and views about it, and want to blacklist it simply because of that. My point in including the reference from the website is that the information cited is legitimate. It has not been altered or misconstrued in any way. Additionally, the information provided in the reference was released to the press for republication, so there is no issue about copyright infringement. The information relating to this specific reference is completely genuine, whether or not other information from this website is. Also, the website is a legitimate organization. While people may attach comments to it, it is not actually a blog, but a news forum. Based on the links that you provided about the controversy surrounding this particular website, again, it simply appears that people have negative views about it, though it is a forum for free speech. By not including the website as a reliable source, it would seem that whatever various perspectives there are on the website are being quashed, resulting in potentially eliminating a balanced viewpoint. At any rate, I view the website as a news source and, in regard to this particular article, a legitimate reference. However, if there is that much controversy and so many negative feelings about it, it can be removed, however in this particular case, there does not appear to be any need for its removal other than some Wiki editors simply dislike the website. In this particular case, it only appears that everyone but me has jumped on the bandwagon of disliking this website, and limiting its use as a reliable source on Wikipedia, thereby also limiting free speech about particular issues, even when the information provided is completely correct and legitimate - that's what it tells me. One would think that the issue could be considered on a case-by-case basis, rather than blacklisting a website that has provided legitimate information to support the subject of this article. I'm all about building articles and sourcing information with references, so while this information is good to know, I think it reflects that just because many editors dislike the website, they also believe that the website should not be used in referencing. When too many people are willing to just go along with that, it diminishes what we're about - providing information and adequately sourcing it. Just because a majority approves of something, doesn't necessarily mean its right or just. Daniellagreen (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Several times, I have explained that the external links provide additional information about the article's subject - that is reason enough to maintain them. At least maintain them until myself or another editor can include them as references within the article. I don't really see what the big deal is about maintaining them, particularly when other articles don't appear to conform to the policy. It still seems that you are nit-picking and obsessing about the external links on this article. I understand that is part of your work, however it is also good policy to give others a chance to include the links within the article, especially if you are not going to do so, yourself. About FreeRepublic, so then, it basically appears that the site is still blacklisted by Wiki. You stated that it had been blacklisted in the past, so that means that it is not right now. As a reliable source, it does appear to be a news source that also includes readers' comments, which does not make it a blog, nor an unreliable source if people can filter readers' comments. If the site is not acceptable for Wiki, it should be specifically stated in the policy guidelines so that editors who include it as a reference do not unknowingly get into this situation. I really don't see a problem with it, so you can go ahead and remove it, however I still make my case that the site is a news source, and provided reliable, genuine, and legitimate information related to the cite in question. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

There was somewhere in the guidelines where I read that external links are included to provide additional information about the subject when such information is not otherwise included in the article about the subject. I cannot locate that information now, though I did read it a few days ago. I would contest, however, an insistence on the removal of the external links. Based on the guidelines, as I understand them, links to one's official website or organization, and that which is controlled by the subject, are to be maintained. Also, Wiki sister links are to be maintained. Based on that, my understanding is that the links that can be maintained include the official Congress biography link, the Peace Corps biography link, the Congresspedia link, and the K & L Gates biography link. Therefore, I argue to maintain those four. The others, I will copy and place in my sandbox for further work in the future. Daniellagreen (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This is very unnecessarily complicated. Congresspedia is a sister Wiki, but it is not to be linked to. The Peace Corps link does appear to be a directory, but the biography is at this link: http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/2629/1009839.html. Is that still not considered official, then? If there is a more official Peace Corps bio link, then, it could be included - I will search. FreeRepublic provides legitimate information, but its not considered a reliable source. There certainly is alot of conflicting information regarding Wiki's policies and guidelines. I have suggested in the past to other editors that increased clarity be provided, and it doesn't happen. I'm sure if I made the suggestions, they would just be shot down anyway, so what's the use? It would certainly save having to go through all of this. Daniellagreen (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't locate a bio for anyone on the official Peace Corps websites, so I removed the external link associated with that. I also removed Congresspedia. This is now a total of 8 links removed; there are now 2. I hope that is satisfactory, and will work on including information from the deleted links into the article. Daniellagreen (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Satish K. Tripathi 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:

• , ''UB Reporter'', Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo, 22 April 2004, Retrieved 7 November 2012]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That bracket was placed in that position in error, and I removed it. There is no broken syntax. I corrected it in the manner that it is supposed to be. Thanks. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI, you are talking to a robot.  :) Happy editing, Daniella! John from Idegon (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL! :-) I know, John. I often just make follow-up comments to these messages for my own information. I'm still laughing... Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your help with the Margaret Cuomo references. I'm very new at Wiki editing-I don't even know how to send you a notification, so I am using the WikiLove button. I hope you like kittens <g>.

mdyson 05:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the kitten. You did well in sending me a notification. Anything that appears on my talk page is a notification. When you see an editor's username in the "view history" section of an article, just click on their "talk", and you will be taken to their talk page. There, you can leave a notification by editing the page, or adding a new section. You probably had to do that in order to leave me your message with the cute kitten, so you might already know that. Welcome to Wikipedia. Just as an fyi, there are some editors who are very kind, and others who simply delete information. It's a challenge not to get frustrated, but just stick with it. Let me know if you have any questions, I will be happy to help, or I can always refer to another editor whom I trust for some answers. Best, Daniellagreen (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mikaela Shiffrin 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:

• //www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/Groomed-for-Success-.html Groomed for success], ''Outside'', Santa Fe, NM: Outside, 12 October 2011, Megroz, G., Retrieved 24 February 2014.</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Corrected 2-24-14. Daniellagreen (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stella Niagara Education Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lewiston (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, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Corrected. Daniellagreen (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Victor E. Bull

Hi, I can appreciate all of your work on the UB-related articles. Just on the Victor E. Bull article, would it be preferred to update the reference about the Capital One mascot competition, to exclude the dead link? Typically, any references with dead links are deleted. I wouldn't want for the reference to be deleted just because it has a link that no longer exists. It is the only source that establishes any type of national notability for this article, to date. Daniellagreen (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Link rot

Per WP:LR,

Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online.

Except for URLs in the External links section that have not been used to support any article content, do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer. Recovery and repair options and tools are available.

Once a URL has been filled in with a valid accessdate parameter (to verify when the URL was last accessed and working), WP:LR would tend to indicate that we have to assume that the URL was valid and working on that date, though I have seen plenty of people ignoring WP:LR and deleting broken URL's and dead links before. In this case, fortunately, the Internet Archive has done us a favor (here) so I will replace that link in the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this is good to know as, typically, I have read suggestions by other editors that dead links be deleted. The instructions you provided are definitely something that needs to be promoted more. I also see that you replaced the dead link, which is why I contacted you - because, often, other editors simply delete a reference just because of the dead link tag. Recovery and replacement, or restating the reference without use of the dead link, I believe, are better than straight out deletion of the entire reference. Daniellagreen (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Athletics Hall of Fame idea

Hi, Daniellagreen, and thanks for all of your work on UB-related articles. I noticed in your edits on the Buffalo Bulls article, you added a section called "Athletics Hall of Fame." Do you think it would be possible to find enough reliably-sourced information on this topic to split this section out into it's own separate list article? (see List of University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame members for an idea of what I'm talking about) Just a thought. At any rate, thanks, and happy editing in the future! Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ejgreen, I think that's a great idea, and also a formidable task. If you're up for it, go to it. If not, I can work on it in my extra time. :-) I have really enjoyed editing the UB-related articles! Check out Victor E. Bull to see the pix that I found and added - they are awesome! :-) Happy editing, Daniellagreen (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Funny Wiki article

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits

Conflict re: Maintaining Bill Greiner's Photo in Notable Alumni/Faculty Section

University at Buffalo & William Greiner

Please do not re-edit over and over the University at Buffalo alumni sub-section, including replacing Terry Gross with Bill Greiner. Your recent edits both on the University's wikipedia and on William Greiner's suggests a conflict of interest and I would advise to not edit wikipedia pages with respect to Bill Greiner if this is the case (per WP codes). Terry Gross, the original alumnus who was replaced by Bill is surely more notable on the national and international levels. Thank you. Davidhar (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Davidhar, You are mistaken. First of all, you do not own any articles, nor have any authority in telling me what to do or how to edit. Second of all, I did not replace Terry Gross, nor did I realize or know that Terry Gross had been in that section. Terry Gross had already been deleted by someone else when I added Bill Greiner, and then re-added him again after you deleted him. I believe it is you who are in conflict. Please do not jump to conclusions before going back through all the edits to confirm this. Once you do that, you will see that I did not "replace" anyone. I only added Bill, and it was you who deleted him. Why did you delete him, reverting my two edits/additions of him? This is something that should be discussed on the talk page. The former president of UB who worked there for 42 years, who was president for 13 years, who made many advancements for the university, and who brought the school back to Division I, I believe is noteworthy enough for his photograph to be reflected in the notable alumni and faculty section. I am moving this discussion to the article's talk page. Daniellagreen (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that I have re-added Bill's photo again. It should not be removed until there is consensus on what, if any, further action should be taken. Daniellagreen (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Further, any conflicts regarding the article on Bill Greiner have already been resolved with the involvement of an administrator, and need not be brought up again by you. I set the record straight with those editors who were in conflict on that article, and I am again doing so with the UB article. As you can see regarding that article, I created it and have added the greatest amount of work to it. Why is it your interest to attempt to control my activities on this article and the UB article? The Bill Greiner article, itself, has no bearing on the UB article and the current conflict that has ensued due to your reverts. It appears that your informing me about how to edit are more akin to ownership, which Wikipedia is against, and about which I have previously informed an administrator regarding the UB article. Daniellagreen (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

On reviewing the article in its entirety, I see that you also removed four other images that I added to this article. Unless you have updated photos with which to replace them, they should not be removed. You stated in your comment upon removal that they are not historically relevant, however they, indeed, are historically relevant. It appears to me that you are detracting from the article rather than building it up due deleting images and information. Daniellagreen (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up to talk by Davidhar and Cullen:

Thanks for your comments, Cullen. Truly, I am in agreement with you. Who is to say how much "more" notable one person is than another, really. All notable people's photos should be included, or none, because those who are not included are being excluded. It would definitely be more fair to delete all photos in that section. Daniellagreen (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Davidhar, It is you who began the edit war when you reverted many of my contributions, including the image of Bill. You did not acknowledge that I did not remove Terry Gross, nor did I "replace" her with Greiner. Did you review the edits to confirm my information that I was not involved in that? My point of view is that your perspectives and actions are rigid and inflexible, not only on this issue, but also regarding the other images that I included, and which you deleted. Your reasons for doing so do not appear to be solid enough for me. When I realized that you deleted 4 or 5 images to the UB article that I included, I contacted a Wiki administrator to request intervention. Note that he has given his comments and suggestions. I, therefore, open the floor to further comments about this. As per your purporting about my "involvement" with Greiner, I am not, nor was ever "involved" with him. That you are a UB student in the economics department suggests to me that you are in a conflict of interest about the UB article and Greiner. You deletes and reverts of several photos that I added to the article make it appear that you have an issue, not only about UB, but with Greiner, as well. That's how it looks to me. Perhaps you should reconsider your involvement in this. Daniellagreen (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up to talk by Davidhar:

Davidhar, I can appreciate your work on this article. Certainly, you may state your opinion regarding the photos that I contributed, and which you deleted, however I remain in disagreement. My view is that they should be replaced only when updated photos are located and uploaded. Of those that I uploaded and which you deleted, the cheerleaders photo continues to seem most relevant (particularly because they are holding up placards that read, "Fight Bulls Fight"), regardless of whether it was from Division III or Division I. My intent was to reflect those teams that I could - including football and cheerleading, as well as the historic UB Mascot, Buster and the current UB Mascot, Victor E. Bull. As I've stated before, any disagreements regarding the article about Bill have already been resolved. In fact, the editor who was in conflict added information to provide a more balanced perspective. I explained to those editors who had concerns my request for their patience so that I could provide a more balanced perspective - which, as you will see if you review my edits - I did, in addition to those that one editor provided. The other editor appeared just to want to complain, and took no action to make improvements, nor add information or source it to provide a more balanced perspective. Now, you're throwing in another issue, which appears to be your own personal concern, about the Buffalo Bulls article. Rather than complain, why don't you add information and sources to the article that will provide a more balanced perspective. There's nothing preventing you from doing that. As you know, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. Regarding your waiting for consensus from other editors regarding something controversial, I again disagree because you, in fact, did not wait. You simply took your own action and made at least 3 deletions without posting anything for discussion, nor waiting for consensus. I also see on your talk page a history of simply deleting information, and you having received warning(s) regarding it, including that you may have a conflict of interest in those articles that you edit. You have been warned about being blocked, and you have been warned about disruptive editing. It really appears to me that you do what you want, and that makes me have the perspective that you have ownership of the article, and cannot maintain a balanced perspective regarding other editors' contributions. That is what I was saying the other day regarding ownership. I know that UB doesn't own this article; my point was that your actions in regard to your many deletions and edit war make it seem like you own the article. I just wanted to make that clear. Also, certainly, as a self-proclaimed UB student, you are a representative of the institution, and therefore have a conflict of interest. As for requesting the involvement of an administrator, I value his opinion, regardless of whether or not he supports my own. He is obviously more experienced regarding these types of concerns, and appears to do his best to remain neutral. I believe he made good suggestions. UB, after all, is not Yale or Harvard, nor is it any of the others that you identified. Because the article can be edited by anyone, people will place their own flavor in the article; that is understandable. What seems to me to be petty and unnecessary is having an edit war over whether or not to include a photo of a notable administrator/faculty member in the relevant section. Maybe he's not quite as notable as some of the others, however he is notable. One could also ask why Jack Quinn or Dennis Vacco are not included in that section, as well as many others. Regarding your statement about my "replacement" of Terry Gross, when I edited the article, I recall that her photo had already been deleted. I had no knowledge of that. At least, when the section came up for editing, the information regarding her photo was not there; I added Bill's to that section, and did not delete Terry's. That is how the page came up onscreen when I did the editing. Obviously, my perception of this is different from your's, however it remains that you appear to be continually accusatory to me about this when I have had no knowledge about it. At any rate, again, I am one who can appreciate your contributions to the article, however obsessing over it appears to be more like ownership on your part. I am someone who does my best to contribute to and build up articles. I do not purposely delete others' work unless I am correcting and/or updating it. While I realize that anyone can edit on Wikipedia, I generally follow the rules of journalism regarding consideration in association with such matters. Some rise to that challenge, but most do not, as I have observed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia appearing to be a very male-dominated organization, it is important for women's voices to be heard and women's contributions to be recognized. Your repeated deletions of my voice and my information do not appear to support that. That is where I take offense, and believe it is important to let you know that. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Readers, also note that Cullen edited the subsection heading that I referred to above, to one that is more generally accepted on Wikipedia. Thanks, Cullen! Daniellagreen (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up to talk by Davidhar:

Davidhar, I can see that you are a person who is not going to consider anyone else's perspectives or opinions but your own, and that, to me, is what is most disappointing because it actually detracts from the article, and does not - as you believe - add to it. You and I obviously disagree, and I agree to disagree. In fact, I am quite happy to disagree because my points are also valid. Your unnecessary, superior attitude and obvious ownership of this article are quite clear to me, and I do not believe they are qualities that will change, at least in regard to the current situation. That is what is truly most abrasive and offensive, an attitude that is rigid and inflexible. Too bad for Wikipedia; there is definitely too much of that here. I believe cooperation is key, not control and micromanagement of others' relevant and valid contributions. I've tried to contribute and build the article up. That's my perspective, and that's how I try to approach everything, not deleting, but adding. And personally, while I do enjoy contributing to Wikipedia, as a woman, your comments are indeed sexist because they do not recognize my personal experience in which most male editors on Wikipedia that I have encountered make more deletes - as well as those deletes being of greater magnitude - than I have ever experienced from any of the few female editors here. Following Wiki's guidelines, I have made my verbose replies to you (and of which I am very proud, I might add) so that I have thoroughly and clearly replied to all of your points. At this juncture, then, I believe that I have responded to all of them, and anything further is simply a rehashing of what has already been communicated. I have invested a considerable amount of time in this argument, and really, far too much time. Therefore, this will be the end of my rebuttals as I can see that there has been no progress or improvement made regarding my concerns about your editing out of my contributions to your article. I am taking this situation as another Wiki learning experience, and will do my best to avoid editing your article in the future. Happy editing! Daniellagreen (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note to myself: Remember not to edit the UB article!

Follow-up to Davidhar: Davidhar, Again, I think your assumptions with regard to what I had attempted to achieve in contributing my images to the article are incorrect. Instead of complaining and continuing an argument that is going nowhere, I challenge you to take and upload photos of some UB sports teams to the athletics section of this article. My perspective is that some photos are better than none. Having not had any photos in that section prior to my contributions creates a reflection on the article that athletics are unimportant at UB. While most of my text contributions to this overall article have been maintained, you deleted 2/3 of my photo contributions. So, I challenge you to replace them with updated and current photos since I am on the other side of the country and it would not be feasible for me to do so, otherwise I would. You have taken a leadership role with this article, and I challenge you to uphold it by improving and enhancing it with more updated photos than what I contributed. If you do not, then it would be obvious that a conflict about it may be preferred by you rather than compromise. Having had no images in the athletics section, in my opinion and prior to my image contributions, made it a section that was lacking in quality and which needed enhancement. That is where I'm coming from, and I challenge you to take charge and make it better. Daniellagreen (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Helpful Wiki Resources

Resources

WP:TMC - Article cleanup templates
WP:MOS - Manual of Style
MOS:TV - Manual of Style for Television
MOS:FILM - Manual of Style for Film
WP:HELPDESK - Help Desk
WP:AIV - Administrator intervention against vandalism
WP:SPI - Sockpuppet investigations
WP:FILM/R - Reliable sources for film
WP:HDT - Help desk templates
WP:ELNO - Links to be avoided

Policy/Guidelines

WP:CIVIL - Civility guidelines
WP:NPOV - Neutral point of view
WP:NOT - What Wikipedia is not
WP:OVERLINK - Wikilinks and overlinking
WP:PEACOCK - Peacock words and phrases
WP:INFOBOXFLAG - National flags in Infoboxes

Thunder of the East Marching Band

Hello. Thank you for your contributions/updates to the UB Marching Band page! I do have a question specifically about the picture with the band on the field in 1994 though. Do you have any other pictures from either that performance (or know what day it was)? I know quite a bit of history on the UB Bands, and while I do remember reading something about how the pep band at the time would perform at football games, I don't remember reading anything about them marching on the field, having those uniforms, or the band being so large. I may be able to help improve the article once I can get some reliable sources (most of the info that I have is similar to the information found on http://www.thezaepfels.com/UB_Band_History/), and I can probably contribute some pictures from the 1960's band if I am able verify copyright status. Rma116 (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your comments regarding the photos I've contributed the UB Thunder of the East article. In 1994, the actual UB marching band had just been re-established. The pep band remained a separate group, and was actually viewing the marching band and the color guard from the side of UB stadium opposite that of the announcers/media box. So, the pictures of the marching band and color guard are from 1994, and are associated with the actual marching band, although it had not yet been named the Thunder of the East, at least to my knowledge. Again, the pep band was also playing at that game and was in the stands, but it has never marched. The pep band and the marching band were - and always have been, at least to my knowledge - two separate groups. The marching band and color guard photos are from Fall 1994, probably September or October sometime, although I don't have an exact date and don't know what football game that was. I hope that helps. Daniellagreen (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have anything online that says that the new marching band started up in 1994? The university archives' website (and everything I've seen online) says the marching band wasn't around from 1971-1999. From what I assumed, once the marching band was formed the pep band didn't perform at football games anymore. Rma116 (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Rma116, I understand where you're coming from. That's actually one of the reasons that I posted the photos to the article, because there appears to be no "official" history recorded about the in-between time from when the new UB stadium opened and football games began being held there in 1994, and the last time that football games were played in the old stadium in 1993, up to the official formation of the marching band in 1999. I recall that there was much tension during that time between the pep band, the marching band, and university officials. Norm Alexander and pep band members, from what I recall, did not want to be changed into a marching band. So, the university kept the pep band, and established a marching band. As I say, it really was not officially known by any name at that time but the 'UB marching band.' I have at least one other picture of the pep band with Graduate Assistant Lou Vitello conducting, at the same football game in 1994 (the pictures that are posted in the article) at which the UB marching band and color guard performed. Perhaps that is a time in UB's history or the history of the music department that some folks would like to forget, I really don't know. But, I do remember that there was alot of tension. I recall that Norm felt frustrated and under pressure; he did not appreciate being dictated to by UB officials. I believe that it was thought that university officials went behind his back and created the marching band because, in 1994, it was quite a surprise when they came onto the field, sat in the stands, began playing, and did their half-time routine. And, the pep band's morale at that time was low because they felt unappreciated. There was the fear that the pep band would be terminated and/or that they would have to transition into being a marching band. Pep band members didn't want either of those things to happen. Norm's morale was also very low because I think he was kept out of the loop about the marching band. It was as if the marching band was recreated in secret; it was a very hush-hush thing. If you know Norm or Lou, I would suggest that you get into contact with them for more information. I just remember that Norm was very upset about the whole situation. I just don't know Norm's or Lou's whereabouts or contact information at this juncture. Also, it would be awesome if you could locate and post some historic photos; I think that would be really great! When I have some additional time in the future, I will try to look for more references and source more of the information on the article, though references have been hard to find. Thanks for sharing that one in your initial message - that is very valuable. Daniellagreen (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That's actually extremely helpful. I know Lou works locally, but according to my searches online Norm Alexander and Frank Cipolla both passed away recently (2013 and 2008, respectively). I'll look into contacting Lou though. The site that I linked you to has one of the photos that I think would be awesome to include, the band at Nixon's inauguration. However, I'm almost completely certain that picture is in the UB Archives, and I don't know the copyright status on it. I have a number of B&W pictures of the old concert band and marching band in the 1960's that I found in the band library (not the official music library, but a room in the basement of Baird). They were donated to the university archives this past year, and I received HQ scans of those in return for the donation. Thus I have no clue who, if anybody, actually owns the copyright to these pictures. Sometime I'll take a trip to the UB Archives to see what other information I can retrieve, and to see if they have any information on the copyright of those pictures.

Do you have any pictures of the early 1990's marching band uniforms? Or any other pictures of any of the bands in the 90's? With the exception of the late 90's (98/99) I haven't seen any pictures of the band in the 90's, whether it be online or in person (which is partially why I was so interested in the pictures you put on here!). Rma116 (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been doing some research online, and I'm convinced that the marching band in the two pictures in the article are from the Cheyney University of Pennsylvania, making the date of the pictures September 24, 1994. My reasoning behind that: Two days prior to that game, the Athletics Director commented in a student newspaper "that UB would someday have a first-rate marching band to accompany its football team" and In response to questions, Townsend said that UB intends to have a "high quality marching band" to augment its athletics program. "It's going to take some time, though, and it's going to take some money." He estimated that it would cost roughly $500,000 to put a marching band on the field. Also the style of the uniforms of the band in the pictures are similar to other HBCU bands (Cheyney is a HBCU) in which the "shirt" of the uniform extends past the seat of the pants and/or a long cape (example). The colors of Cheyney University are blue and white, though I cannot find any pictures online of their old uniforms or any indication if they travelled to the Buffalo game or not. Rma116 (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It may be possible that the marching band is not UB's then. The impression that people at the game had, including the pep band, was that this was UB's band. If its not, it was not made clear to anyone that it was not; there was no communication that it was not UB's band. I don't have any other photos, nor did I attend any other football games after 1994. Since the identity of the marching band seems uncertain, I removed the images. I appreciate your interest! Daniellagreen (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I was just going through and re-reading your comments again as I was in a hurry and behind schedule this morning when I left my previous comments. Wow, that's very sad that Norm and Frank have died. I knew Norm, and will have to look for his obituary; I don't imagine he was older than 70, that's very sad. It's good to know that Lou is still around in the area; he was very serious about music. And yes, the band library! That room was a kind of general storage area, and I know it was used for the orchestra, concert band (wind ensemble), and pep band. It sounds like it was also a storage area for the prior marching band, as well. That room served as kind of the 'band headquarters' for students. Regarding the photos and copyrights, the photographer(s) who took the photos, I would imagine, are also deceased; I don't know how to go about their publication if the proper copyright license has not been attributed by the original photographer. I also appreciate your providing the reference about Nelson stating that it would take some years and a considerable sum to get the marching band going. I vaguely remember those quotes. Then, can you imagine, to everyone's surprise, a marching band performs at a home game just a couple days after he said that! There was definitely alot of misinformation and unclear communications occurring at that time, and it made for alot of confusion and hurt feelings. That was one aspect about UB that could have often been improved - better and more clear communications about various issues and events to students and the campus community. At any rate, I'm glad to see the marching band, and hope that others will also contribute to building up its Wiki article. All the best, Daniellagreen (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Added, and then deleted, info about suspect in Suicide of Amanda Todd

There was particular information added to the article about a suspect in this case who exploited Amanda sexually online, and which information has already been removed. Information about suspects is relevant to the case, and provides a more thorough understanding about the subject and topic. I believe it is important to include such information, and make a record of it here that it was included and then, deleted. I am for it being re-included. Said information is as follows: The suspect is Aydın Çoban, with reference information found at http://globalnews.ca/news/1277461/arrest-made-in-connection-with-online-bullying-of-amanda-todd/ "Arrest made in connection with online bullying of Amanda Todd" (April 17, 2014, retrieved April 19, 2014). The issue is not about being "first" with the news, but providing a thorough account of information related to this article. Not doing so detracts from the quality of the article. Daniellagreen (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up to Timtrent: Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle, This is why I posted my comments. The policy is obviously contradictory to the types of info boxes that Wikipedia provides about these issues, in which information regarding suspects and charges is included. This is just another issue of a lack of consistency on policy on Wikipedia, and is good to bring attention to for improvement. And, whether or not it is "necessary" to add information to your talk page, I certainly have the right to do so, and have taken the liberty of doing so. There's nothing wrong with doing it, and it is actually good to provide editors involved with awareness about the issue, particularly yourself, as the concern informs you and relates to the delete that you made. Daniellagreen (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up to Recently Deleted Biden Images

Follow-up to Semoc: Thanks for your reviews. I'm really bummed, though, because I put so much time and effort into uploading and converting those photos to the proper format. I had thought that if photos were licensed under Creative Commons, Generic, that they were all okay. So, the only thing preventing these photos from being including in Wikipedia is the "noncommercial" use symbol. I would have thought that Wikipedia, being a nonprofit organization, would be considered noncommercial. Daniellagreen (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up to deleted content in this section by Yunshui: Thank you, Yunshui, for deleting the unnecessary content that appeared to be of a marketing nature from 5.117.199.58 and for placing a temporary block on that account due to it! Daniellagreen (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up to Sandbox Link on White House Council on Women and Girls

Comment to Lixinzhe95L: Hi, I can appreciate all of your work on updating this article. I wondered if you could take the information in your sandbox and add it to the article. Linking is sandbox to an article does not comply with Wiki policy. I wanted to give you an opportunity to add the info directly to the article. If you are unable to do so, I wanted to offer to do it. Thanks again, Daniellagreen (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Further follow-up comment to Lixinzhe95L: Hi again, I hadn't heard back from you yet, so I took the liberty of updating the article and including much of the information that you had provided in your sandbox. Thanks again, Daniellagreen (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up to Bidens

To Y: Hi, Regarding the articles on Beau Biden and Hunter Biden, I realize that their mother, as the US Second Lady, does not mean that they are second ladies, however neither are either of them Joe Biden. While Joe Biden is a related article to both of his sons, so is Jill Biden a related article to both of her sons. Is there not a way to reflect that? I'm just curious. It would be nice to reflect that Jill Biden, as a US Second Lady, is included in her sons' profiles, such as with a footer for her at the bottom of their pages. I tried to see if I could do that in both articles, however there is no footer category that has been set up for something like that. How can that be accomplished as I'm interested in having that be reflected on the sons' pages. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up to Y's replies: Thanks for your information. I am still learning about these things. Perhaps a navigational template for Jill may be created in the future. Is there a minimum number of articles that is required for the creation of a template? Daniellagreen (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited White House Council on Women and Girls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Berry (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) 08:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Note to myself: Fixed on May 24, 2014. Daniellagreen (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)