User talk:Paisleypeach/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Talk

For past talk discussions, please refer to my archives. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, again

I wanted to follow-up that I took the time to personally thank everyone (at least 28 people) who were supportive of me in any way regarding the recent experiences that I had with another editor. I sent you each at least one barnstar, and some of you received two. This was, indeed, a mind-blowing experience, and I am so, so happy to have had your support, insights, understanding, consideration, professionalism, and kindness. Those few (3) who opposed, I do not believe, can fully understand an experience such as this until they have had it, themselves. Additionally, for those of you who were not aware of it, I left a message at Jimbo Wales' talk page referencing the situation, as well as informing him about all of the support that you provided to me. The message can be viewed on my 4th archived talk page. Thank you so much, again, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you for the barnstar D. Situations like that are difficult to go through and, in the end, nobody comes out looking rosy. I hope that you can get back to editing articles normally - whatever that is :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your follow-up comments, and I agree. Best, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

I appreciate the sentiment behind this Barnstar I feel compelled to point out that I played the most marginal, disinterested role in the AN/I discussion it is possible to play. I voted on a ban proposal (which was merited) that already had an overwhelming consensus. While I don't think it was your intention, awarding me a barnstar for solely voting to ban an editor who accosted you feels a bit unseemly. Sorry if this sounds a bit too jaded. :) Protonk (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Protonk, However small your role was regarding this situation (indefinite block, not ban), it was noticed and appreciated by me. I expressed my appreciation to each and every person who was involved and who supported me in the slightest way. It really means alot to me...as you can tell. Thank you, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For putting up with a particularly nasty set of personal attacks, unfounded accusations, and general hostility. You have shown patience and good will through the entire ordeal. You earned this! ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 03:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Solarra, Thank you so much! Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I may as well give one too, here's a barnstar

		The Civility Barnstar
		Like Solarra, I find it amazing that you were not only able to keep yourself calm in light of persistent personal attacks and harassment, but also adhere to wikipedia standards the entire time, better than I or most others could have done. Perhaps I'm getting a bit naggy with these multiple posts on your talk page (lol, 2), but I'd feel bad if I didn't give one after watching the whole thing occur, so congratulations and thanks for consistently improving wikipedia! FlipandFlopped ツ 07:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Flipandflopped, I really appreciate it, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Advice

Regarding the comments by admin Hedwig in Washington over on Commons concerning closing your complaint re: Carriearchdale, I would strongly advise you to resist commenting or complaining about the closure. If Carriearchdale does anything antagonostic toward you there, don't respond to her, bring it to the attention of Hedwig. BMK (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken, I hear you. I'm actually going to stay out of there for awhile; it will be better for my sanity. Thanks for the suggestions, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have ignored my advice and responded to Hedwig. That was a very poor decision, because it now looks as if you are the one keeping the feud alive. I won't bother giving you any further guidance. BMK (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken, I followed your suggestions. I have not engaged in anything with Carrie, and will not be blamed for something that I didn't start, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Daniellagreen: As a whole, unless your doing a ton of work with files, I'd give Commons a wide berth. Don't give anyone an opportunity to attack you. Monitor for obvious attack edits but don't give that user an opportunity to antagonize you more :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 17:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Solarra, right. I anticipate that the requests will be decided on soon, so that should wrap things up with those particular considerations. I will definitely do as suggested. Thanks again, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Screw the barnstars; after the past few weeks, you need a nice cold beer (or 10) John from Idegon (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, User:John from Idegon! ;-) No one has given me a beer before on Wikipedia! Better yet, I should host a party! It's really blazin' hot where I am anyway, about 100* every day for the past week. I deserve a good cold one. :-) Thanks again, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your undeserved and unnecessary thanks for a trivial edit I made to an article you had created.

		The Civility Barnstar
		For surviving an unpleasant conflict in good spirits.

What I am really here for is to commiserate with you about, and congratulate you on your calm handling of, your recent painful feud. I was sure that you were the innocent party when I read the last few sections of her talk page. There, she was upbraided for telling verifiable lies in her message to Jimbo Wales; and instead of pleading incompetence or irrelevance, she responded by posting bigger lies. It is years, decades even, since I had to deal with a person like that. I hope it may be the same for you in future. Maproom (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Maproom, I appreciate your support and comments. If I see an edit that has been helpful in any way, even in the least way, I always take a moment to send a small "thank you" notification. This is because I believe if someone can do something better than I can, improve an article, and I can learn from it, I appreciate it. What gets me is when folks bring difficulty to articles due to their own rigidity and inability to help others understand their reasoning, and instead, create unnecessary conflict. There are those people who will believe they are always correct, regardless of the circumstances, even when they cannot be more wrong. Truly, I feel sorry for these folks, and I pray for them - and then, I do try to avoid them because I find that their manner of thinking is unproductive and unhelpful to the greater good. I believe that people should help and support each other. Even where things are extremely difficult, forgiveness (and self-protection) are very important in coping with and surviving such instances. :-) Thank you, again, and have a great day! Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Subscription (Signpost)

1. {{#target:User talk:Daniellagreen}}

Category for future reference

• Cat:Leaders of the University at Buffalo

Note: See Bill Greiner

Sir Taurus - redundant references

Hi Daniella -

I thought I would drop you a note regarding our edits on the redundant references in the Sir Taurus article. I think you have a misunderstanding of the concept of notability as it relates to inline references. It's a minor point but one that I think will help your editing not fall into the trap of citation overkill.

Basically, the point is this: Notability only requires the existence of multiple independent references. Notability doesn't require that we insert said references into the article multiple times (or at all, really). From WP:NRV: "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." Along that line, there is no reason to clutter the article with redundant references when a smaller number of refs will yield a more readable article.

Have a good weekend. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 03:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:EricEnfermero, It's good to hear from you, and I appreciate your comments. I think this really may be a matter of style. Some editors like citations and sourcing in articles as much as possible, and others don't. It is my perspective that not providing proper sourcing and citing in an article detracts from its quality. Of the several references that you removed from this particular article, they include information that can be used to reference other facts in the article, including the horse's progeny, geographic location, owner, and owner's farm. Sourcing and referencing is what helps to build up an article and improve its ratings. Having been a professional journalist, as well as a researcher, I understand the importance of referencing so that information is sourced. If an article is lacking sourcing and/or citations, I believe it is not of the quality that it should be, and I have often added to many articles in order to build them up in this manner. Also, if I read an article, I want to know the sources in order to prove support for the information that I read. If those are lacking, to me, the article does not ethically include the sourcing that it should. Because Wikipedia does not require all information to be sourced doesn't mean that it shouldn't be. Sourcing information makes an article better and more professional. Again, I appreciate your comments, though I also believe it is a matter of style. Because Wikipedia is a group effort, there are compromises that we all have to make. This is another of those compromises. Thanks, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Daniellagreen, just a helpful comment. This isn't a "matter of style" - take a look at the WP:GA criteria, which is a good basic guideline that all articles should eventually get to (in my humble opinion) If you have a dogpile of references, don't over-cite, just use ONE "best quality" one and then move on. As for the rest, either put them into the External links section (if they meet WP:EL or "park" them on the talk page. Take a look at a GA I did for Paynter (horse) for a shorter article, about the length of yours. If you want to see what can be done with a dogpile of references, watch the FAC that's going on right now on and article I have worked on to a substantial degree, California Chrome, which I have desperately tried to keep under 200 references, but I could have added thousands. You will see where I "parked" long lists of potential references on the talk page, many of which I wound up not using. In the FAC, I'm being asked to chop yet more and have (mostly) done so. Montanabw^(talk) 18:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Montanabw, Thanks for your comments. In the past year, there have only been 3 editors who have commented on my style of referencing. For the Sir Taurus article, there were 22 references included, all of which are relevant and can be used somewhere in the article. Or, further information can be added to the article to better use some references, particularly those 6 or so references that another editor removed from that article, for example. The way I always approach an article is with the philosophy of trying to improve and add to it, not remove or delete from it. I think, perhaps, too many editors may view editing as being required to delete, but true editing involves polishing the work of another. Therefore, my approach and outlook is simply different, but also not deficient just because it is different. Again, I look at it as having to compromise. I have taught writing for many years, and am one to go the extra mile in researching and referencing. That is what I was taught, what I learned, and what I put into practice. Also, just because something is policy, doesn't mean that it is best policy, and doesn't mean that everyone will agree on it. I understand that, but am also all about providing accurate information while sourcing and citing it thoroughly - which is also an ethical best practice. When I write or create something, it is going to be my best effort. To me, not referencing or sourcing something as well as possible is not a best effort, nor is it the most professional or ethical effort. This is definitely an area in which I believe that Wikipedia is lacking and can improve, and is why I enjoy adding references and sourcing to articles - because I believe that is what should be there in the first place. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, in regard to placing references on the talk page, one editor suggested that I not do that, and instead, place them in my sandbox in order to use for adding information to an article. This is because it is typically the desire to have as few external links attached to an article as possible. Different editors appear to approach these issues differently, as I've learned. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

We don't comment to you much because either a) we hope you get a clue by yourself, or b) because when we do, you respond like you just did above and don't listen to good advice. You persist in not listening and not learning. WP:CITE is the way it works here, it isn't just your opinion or "just the opinion" of others; it is a consensus reached by people in the community who learn how to collaborate. If you ignore it, you are asked to do a better job, and if not, you get criticized at best and blocked at worst. I offered you a good faith bit of advice based on the reality that I have been through this in the past and understand wikipedia culture, which you do not. If you wish to ignore my advice, then you are on your own, but don't come crying to me for help later when people tell you the same thing I just did. Montanabw^(talk) 19:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That works too, particularly if a talk page is archived. The down side is that other users don't know they exist so can't help by accessing them. Your call there. Do read WP:EL. Montanabw^(talk) 19:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice, but I look at this as a conversation. To you, it might be cut and dry, right or wrong. You simply think I'm not taking the advice, but I am. If I wasn't, I would've reverted everything. I look at the gray areas, and am willing to make compromises so that others such as yourself are satisfied. That's why I've stayed away from Standardbred. Wikipedia is a learning experience, and not everyone is going to agree. Also, a stub article or start class article is not going to become an A grade article overnight. In writing, it is important for writers to understand that writing is a process. To place A grade expectations on a stub or start class article is simply not realistic. I'm not out for making every article an A class article, as some appear to be. It is clear that our perspectives differ, as well as mine in regard to Eric. I don't go looking for either of you. Also know that I will never come crying to you. So, again, your perspectives are helpful, but I think you are reading too much, unnecessarily into this. Again, you are one of only 3 editors who has expressed any issue about this. To me, it's not really not that serious. Some folks can make it be a serious issue, but that's not really what Wikipedia is all about. Everyone has their own priorities, and for some, absolute perfection is the priority - it is not for me as I view it is a learning experience and simply doing the best that I can. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I told you how you can do a better job of editing; WP has its own style and culture. Putting a zillion references after the first word of an article isn't what you'd do in the real world either, I hope. Montanabw^(talk) 21:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Five isn't a zillion for goodness sakes, and all of those can be used elsewhere rather than deleted. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge

Note: Merged the Daniel and Flavia Gernatt Family Foundation to Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. today. See Help:Redirects for more info & for future reference. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr.

Daniellagreen: Your template for Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. looks fine, and I see both his son and wife in the template......I know nothing of the person. I would just give you a small warning about notability. I'm not sure how notable your article is.....If you have specific questions about template creation, fire away......Pvmoutside (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Pvmoutside, Thanks for your follow-up; I appreciate it. The article does achieve notability, so I thought I'd give the template a try. It's just that if you go to the actual template page, I added the daughters' names, but they're still not coming up in the template on the pages that I've added it to. Is that just a glitch in the system, that it doesn't update the edits right away? That hasn't happened before, so I was just wondering if you've experienced anything like that, and/or if it could be updated/corrected. Thanks again, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I have discovered that from time to time. After you fix a "glitch", it doesn't always fix the page automatically. If you go back to the page you are adding a template/category to, then hit the page edit button, you can then accept the page without making a change and your edits should appear. I did that and they appear now.....Pvmoutside (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info - that's good to know. I checked on your update and the template edits are now reflected as you stated. Thanks again, :-) Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Glad I could help!Pvmoutside (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

• Wikimedia in education: Education program gaining momentum in Israel

• Traffic report: The World Cup hangs on, though tragedies seek to replace it

• News and notes: Institutional media uploads to Commons get a bit easier

• Forum: Did you know?—good idea, needs reform

• Featured content: Why, they're plum identical!

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

• Book review: Knowledge or unreality?

• Recent research: Shifting values in the paid content debate

• News and notes: How many more hoaxes will Wikipedia find?

• Wikimedia in education: Success in Egypt and the Arab World

• Traffic report: Doom and gloom vs. the power of Reddit

• Featured content: Skeletons and Skeltons

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Dianna Gernatt Saraf for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dianna Gernatt Saraf 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/Dianna Gernatt Saraf 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.  NQ  talk 16:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr. for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr. 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/Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr. 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.  NQ  talk 16:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up to your AFDs re Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr. and Dianna Gernatt Saraf

To User:NQ - I appreciate your notifications to me regarding your AFD requests for the above identified articles. This will let you know that I have voted to keep the articles, and I commented on both of them regarding their established notability. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at your comments and reply. Meanwhile, please disclose that you are the article's creator in your keep vote, per WP:DISCUSSAFD. Thanks  NQ  talk 17:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record, important to point out is that these articles have been rated B and/or C class, pertinent to being maintained and not deleted. I have created a couple of stub class articles that have not been subject to potential deletion, but these two are? I think this shows that there is considerable disparity in the judgments of Wikipedia editors when articles are rated B or C class by some editors, but put up for deletion by others, particularly when stub class articles are overlooked and left alone. It should also be noted that both the Flavia C. Gernatt and Daniel and Flavia Gernatt Family Foundation articles were both subject to deletion by other editors. Both achieve notability, however the first article was kept, and the second article was merged. This also reflects that, even though a topic or subject can achieve notability, it seems to be more about the politics of the votes as to whether or not the article is maintained, merged, or deleted. Sometimes, it appears that the issue is more about politics, reflecting an inconsistency regarding how AFDs are handled. This is very unfortunate and disappointing. In my experience on Wikipedia, as well, it seems that many more editors are quick to put up articles for deletion who have not even created any articles. This is also unfortunate for Wikipedia's efforts because it seems to show that some editors are quicker to remove information than add to or create it. That is not the environment in which I gained my writing experience, nor is it what I teach. Wikipedia could be so much more if more people were willing to work together as a team to enhance and/or improve articles rather than desire them to be removed. Perhaps I should invest more of my time and efforts elsewhere, as this is a continual issue that keeps coming up and does not improve. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I can see that the editors who spew negatively are already coming out of the woodwork on these AFDs. Just more of the same all over again. This is just another opportunity taken to continually tear down this family and its businesses. I thought that Wikipedia was about providing information, but can truly see that it is extremely political. The issue should not be about what other editors refuse to see (that notability has been established), and about what they dislike (as in the "vanity" remark), but I can see that it is. Anyone can request an article for deletion. It is certainly easier for some to delete and tear down rather than build up, as I have come to see yet again. If the true aims are about discouragement, then you guys have been successful. This appears to be more about picking fights and continuing political agendas against these articles. These are definitely great ways to run good editors away. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what exactly I did to warrant such a response from you. I had concerns about individual notability regarding these articles, so I put it up for discussion in order to get a consensus - that is how a collaborative encyclopedia works. As many people have mentioned to you here, you need to stop attacking people who disagree with you. Regards  NQ  talk 21:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record, it should be noted that, you have my unwavering support should you choose to invest your time and efforts elsewhere. Don’t let Wikipedia hold you back. If you are here to stay, please understand that everything is not directed personally at you and there is certainly no ‘political agenda’. Regards,  NQ  talk 21:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Your above comment is yet another reflection of driving good editors away, and is a shameful reflection on you and on Wikipedia. I have experienced more than my fair share of attacks, discouragements, and disappointments here. What have I gotten out of it? Absolutely nothing. What have I invested into it? It appears, far too much. I expected that Wikipedia might be an organization where I could freely contribute, but see that I cannot. There will always be too many people who have negative comments to make about me and about the articles I create. Wikipedia's true motto should not be "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but instead, "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and then, have their edits deleted." Wikipedia doesn't keep people when their contributions are deleted. You guys who remain are the tough ones, and can obviously stomach the insensitivity. My standards, perspectives, and principles differ in that there are too many of these unnecessary situations that occur here. I know that when I'm gone, there will be many others to pick on. The harassment on Wikipedia that I have experienced, personally, and in relation to the articles that I have created is far over the top. You have achieved your goals. I have taken far too much time away from my family and my responsibilities simply for a hobby that I thought might provide some lasting enjoyment. I can see that I was wrong. I will see through your AFDs of these articles, but can see that this is just another organization in which there are too many who are unsupportive. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Per your request on my talk page, I have taken a look at the revised article and I see no new information to reconsider my decision. Owning an aircraft, managing his company airstrip or being listed in business directories are not, in my opinion, valid reasons for having a standalone article. I have nothing more to add. Regards,  NQ  talk 00:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Your comment reflects that you have not done any in-depth research to understand that detailed information about the subject is provided in several Google books (particularly those about classic cars), as well as in newspapers throughout the country. Your afds are biased and do not reflect good faith. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any bias. Montanabw with whom you had significant conflict with in the past, has voted to keep the article. That alone shows the good faith nature of this Afd. You are the one assuming bad faith by repeatedly accusing me and other editors of having a personal vendetta against you. Trust me there isn't.  NQ  talk 01:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The bias is that 4 of these articles related to this family and their businesses that I created have been placed for afd, though they are all notable. To bring up past conflict regarding Montanabw reflects a very minor issue when compared to that created by Carriearchdale. Have you put these articles up for afd because of the past issue with Montanabw? It should be noted that 5 editors on Wikipedia who have disagreed with me on various issues have continued to track, stalk, and make deletes and conflict regarding various of my articles. Policies that enable this and do not stop it are not a good reflection here. I have not spent numerous hours here to be continuously offended, misjudged, and attacked, nor to have those articles that I have created experience the same treatment. The point is that notability is obvious here, and good faith has not been assumed. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"Have you put these articles up for afd because of the past issue with Montanabw?" - Where did u get that from? Seriously, I can't engage with you if you are being confrontational and so quick to assume bad faith. This is exactly the reason why I chose not to engage you earlier. NQ  talk 01:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You brought up the issue about Montanabw, so my question is relevant. I cannot see any reasons why these articles should be put up for afd other than it takes 10 seconds to do so instead of a few hours to create and improve them. Even with having added further reliable sources that reflect increased notability, it is still obviously easier to believe one is correct than to rethink their actions. Perhaps one day those of you will have a clue. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I did NOT put up the articles for deletion because of any issues you may or may not have had with other editors. I explained my reasons at the nomination page. That being said, I am willing to work with you in the spirit of this being a collaborative encyclopedia, if you promise to assume good faith and not attack me. As far as I can tell, there is nothing to be done regarding the article on Dianna Gernatt Saraf. As far as Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr. is concerned, I am attempting a complete rewrite to remove the clutter and make it more easier to read. I sincerely doubt if my attempt will help regarding the outcome of the AfD discussion. But I'll give it a try. Regards,  NQ  talk 02:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

When someone makes controversial afds, it should be expected by the requester that there will be disagreement. So, in other words, the Dianna Gernatt Saraf article has been so severely damaged that it is now irreparable. I appreciate your rewrite on the Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr. article, though much pertinent information and references were also removed, and the lead needs expansion. When you do an afd, there is no going back; the damage has been done when it could have been avoided in both of these cases. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding Dianna Gernatt Saraf, I'm afraid she simply isn't notable enough to warrant her own article. I know you disagree and I respect your right to do that. Please go through her AfD discussion for a better understanding of why other editors seem to think so. In the case of Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr., the rewrite was done to remove the clutter and make it easier to read. When a page is cluttered with citations (I understand your rationale for doing this), often pertinent information gets lost in the over crowded content and sources which mention the subject of the article merely in passing. I trimmed down the article to conform to basic Wikipedia standards and I believe I have included all the pertinent information. Notability plays an important factor here. "What is Mr Gernatt notable for?" - CEO of Gernatt Family of Companies which already has a standalone article. All the other reference to his notability are not in my opinion, enough to warrant an article. The lead often highlights stuff that the person is most notable for, and expanding the lead further especially when the notability itself is questioned will only hurt the article. I have also tried to include the relevant sources that directly mention the subject. If I missed anything, please let me know. I'm sincerely trying to help you. I along with others appreciate and recognise that you are indeed a fine editor. Quoting from the AfD discussion "....the wonderful and even heroic efforts by the article creator......a thorough and well written biography....". If your work gets scrutinised, it isn't always a personal reflection on you. Regards,  NQ  talk 21:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I have read the afd on Dianna, and I understand the other editors' comments. It is just that my understanding is, based on Wiki's guidelines, that she meets notability. It shouldn't be about whether or not someone who has met Wiki's notability guidelines has met "enough" notability as perceived by other editors. To me, the same is true of the article about Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr.. Notability has been established per Wiki's guidelines, but some such as yourself do not believe it is "enough" to warrant an article. It shouldn't be about personal interpretations regarding what constitutes notability, but should be about that Wiki's standards for notability have been met. I do appreciate your effort at cutting down what you believe is not relevant. Note that I have made some corrections to your edits, and re-expanded the lead. If the article gets deleted, that I re-expanded the lead won't matter anyway. Also, thanks for your compliments, however I can't get back all of those 10-12 hours or so that I've invested in both of these articles. The repeated afd conflicts have solidified my decision for lesser involvement here. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Editors are quoting relevant policies while giving their rationale for voting. Editors (including me) believe that the articles do not meet notability standards set by Wikipedia. That being said, if you genuinely believe it is personal and in case the article gets deleted, there is always WP:DRV, where you can appeal the deletion and a fresh set of editors will take a look. If I hadn't listed these articles at AfD, sooner or later, someone else would have. I see that DGG, a highly respected admin here, has commented at the AfD discussion and is proposing to list Gernatt Family of Companies for deletion. My only advice is that you don't take it personally and try to understand that this is the very nature by which Wikipedia works.Regards,  NQ  talk 21:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding my Efforts on Wikipedia

In my past one year as a member of Wikipedia, I have created 18 articles (one was merged). Of those 18 articles, 4 have been put up for deletion by three other editors. Of those three editors, two have never created any articles; only one of those editors has ever created any articles on Wikipedia. Regarding these four requests for article deletion, they have all been directed at articles that I created in association with the Gernatt family and/or their businesses. All articles have met the required notability standards set by Wikipedia. Even so, one editor who placed one of these articles up for deletion (the one who has been an article creator) believed it not to include the required notability, even though it did. Experienced editors have informed me that Wikipedia can be a place that is very political, with editors' own perspectives getting in the way of viewing articles as having met the required criteria. I have definitely experienced that in these several, unnecessary afds regarding these articles. It should be added that even when more reliable sources were added by me to these articles to further increase their notability, such editors who either requested the afds and/or made votes to delete the articles have not appeared to review and/or reconsider their votes and comments in a manner that is at least more open-minded, less biased, and assuming of good faith. That I have been continually accused of having some personal involvement with this family, whether as a family member, employee, or friend, is misjudgmental and inaccurate. To continually have to defend myself against accusations that I take as offensive and lacking in insight is tiresome, disappointing, and discouraging. I am a person who has repeatedly called for professional courtesy on Wikipedia - assuming good faith is similar to that. Not to assume good faith and to assume that one is always correct, without considering other perspectives, does not reflect cooperation and professionalism, but conflict, and politics that promote certain editors' personal perspectives over those of others. I have contributed to Wikipedia so that thorough and accurate information is provided to the public on issues and persons of interest to me. These people are notable and should be of interest to the greater public. Due to the many unfounded afds on these articles, reflecting a lack of consideration for the time and effort invested into them, as well as a refusal of all those editors who are against these articles to contribute to, enhance, and/or build them up in any way, shows that the principles by which people of good faith and courtesy work are not necessarily followed. Again, for these reasons, I am scaling back my efforts following the close of these afds. For these reasons, I will also no longer be creating any further articles on Wikipedia. Why create something that meets guidelines and policies only to have it - and myself - repeatedly torn down? The best way to drive people away from contributing to Wikipedia is to delete their contributions, particularly without making any effort to improve them. More cooperation rather than conflict is needed in order to maintain people who have much to offer. I appreciate the experience to be able to contribute to Wikipedia, as well as those helpful folks who have supported me and who have provided me with advice and instruction. I have certainly learned alot and will be around, but in a lesser capacity. Thank you, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

advice

Your work is appreciated--most of it is good work on important subjects. But on borderline subjects, my experience is that it is not wise to do extensive work until you are fairly sure that they will be considered acceptable. And even then, not to write at a level of detail proportionate to the subject. Every since I came here 7 years ago, I've been relatively critical about local subjects--perhaps too critical. But what attracted my criticism is the articles with extreme detail devoted to people who were relatively minor--even if they were by our practices notable, such as members of a state legislature.

The only real guideline here is what people think should be in WP. The policies and guidelines and practices are so diverse and contradictory that it is always possible to find a respectable argument for almost anything. The only good way is to go slowly and carefully and pay attention to opinion. I, like a great many of us, have my own favorite subject areas that I think should be covered in greater depth--sometimes much greater depth. I don't work on them beyond what I know will be tolerated, though I may throw out an occasional probe to test the current consensus. No individual can greatly change WP--it's just too large, and many of the participants are remarkably stubborn. But it is possible to effect some change by taking a long view of things, and being moderate enough to gather supporters. Affecting community opinion is a slow process; if you're interested in local politics you should be familiar with that.

Regardless of what I think on any one specific article, I want to encourage you to stay, but to stay and work effectively. I'll always be glad to give advice--advice based on not what I personally want, but on what I think will work here, based by a considerable experience. Just ask at my talk page. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

To DGG per your comment on the Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr. afd: Certainly, why not list all of the articles I have created for deletion!!! As I recall, some of them include Sir Taurus, Gallo Blue Chip, White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, Bill Greiner, F.C. Richardson, Ellicott Creek Bike Path, Pat McGee Trail, Dan Gernatt Farms, Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr., Dianna Gernatt Saraf, and what the heck, why not throw in Flavia C. Gernatt for a double dose of afd! I'm sorry that I ever came on Wikipedia. Haters. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I want to echo DGG's comments on your work. For a (somewhat) new editor, the quality of your work and dedication to the project are impressive, not to mention your patience with the significant barriers to entry that this community imposes on newcomers. I do hope that you decide to stick around, regardless of the current kerfuffle.

On the AfDs, I can see how having so many of the articles you've created be nominated for deletion can be hurtful, especially when it seems to be just a handful of editors ganging up on you, it can feel like bad faith nominations. I want to politely turn the WP:AGF back on you, though. It's quite normal here for an editor to come across an AfD discussion, and in thoughtfully considering the article, follow links to related articles and find others that merit the same deletion discussion, in their opinion. And so one editor, in good faith, may nominate many articles on a related topic. Although it's certainly rotten to have been the creator of so many related articles and have them all suddenly up for deletion, you shouldn't take it personally or as an attack on your work. In fact, that is a good way to get burnt out here. Like DGG said, some people here are remarkably stubborn. This is better stated in the apparently-humorous essay on don't-give-a-fuck-ism, but you shouldn't take that too seriously either. I'm certainly not saying you shouldn't care about what you do - that is a most admirable quality.

Anyway, tl;dr, I think you'll do well here, in the long run. And there are always people around willing to support and give advice. Ivanvector (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I cannot understand what makes you such a staunch advocate of this family, with whom you have stated you have no personal or professional connection, but I said in one of the AFDs that I though you had done thorough work on finding every publication which mentioned the subject and including it, and that the articles were well written. There are a lot of notable subjects to write about: why are you so glued to this family? How did you hear about them? I truly hope you stick around. When you repeatedly assert that notability was established, it shows a lack of familiarity with WP:BIO and with what happens when bio articles about people of slight notability get nominated. Do not take it as a personal attack if someone says your article does not satisfy WP:N or WP:V. I am not out to get you and I have not seen indications that anyone else is. Regards, Edison (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Reality on notability

Frankly, though I have had my disagreements with this editor, the Afd stuff that is hitting here is ridiculous. We have articles on shopping malls that are all far less notable than these companies, and I always use the standard of Lawnchair Larry as the bottom end. Surely these people are more notable than some cricket player who played one year of pro sport in Sri Lanka? Montanabw^(talk) 00:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently not. Edison (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't stomach any more of the hatefulness. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8