Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cullen328 (talk | contribs) at 04:43, 26 June 2014 (→Dispute resolution: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Talk

For past talk discussions, please refer to my archives. Daniellagreen (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thunder of the East Marching Band Logo

To Ejgreen77: Hi, How's it going? I noticed that you updated the Thunder of the East Marching Band article to include a logo in the info box. I was wondering if that is the only logo that the band has? If it is, it is sooo UB to only promote a perspective of the band that is sexist. The logo excludes women. Are there any logos out there that show male and female marchers? It is not an all-male band. This is just another reflection of how UB's leaders promote UB as an institution that is primarily "for" men. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Its the only logo that I'm currently aware of. I don't think it promotes men over women any more then I think it discriminates against drummers by only showing a horn player, but that's JMHO. BTW, I removed the logo from the user pages. As this is a non-free logo, the only place it's allowed to be used is on the main Thunder of the East Marching Band page. I don't want the Image Police coming down on you, lol!!! Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi EJ, I searched for a logo that would represent a more equal perspective that is inclusive of men and women, and was unable to locate one. Shame on UB. It is just one of many things there have been become more sexist. No reflection on you. Thanks for protecting me from the 'image policing.' Daniellagreen (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr.

Thanks

Hi OccultZone, Thanks for reviewing Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. and rating it B class! I appreciate your efforts! Daniellagreen (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Your revert of my additions to Standardbred

To: Montanabw: Instead of reverting and removing the information that I added to this article, why not add to it. If you have a concern that this notable man, Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. should not be included simply because he was not an originator of the breed, then a section can be added to the article about that, as well as including notable breeders. I go through this too much on Misplaced Pages where editors simply take out information, without trying to add to or improve it. It is continually frustrating and disappointing. Typically, then male editors remove information that the women editors have added. This is another of those situations. Daniellagreen (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Revert of my additions

Instead of reverting and removing the information that I added to this article, Standardbred, my information could have been added to. The section that I added about notable breeders that included Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. is relevant to this article. If there was a concern that this section or information should not be included simply because he was not an originator of the breed, then such a section can be added to the article about that, as well as including the section I added about notable breeders. Then, that section can be added to, as well. Then, an appearance of "undue weight" would not be reflected. This is an issue that could be presented here on the talk page prior to just deleting the information. How is one supposed to build up an article if her/his attempts are deleted? I go through this too much on Misplaced Pages where editors simply take out information, without trying to add to or improve it. It is continually frustrating and disappointing when one's work is simply deleted without any attempts at adding to or improving it. Daniellagreen (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Source

http://standardbredpleasurehorse.org/horses.html is not a very reliable source. Per WP:RS, it mostly copies from other, better sources. I went to the International Museum of theHorse (which is a more reliable source, as would be sources like the US Trotting Assn) to verify some of your edits at the Standardbred article and tagged the rest. I just put in well over a hour's worth of work fixing all your mistakes, and for someone who's been around Misplaced Pages for awhile, I thought you would know that you can either use the citation templates the appear when you click "cite" in the edit window or else use reflinks (here) to formate bare URLs.Montanabw 00:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw, I can see that you've been around Wiki for awhile. I see that you've been making more deletions to the Standardbred article than additions for the past 7 years now. So, if you want to make reverts to other editors' additions, it should be expected to accept the fallout that comes from it. As for my "mistakes," you have not included dates of publication for your cites, only retrieval dates, so I consider that a mistake. Regarding the manner in which I cite, you have been the first editor to take issue with it. In fact, I was instructed to cite in that manner by a veteran editor who helps in the Tea Room. And, the manner in which I cite generally provides more information than the more formal structure, so that is my preference, and one which I am entitled to use. Getting back to the real issues, the article could have been improved without your deletion of my material. It never sets a good tone when editors just delete without trying to improve. It looks to me like that has been happening for awhile with this article, and something needed to be said. Daniellagreen (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up to additional comments on Talk Page of Standardbred Typically, its the men who make an excessive number of reverts, so I'm surprised that you are a woman. As a more senior editor, I would have expected better from you in trying to de-escalate this matter. I also see you've already archived my initial comments from your talk page. Also, this man is no relation to me and is not connected to me in any way, so I take offense with your passing judgment on me about that. That is uncalled for. My point is that my contributions are definitely something that could have been discussed on this talk page before making a sweeping revert of my contributions, without adding to and/or improving it. That was my issue; that has still not been resolved, and I see that it won't be. I'm not surprised. Daniellagreen (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up to IntothatDarkness on Talk Page of Standardbred The issue is that my contributions were reverted without any attempt at improving or adding to them, nor the issue first being discussed on the talk page. If you look at the editor who made the revert, she has made more deletions than additions in her 7 years of editing this article. Why? Why not add to and/or improve what others are attempting to contribute? As for Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr., adding a section about notable breeders, I believe, is relevant to the article. And, contrary to your comment, the section was not lengthy, but only two sentences. I didn't even have a chance to add more to it before it was deleted. Very sad, but not surprising. Daniellagreen (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to post the same thing in three different places. I've answered at Standardbred, suggest you continue there. Montanabw 05:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Citation style

Hi Daniellagreen, a note about citation style: if you are adding the first citations to an article you can use whatever style you like. However, if you are working on an article with an established citation style, you should do your best to match it rather than using your own style or trying to change that of the existing references. See WP:CITEVAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the info. This is the first that anyone has informed me of that. Daniellagreen (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(watching) I advise you to pick your style carefully when you begin an article, because if you want to change later, the watchers of CITEVAR (a guideline of good intentions, but with sometimes absurd consequences) may request that you ask permission first. Don't think this is kafkaesque, it happened. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up to Standardbred

To Montanabw, :Your misjudgment is, again, uncalled for and I take offense to it. I, also, am not interested in wasting my time with a superior editor as yourself who is not considerate toward other editors. Daniellagreen (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw, While this information is helpful, and appears to be what I should have been initially instructed when I came on Misplaced Pages, it still fails to address the initial issues of my concern. You appear to provide much information to support your actions of reverting people's contributions on this particular article. On first making my attempted contributions to this article, I reviewed the history and knew what I was already up against in observing the revert history, most of which has been completed by yourself. To me, that makes an appearance of exclusivity in an article. If you had a concern, rather than make a complete delete of my contributions, again, it could have been first discussed here and a template could have been added to that section. An example of an editor doing this can be found in the nuclear waste section of Cattaraugus Creek. As for your statement about my being a "kiddo," I think that 30 years in the writing and editing business, including being a newspaper editor, myself, and teacher of writing for the past 16 years qualifies me as a seasoned writer and editor. My observation was that you were unable to be considerate toward what I attempted to contribute. You can state whatever reasons you like for your sweeping deletions of my contributions, however it remains that you have deleted all of my information and 6 of 7 of my references. This article has been on Misplaced Pages for the past 11 years, but when I came along, it was still barely out of stub category. There were 4 references attached to this article when I came to it, this article being identified as high in importance, but lacking in sourcing and therefore, in quality. Repeated attempts by many other editors to contribute and/or improve the article have been erased by you; that is how it appears to me. Other editors who may have good things to contribute have been driven away from doing so, as a result. Reviewing the article's history, that is very obvious and cannot be disputed. In your possible pursuit of perfection for this article, then, it appears to me to be quite imperfect, and exclusive to you. While I have learned something about referencing, this has also been the article in which I have now had my worst experience on Misplaced Pages. For those reasons, I will not be editing it in the future. Regarding this discussion, I will place it where I like. You have evidenced that you can successfully police this article, but not my freedom regarding where to post my comments. Daniellagreen (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up to Standardbred

Your misjudgment is, again, uncalled for and I take offense to it. I, also, am not interested in wasting my time with a superior editor as yourself who is not considerate toward other editors. Daniellagreen (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw, While this information is helpful, and appears to be what I should have been initially instructed when I came on Misplaced Pages, it still fails to address the initial issues of my concern. You appear to provide much information to support your actions of reverting people's contributions on this particular article. On first making my attempted contributions to this article, I reviewed the history and knew what I was already up against in observing the revert history, most of which has been completed by yourself. To me, that makes an appearance of exclusivity in an article. If you had a concern, rather than make a complete delete of my contributions, again, it could have been first discussed here and a template could have been added to that section. An example of an editor doing this can be found in the nuclear waste section of Cattaraugus Creek. As for your statement about my being a "kiddo," I think that 30 years in the writing and editing business, including being a newspaper editor, myself, and teacher of writing for the past 16 years qualifies me as a seasoned writer and editor. My observation was that you were unable to be considerate toward what I attempted to contribute. You can state whatever reasons you like for your sweeping deletions of my contributions, however it remains that you have deleted all of my information and 6 of 7 of my references. This article has been on Misplaced Pages for the past 11 years, but when I came along, it was still barely out of stub category. There were 4 references attached to this article when I came to it, this article being identified as high in importance, but lacking in sourcing and therefore, in quality. Repeated attempts by many other editors to contribute and/or improve the article have been erased by you; that is how it appears to me. Other editors who may have good things to contribute have been driven away from doing so, as a result. Reviewing the article's history, that is very obvious and cannot be disputed. In your possible pursuit of perfection for this article, then, it appears to me to be quite imperfect, and exclusive to you. While I have learned something about referencing, this has also been the article in which I have now had my worst experience on Misplaced Pages. For those reasons, I will not be editing it in the future. Regarding this discussion, I will place it where I like. You have evidenced that you can successfully police this article, but not my freedom regarding where to post my comments. Daniellagreen (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Daniellagreen. The revert history of an article can point to multiple issues and should not be used as a means to discredit another editor.Only if you were to investigate every revert and look at its context would one even begin to get a picture for why those reverts were made. And even then much of what you'd come up with would be conjecture. If you come onto an article where the ref style has been established best practice is to stay with that style. If you come onto an article that has been worked on by some one who is an expert in that area, and Montana is in the equine area, the practice that will cause the least contention is to look closely at what that editor has to say.

Although it can be difficult don't be attached to content you want to add. Its up to you to show that content is compliant and if its not, you can expect to have it removed. f you really have an interest in the article rather than an attachment to an edit, and believe me we all had those attachments, look for better content. Try not to assume anything about another editor. Focus on the edit and discussion on that edit. If you deal with an edit by going after the editor very little will be accomplished. This isn't meant to be preachy. We all experienced what you have and what Montana has on this issue. Its how we all learn to deal with disagreement and contention that makes this tolerable. Just try not to be attached to your edits. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC))

Daniellagreen. Your references were not from reliable sources, they were mostly from a commercial for-profit site that mostly copied material without full attribution from yet other, better sources. Your attempt to put in stuff about some minor figure was WP:UNDUE and in general, you clearly have an awful lot of easily bruised ego and you whine a lot. Has no one ever told you "no" before? This is an encyclopedia, it is not a newspaper, it is not a promotional advertising medium, it is not a storytelling venue for family histories, and it requires a certain style and format that can be learned by observing others and having a willingness to learn - and being willing to be edited. The Standardbred article is, I agree, not very good as it sits, but frankly, as I have stated before, all I really was asking was for you to not make more work for others by adding yet more things that would later have to be cleaned up, redone and otherwise fixed.

I also can ask that you stop posting on MY talk page. I can't tell you where to post elsewhere, do what you want, but I WILL report you for harassment if you post on my talk page again about the Standardbred article; post at that article's talk page if you want, or here, but I'm tired of dealing with you on my talk page. I am also moving the other user's reply to you here as well because you seem to have trouble listening. Montanabw 22:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The treatment I've experienced (re: Standardbred)

This is for the record that Montanabw has threatened to report me for "harassment" regarding my commentary to her on this article. It is unfortunate that when people don't get their way and/or are unable to cope with what they don't want to hear that they find it necessary to use intimidation, get ugly, and make threats. This is definitely a poor reflection on Misplaced Pages and what it should be all about. Daniellagreen (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you still feel that it may be a gender-gap issue, as you previously implied? I am interested in the gendergap problem and the interaction between its reality and perception, so your insights would be useful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Demiurge, In those experiences that I have that were problematic regarding reverts that I perceived were excessive and/or unnecessary, they were made by men. Perhaps that is a reflection that most editors on Misplaced Pages are male? However, no, after this experience, I see that there is no longer a distinction since I've now experienced the same thing with a female editor. This experience with Montanabw is the worst that I've had on Misplaced Pages. Although I've already stated that I will no longer edit this article, things have continued and gotten worse. I was just about to go to 'dispute resolution' when I got your message. This has deteriorated to a point that is unnecessarily ugly and upsetting. Daniellagreen (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Demiurge:, I have no idea how to get through to this editor that posting the same attacks against me in three different places, including my talk page, is frowned upon at wikipedia. She made poor edits, I fixed them, explained why and for my troubles, well, you watchlist my page, you've followed the drama. This user is "upset and offended" - well frankly, so am I; this user needs to stop attacking people who disagree with her and stop making false accusations.Montanabw 00:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

This is to inform that I have filed with dispute resolution regarding this matter in regard to User:Montanabw. Daniellagreen (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a huge waste of time to me. I looked at your edits and they were definitely problematic. Montanabw was correct to revert you. Now, I understand that made you upset, and believe me, I've been there so I know how you feel. But the way to proceed now is to calmly discuss your proposed edits on the talk page per WP:BRD. You may actually learn something, as we all do in a discussion with someone who has a different POV. Looking at the article in question, it definitely needs a lot of work. Perhaps this is an opportunity for you and Montanabw to work together and improve it. Don't invest so much time and energy into the dispute, put it into improving the article. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, old friend. I have noticed in the past that you can be a bit "sensitive" about editing disagreements. Viriditas is giving you really good advice here. I have not delved into the details, and there is no need for anyone to take sides here. What you were told above is the best advice; the second best choice would be to walk away from this particular article and find another to work on. If the subject is important to you, then open your mind and take a deep breath and work it out, recognizing that the method Misplaced Pages uses to get to the "best truth" on any subject is reasoned and rational disagreement leading to a consensus. If its not, well I got a whole big long list of school articles that need work I would be happy to send you. Keep editing, Daniella...but keep smiling too. John from Idegon (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I have read the discussions, and I am amazed at the abuse that you have heaped on Montanabw, who is probably our best editor on equestrian topics. Reverting improper and inappropriate edits is one of the things that expetienced editors must do. I encourage you to rethink your approach here, in a major, fundamental way. And please work to remove that chip from your shoulder. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)