User talk:Happy225

Hello, Happy225, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! axrealmdotcom (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

April 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Patricia Cloherty. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Nancy ^talk 12:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war at Patricia Cloherty. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Nancy ^talk 10:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being warned you resumed your campaign of reverting other editors contributions as soon as the protection on the article expired. When your block has expired please take this dispute to the article's talk page. You might also like to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's attitude towards editors assuming apparent ownership of articles as it appears from your actions that you seem to think you have complete editorial control over Ms Cloherty's bio. Nancy ^talk 10:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Nancy. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Nancy ^talk 10:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nancy:

It appears that another editor is vandalising the contributions to the page on Patricia Cloherty but deleting public information. I suspect that this is a PR company trying to hide factual information. It would make sense to include all verifiable information in the article rather than deleting other editor's contributions.

For the record, Patricia Cloherty is a venture capitalist, but she is not recognized as an internationally known venture capitalist. She was recently removed from her position at Delta Private Equity as noted in Private Equity Online (April 22, 2009) by a takeover from United Financial Group. It appears that the other editor (Lilu) is attempting to promote the subject rather than provide factual information.

I suggest including both texts as long as the information provided is factual and not subjective in content.

Happy225 (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Happy225[reply]

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Patricia Cloherty, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Patricia Cloherty

Hi, there seems to be a dispute on the Patricia Cloherty in which you are involved in. I looked at the article talk page and the edit summary, and it seems that you are replacing sourced content with unverified content. Of course you are welcome to add the content if it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. However, there were no sources provided for the content you added. As a result, your content keeps getting reverted. If you are able to find acceptable sources for the content, please do so and add it to the article. Thanks. If you have any questions, please message me on my talk page. Netalarm 16:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Patricia Cloherty, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Netalarm 01:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take part in the discussion that is going on at Talk:Patricia Cloherty before you edit. Netalarm 01:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Patricia Cloherty sources

Hi, I reverted the changes you made to Patricia Cloherty's bio. Please see the discussion page for details. Please make sure your edits meet wiki guidelines. Thanks. Cgettings (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Patricia Cloherty, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have been ignoring attempts to discuss with you your rewriting of this article, removing sourced content and adding unsourced content. Cease this. Either follow our policies and work with others, or you may be sanctioned. This could include article or topic banning, blocking, or banning. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Received reply from editor on my talk page.

Happy225, you're free to add that information when you find reliable sources that support the information you're adding. Thanks. Netalarm 17:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manual reversion

Please do not undo major re-writes by manual copy-pasting an old version of an article, as you did at Patricia Cloherty. Your edits seem to be aimed at re-inserting unsourced material that frames the subject in a negative light. This is clearly disruptive. You also reinstated an old AFD notice and marked your edit as m (minor). Both are not appropriate. You have been blocked for similar activity in the past and may be blocked again if you continue. Stalwart111 10:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced edits - final warning

Reverting unsourced claims in a biography of a living person is not vandalism. Adding unsourced information to a biography can be vandalism - please stop doing so. You have been warned several times already and have been blocked at least once. Information you add must be verified by reliable sources and must not be original research. Your want to turn the article into an attack page is disruptive and frankly nonsensical. Please discuss any edits you wish to make on the article talk page. Stalwart111 11:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have correctly sourced Cloherty's age from Forbes (which should be a reliable and credible source). Despite this, you have repeatedly deleted relevant and worthy edits. Wikipedia should be timely and up to date, but you seem to be vandalizing edits from other users. Please stop doing so. The source of Cloherty's age is reliable (Forbes among others) and is noted in numerous other articles about herHappy225 (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Happy225[reply]

And yet you have failed to properly provide one of those many supposed sources to verify your claims and have removed the explaination of what was wrong with them. Stalwart111 22:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stalwart111 22:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly do not understand why adding the age of someone (sourced from Forbes no less) could be considered vandalism. It's as if you are trying to censor any additional edits which bring value to wikipedia. Can you explain why you are so vehemently against listing someone's age? It makes no sense to me and I consider your removal of relevant and timely updates to be vandalismHappy225 (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Happy225[reply]

You obviously understand why your edits were reverted because you removed my explaination from this page and replaced it with your argument above. Everyone can see your talk page history so your sneakiness won't work. You didn't "source" the claim at all - you added a direct link (a bad link that didn't work) without reference tags. I fixed the link and had a look - it didn't verify your claim at all - the profile, in fact, says she is 69. So either it's wrong and not a reliable source or it's right and your claim is patently false. Until you have a reliable source, please do not add your claims to the article. Given the controversy over the article that resulted from your previous vandalism, perhaps you should discuss some of these things on the article talk page. Stalwart111 22:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that you are mistaken. If you look at the source (Forbes, which cannot be disputed as a reliable source), it states that Cloherty's age in 2011 is 69. We are now at the end of 2012, so her age is now 70 which is what is stated on my revision. Please stop deleting updates to the biography which are accurate and factual. We all need to ensure that Wikipedia is kept up to date for the benefit of all readersHappy225 (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Happy225[reply]

Actually, it doesn't say that at all - except for the fact that the most up-to-date records are from 2011, nothing in that profile confims a date of publication. In fact the copyright notice is for 2012. So your suggestion that the source "states" that at all is pure original research - it is based on your own guess-work as to what the source says. And, in fact, Forbes profiles (with no date, no author and, according to your suggestion, no update since 2011) isn't a great source. Forbes might be reliable but that doesn't mean everything they have ever published is automatically reliable. It would probably be reliable enough if it didn't require original research to come to the conclusion you did. Besides which, again, you didn't actually link to that "source" anyway. Your link was broken and wasn't included as a reference. Anyway, at least one admin has agreed your edits were vandalism and has protected the page so it cannot be edited. I strongly suggest, again, you make use of the article talk page to discuss these things before trying to insert your original research again. Stalwart111 10:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please....should we state that Cloherty is "69 and holding"? You seem to believe that unless a published source states that you get older each year then you are perpetually at the same age. I checked the link and it is not broken. It goes directly to the Forbes website. You seem to be spending an enormous amount of time trying to prevent other Wikipedia users from updating this page, which leads me to believe that you may be employed by Cloherty. Please allow other readers to update Wikipedia for the benefit of all readersHappy225 (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Happy225[reply]

Seriously? The link was broken when you inserted it - it had two http tags. Not difficult to fix but clearly not a working link. I'm employed by the subject? LOL. I'm Australian and hadn't read the article until I fixed it by removing your attacks, POV rubbish and WP:UNDUE issues. You've been at this since at least 2009 and it's not the first time you've accused random editors of being employed by the subject in retaliation for stopping your vandalism. Get a grip. You obviously have a WP:COI and yours is a single-purpose account with regard to this one subject. You are clearly WP:NOTHERE to build Wikipedia - only to do damage to this one article. And for what it's worth, I didn't prevent you from editing - the article was protected to stop your persistent vandalism by an admin. You can edit any other article, but you haven't. Ever. Stalwart111 04:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A new source

I have found yet another reference to Cloherty's correct age (which is 70 years old and not 69 as you keep insisting)...please refer to http://www.dpep.ru/eng/press-room/publications/news-current.wbp?content_type=print&news-article-id=663A27A9-8FF0-4AC0-A322-68C3508D67B9 I would appreciate it if you would stop this ridiculous exchange and include my edit. FYI, each person gets a year older ever year (even you). Have a nice day!

I moved this note from the top of this page and gave it a heading. Please actually read my comments before ascribing a position to me that I have clearly not put forward. I have not suggested (or "insisted" on) a date of birth or age at all - in fact that has been my point from the start. You were unable to decide if you were fighting for 70 or 72 - claiming each on different occasions. There was no reliable source and so including a date of birth or age was not appropriate. You have found a source that confirms her year of birth. So adding (born 1942) after the subject's name and citing the source above would be fine. It doesn't give a date of birth so we shouldn't speculate as to her exact age (besides which, that would not conform with WP:MOS). I said from the very start - if you could find a reliable source to verify your claim, then it should be included. Your insistence on original research was the only thing I had an issue with to begin with. Having reviewed the history of the article I later took issue with your historical attempts to turn the article into an WP:ATTACKPAGE and your rush to accuse anti-vadalism editors of being employed by the subject. You need to read WP:NOTHERE and have a think about the real reasons you edit Wikipedia. Given the single-purpose nature of your editing, you are not likely to get very far in your campaign against this one subject. But feel free to suggest her year of birth be added to the article. If you provide the source above, you'll get no argument from me. Stalwart111 03:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for your edit summary and comment above - where have I ever suggested people don't age? You put forward an undated source, guessed a date and then suggested 2 + 2 = 3. My opposition to that is not a misunderstanding of chronology or biology - your assertion is either plainly mischievous, a poor attempt at a personal attack or a complete misunderstanding of publishing and sourcing here at Wikipedia. Either way, it achieves nothing so you're best to move on. Stalwart111 03:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source I cited was from Forbes, which was published in 2011. Since we are now into 2013, I don't think you can continue to insist that Cloherty is 69 unless she is frozen in time. Rather than waste any more time on this, you can simply include "born in 1942" which is already cited in her biography on the link that I provided. Regarding the claim that I vandalized the biography, I think you need to look back at what was included by my edits. These were from her interview with Private Equity International magazine. I don't see how a published and respectable source, with information provided by Cloherty, could be considered "vandalism". Whenever I made an edit, it was reversed by someone who did not want to include updated information. After this experience, I decided that it was useless to try to edit any more on Wikipedia or to make any more monetary contributions to the site. Also, can you explain to me how including someone's date of birth could be considered "vandalism"? Happy225 (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Happy225[reply]

The source you cited was from Forbes but (as I explained) there was nothing to confirm the date of publication. So your guess as to the chronology was exactly that - a guess. I have never insisted that she is 69 - your interpretation of my position (as I said above) is deliberately misleading. My position was and is, that the edit you made was without a reliable source because it relied on WP:OR. As to your previous edits, you cited a single line from a multi-page article, gave it your own (again, OR) interpretation and then gave it WP:UNDUE weight in the article. It was the only vaguely negative line in a long profile and you put it in the article lede with your own negative spin. That is plainly disruptive. Edit-warring to insert material you know to be improperly sourced (though you may disengenuously claim ignorance to that fact) is vandalism. You don't even have to agree with my take on the matter - plenty of other editors have reverted you, some have reported you to admins and others have blocked you and/or your right to edit your pet article. None of which I had anything to do with. And you have been trying this on since 2009. It's a bit of a worry. Surely by now you must realise your conduct here on Wikipedia is contrary to what the community expects of its editors. Again, you would do well to read WP:NOTHERE. Stalwart111 14:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Hildi Santo-Tomas. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]