User talk:GODDESSY/Archives

License tagging for Image:HeavenOnEarth(sm).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HeavenOnEarth(sm).jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams

Hello, I assume from the content you have added that you either are Ms. Adams or work for her. I noticed your contributions because I had originally added much of the content in the article,[1] and became somewhat familiar with Ms. Adams' life while researching her. I don't know if you had also added the text under the IP 68.161.222.151,[2] but I just edited it to conform to our style guidelines. This ranged from minor things such as changing first-name references to last names ("Stephanie" to "Adams"), to entirely removing some personal claims that are more suitable to an autobiography than an encyclopedia article.

We generally discourage those with a personal interest in a subject from writing about it, particularly if they are that subject. Wikipedia does not permit original research, which means that the information published on this site cannot come from first-person observations or accounts. All information needs to be verifiable, and presented from a neutral perspective that does not purposefully promote anyone or anything. If you would like the article expanded further, I would be happy to help you do this in a manner that reflects Wikipedia policies; just drop a note at my talk page. Cheers, Postdlf 02:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

---

MESSAGE FROM GODDESSY FOR: "User talk:Postdlf"

Your editing of the Stephanie Adams page was highly critical and rudely subjective when you insinuated that GODDESSY "solicits" online visitors for tarot readings. As a result, we removed your comment and contacted Wikipedia.

GODDESSY is not just a web site for press info and spiritual enlightenment. GODDESSY is a name created by Miss Adams that is the title of several of her books published (since 2003) as well as a 7-year business (founded in 1999) that is in the process of becoming a non-profit organization.

Miss Adams is much too busy and much too involved in her career as as an author, advocate and spokesmodel to "solicit" people for tarot readings. To be honest, you seem to be taking this too personally and you have no reason to because you do not know her.

Should you need further clarification, feel free to refer to: PublicRelations@GODDESSY.com and/or visit the latest press info via: www.GODDESSY.com so in the future, you can be accurate.

I wrote that the website "solicits online customers for psychic and tarot card readings." Which it literally does—it has an online form on which it offers readings by e-mail in exchange for $20 credit card payments.[3],[4] "Solicit" means, as is relevant to commercial activity, "to attempt to persuade (a person) to purchase something."[5] So I'm not sure what you're denying. I'd once again recommend against editing something with which you are personally (or commercially) involved. Conflicts of interest generally affect a contributor's neutrality on this site, not to mention their credibility. Postdlf 23:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: SECOND COMMENT POSTED ON WIKIPEDIA BY "User talk:Postdlf" -- Her company's website, www.goddessy.com, offers to e-mail tarot card readings and "love readings" to online customers in exchange for $20 credit card payments.[6],[7]

Apparently, you would like to make Wikipedia a storefront for GODDESSY, so maybe you should include all of the products, services, books and pricing. As stated previously, Miss Adams does not do readings online personally, so comments about metaphysical services mentioned on a few pages of her site (including pricing) is irrelevent to what should be mentioned specifically about her on Wikipedia.

Again, your editing of the Stephanie Adams page was improper, unprofessional and unnecessary (similar to your previous comment falsely stating that Miss Adams "solicits" online visitors for tarot readings via GODDESSY). As a result, we removed your comment and contacted Wikipedia once again. Should you need further clarification, feel free to contact: PublicRelations@GODDESSY.com so in the future, you can be accurate.

====Regarding reversions[8] made on April 26 2006 (UTC)==== Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning, but aviod making any reverts within 24 hours of this warning in order to avoid any confusion. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please consider instead contributing to the discussion on the article's talk page. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams & GODDESSY

G'day GODDESSY,

thanks for the kind words. In response to your questions, the "GODDESSY" article is probably safe from any tampering, as it just moves the viewer automatically on to the Stephanie Adams article; anyone who knows how to change that is probably knowledgeable enough not to. The Stephanie Adams article can't be protected from any further editing, and I don't think you want it to be; Wikipedia articles often grow and improve over time, even after their present authors think they're good enough — besides, supposing Ms Adams achieves something incredible a year or so down the track? We'll want to be able to change her article to mention it. In essence, we all — editors, readers, even the notable people written about here — want people to be able to edit as many of our articles as is safe, to improve and update them.

Regarding the discussions, well ... the deletion discussion for "GODDESSY" will be allowed to run its course, and probably end by the end of the week. We never delete these discussions, but they can be hidden from view of search engines and casual peekers, and I'll be doing that at the end of the week. As for the rest of the discussions, to be honest, I don't know if they can or should be deleted. You're best off talking to Jimbo about that one. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:StephanieAdams.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:StephanieAdams.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright © GODDESSY

All images contributed by GODDESSY are used with permission. -GODDESSY

Just so you are clear, any images contributed to Wikipedia automatically become released under the GNU Free Documentation License, and you cannot restrict their distribution more strictly than that. DJ Clayworth 18:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been given permission to use it, so it's fine. -GODDESSY

You don't GIVE Wikipedia PERMISSION (Ahaha) to upload pictures to the Wikipedia entry. It is in the User Agreement, once YOU Upload the image, Wikipedia has the right to use it. I have noticed in all of your comments on this page that you have TRIED to make it sound like Wikipedia owes you something or that you THINK YOU are serving a purpose to Wikipedia. Trust me, your not. Thousands of entries go on to Wikipedia daily. You started the entry, so don't even try to pretend that Wikipedia has to ASK you for PERMISSION (ahaha) to use pictures YOU uploaded.

We don't know or care to know who you are, but Miss Adams spoke to Jim Wales about the Stephanie Adams and GODDESSY topics/entries and they will revert to the way they were. -GODDESSY

So then you are a sockpuppet using multiple IP addresses to confuse people and make it appear you are many different people? It is very easy to see looking at the pages history, thank you. You had been banned from Wikipedia once before, we will see if it can be done again. Jimbo has made no notation of ever speaking to you on his talk page. I call BS.

GODDESSY is run by more than one person, so more than one person leaves comments. Your comments are odd, so we will ignore them from this point on. -GODDESSY

Trademark violation?

Maybe you should check into using the term GODDESSY since it has been trademarked since early 1994 by a company named GODDESSY

http://www.goddessy.net

Start researching it for yourself. Just because you buy a domain and then tell people it's copyrighted does not mean you actually own the useage of that name...

Word Mark GODDESSY Goods and Services IC 003. US 001 004 006 050 051 052. G & S: Cosmetics, Skin cleansers, Skin Care preparations, and the professional application of same Standard Characters Claimed Serial Number 78625362 Current Filing Basis 1B Original Filing Basis 1B Owner (APPLICANT) Bradley, Jennifer INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 1540 NE 35th Street Oakland Park FLORIDA 33334 Type of Mark TRADEMARK Register PRINCIPAL Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

JuliannaRoseMauriello 17:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright © GODDESSY

GODDESSY owns the copyright and is an established business. We suggest you get the facts straight and/or get a life (or a job).

-GODDESSY

Trademark is alot different then a Copyright. Once again you use personal attacks instead of rationale. As far as getting a job, after filming 37 episodes of LazyTown and being in 12 broadway musicals, I think I qualify at working, and I'm only 14 and never had to take my clothes off to make any money. Your arguing with a 14 year old, I'm impressed...

Cheers.

JuliannaRoseMauriello 18:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

OBVIOUSLY, YOU FEEL THE NEED TO PROVE SOMETHING TO SOMEONE BECAUSE YOU ARE A NOBODY, BUT THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE.

-GODDESSY

VANDALISM WARNING TO USER: JuliannaRoseMauriello

VANDALISM WARNING TO USER: JuliannaRoseMauriello

What you are doing is "vandalism" and you have been reported.

You cannot add, delete or change content that has accurately been provided by the primary source.

The changes made by us are in fact accurate, so leave them alone.

-GODDESSY

Actually, Wikipedia deals with verifiable information. I have posted all verifiable information. So that is not vandalism. Report what you think you need to, you are a sockpuppet meaning you are using multiple accounts to try and make the issue sway your way. You have broken the 3RR rule on Wikipedia.

Oh yes, by the way, you cannot impress me with caps and using bold. I know how Wikipedia works and you are breaking every rule of it. When the admins get online, I think you will have a vacation from Wikipedia.

JuliannaRoseMauriello 18:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

GODDESSY NO PERSONAL ATTACKS

GODDESSY this is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.

We will not make any more personal attacks and we apologize if bold comments, comments in caps, or any other structure of our replies were improper. We are not completely familiar with the discussion guidelines and will take a look at them. We have contacted the proper sources regarding the primary issue and will not make any further comments in this discussion.

-GODDESSY

GODDESSY

G'day GODDESSY,

thanks for the kind words. In response to your questions, the "GODDESSY" article is probably safe from any tampering, as it just moves the viewer automatically on to the Stephanie Adams article; anyone who knows how to change that is probably knowledgeable enough not to. The Stephanie Adams article can't be protected from any further editing, and I don't think you want it to be; Wikipedia articles often grow and improve over time, even after their present authors think they're good enough — besides, supposing Ms Adams achieves something incredible a year or so down the track? We'll want to be able to change her article to mention it. In essence, we all — editors, readers, even the notable people written about here — want people to be able to edit as many of our articles as is safe, to improve and update them.

Regarding the discussions, well ... the deletion discussion for "GODDESSY" will be allowed to run its course, and probably end by the end of the week. We never delete these discussions, but they can be hidden from view of search engines and casual peekers, and I'll be doing that at the end of the week. As for the rest of the discussions, to be honest, I don't know if they can or should be deleted. You're best off talking to Jimbo about that one. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Article Ownership

Re this edit of yours, please see WP:OWN and also WP:AUTO. Thanks --pgk^(talk) 20:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please be more careful

Here when you removed comments (BTW don't do that, leave it for the administrators), you not only reverted their comments you removed two other changes to the page. Please be more careful, thanks. --Syrthiss 20:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

3 revert rule

You've broken the 3 revert rule (by about 2 edits from what I see). This is a blockable offense. Please stop editing the Stephanie Adams article.--Isotope23 20:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for a combination of WP:3RR on Stephanie Adams and ignoring the rule about avoiding editing your own biog. William M. Connolley 21:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

G'day GODDESSY,

William's block will expire in less than a day. We're trying to work with you, here — please work with us. I and several other admins are doing our best to ensure Ms Adams is fairly treated here on Wikipedia, but it's difficult to keep you unblocked if you continue to disregard some of the rules we have here for co-operating with other editors. This is a collaborative environment, and everyone's time will be a lot better spent if we can all keep civil and refrain from aggressive editing. Thanks, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Thank you for your help. We are new to Wikipedia, so we apologize for any transgression on our part. We removed comments that were personal attacks made by a banned user and from now on will refer to Wikipedia's guidelines instead of further commenting on this page.

Regards,

GODDESSY

Thanks for the apology (both here and in your private e-mail to me). I have reverted your removal of comments from the Talk:Stephanie Adams, however, because while it's true that personal attacks are not permitted, neither do we permit other users to remove the comments of others. Additionally, the text you deleted was far more substantial than what could be considered personal attacks by that user. Consider leaving the attacks in place to be a reflection on the user that made those comments, rather than their target.

BTW, when I have more time, I will take a look at the issues you raised in your e-mail to me, and respond to you on those points. Thanks, Postdlf 20:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks were removed in accordance with the following Wikipedia Guidelines:

WP:NPA

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will rarely help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia.

Remedies: If you are personally attacked, you should ask the attacker to stop and note this policy. If he or she continues, consider following the dispute resolution process. You might also consider removing particularly clear-cut personal attacks per the guideline WP:RPA.

Community spirit: It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. Personal attacks against any user - regardless of his/her past behavior - are contrary to this spirit.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks

WP:RPA

Personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia. Although users can ignore such attacks, repeat offenders may be banned.

Letting personal attacks linger may contribute to a deteriorating discussion climate, to edit wars, and to users being scared away from editing certain pages. It obscures factual and useful discussion in a mess of accusations and counter-accusations.

Can't we just ignore personal attacks? We can certainly try, but it is not that simple. To oversimplify things, trying to ignore constant personal attacks can be like trying to ignore constantly being hit in the stomach.

Personal attacks are not allowed and people can be banned for making them repeatedly. Cleaning up a discussion can be a lot friendlier than trying to get someone banned. Sometimes people do benefit from a clean start.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks

Regards,

-GODDESSY

When people remove personal attacks, it's always to remove specific insults like "you're an @$$", never the bulk removals that you did, which included substantive discussion of content (my removal of your last comment on the talk page when I restored the other text was accidental, btw). Postdlf 21:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Faith

-The GODDESSY Public Relations Department [9] confirmed that "Miss Adams did in fact contact Mr. Wales over the telephone, which led to an amicable outcome". (So ignore the comments made by internet trolls [10].)

-A harassment campaign still seems to be going on by more than one user on this site and we have identified them to the appropriate department. JuliannaRoseMauriello (talk) was one of them, but she was infinitely blocked [11] from Wikipedia and further investigations are being made.

GODDESSY is an entity that promotes spiritual awareness and overall goodness. We sincerely hope that further correspondence from this point on be made with the utmost in professionalism, and in good faith [12].

God Bless,

GODDESSY

Image copyright problem with Image:HeavenOnEarth(sm).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HeavenOnEarth(sm).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. This image is a copy of one that was already provided along with the proper copyright info. So you can disregard it.

Regards,

GODDESSY

Postdlf report on WP:RFI / Stephanie Adams

I'm pleased that you seem keen to be maintaining the quality of the article, however you don't seem to fully understand a few things about how Wikipedia works. Everyone is allowed to contribute to the article, including removing content as long as there is a good reason. To me it appears that you are much more eager to 'get the last word' than Postdlf, who was making edits to help bring the article more in line with Wikipedia style. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Whilst you have not recently broken the WP:3RR there is the possibility you could get blocked again for disruption by trying to take control of the article. I certainly don't want to do that, so I'm warning you to be more careful. As has been suggested before, you might be better off avoiding editing the article itself, and add suggestions to the talk page instead as you have direct connetions with the subject of the article. Thanks, Petros471 18:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. We are becoming more familiar with the Wikipedia site along with its guidelines. The "last word" is something we do not care about. We only care that the information provided is accurate about the topic (or any other one for that matter). There really isn't anything else to include on this particular topic, but we will be more careful if there are any further updates.

Regards,

-GODDESSY

Re: Input

I notice from the discussion page of the article that a mediation request has been made for the article? If that is the case I'm not going to get involved at this moment in time. -- Francs2000 02:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If a mediation request has been made they will resolve that for you: me getting involved will confuse rather than resolve. Please follow that path instead. -- Francs2000 03:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Warning: Talk page deletions

Please do not make mass deletions from article talk pages, and please do not delete recent legitimate warnings from your own talk page. This is your second warning about such deletions, it is vandalism and you can be blocked for it. For the archiving of closed discussions, I have created an archive for you (link at top of page). NoSeptember ^talk 03:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Message To Francs2000

Ok, thank you.

-GODDESSY

Final warning

I've implemented the changes to Stephanie Adams that all other editors to the article agree to. If you continue to insist that you have ownership over the content, and/or continue to ignore the consensus that has been reached by undoing those changes, and/or continue to troll by posting long, rambling and senseless accusations that we have personal vendettas, and/or continue to insist that reasonable statements (such as that a self-admitted PR rep is a "paid employee") are personal attacks, you will be blocked indefinitely for disruption. Nothing has come of the opportunity we've given you to explain yourself because you're still insisting that people are insulting your employer whenever they insist that the article about her comply with Wikipedia policies, and you're still insisting that you have some right to dictate that article's content. You've been given far more patience than most, and you've only taken advantage of it. Postdlf 12:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Final Stance

We are no longer going to discuss this with you, as the last discussion made was to the originator of this site.

God Bless,

GODDESSY

You've been blocked from Wikipedia indefinitely for persistant disruption and trolling. Postdlf 22:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this user on WMC's talk page. You might want to add being a role account to that, which is illegal under WP:SOCK. --Philosophus ^T 10:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If this is indeed a "role account"... to be honest their is no evidence of this other than some claims by User:GODDESSY, and without breaking WP:AGF, in my opinion I think it is reasonable to doubt the validity of some of those claims.--Isotope23 15:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

GODDESSY did claim to be several people in the "PR Department." However, I personally believe it was just Adams, as I doubt she keeps a paid staff working 'round the clock and on weekends (judging from the times this account edited). The highly idiosyncratic writing style was also remarkably consistent. Postdlf 23:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Also curious is the usage of "we". I've got a couple of friends in PR and I've seen official communications they've sent. It's always "Mr. X says" or "Company Y is committed to" or 3rd person "the Company Y legal team is pursuing" (even if the sole member if the legal team is the one writing the release). I personally have never seen official PR communications where the sender includes themselves in a plurality. Regardless, the unique style, wording, and usage seem to suggest all of the comments in question were written by one person, not a group of people.--Isotope23 12:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)