User talk:Daily Spider Glee

Hi Daily Spider Glee! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Have you previously edited Wikipedia under any other account? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Casting aspersionsديلي سبايدر جلي (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia!

In particular, do not accuse other editors of having a CoI, without including evidence that a CoI exists. If you have evidence that cannot be revealed publicly, you may email it to one or more of the people listed on Wikipedia:Functionaries. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, nice to hear from you, I hope you're well. So in the first instance I used the standard userpage CoI warning template which I agree is quite hostile and should probably be changed at some point. In terms of the page, the earlier versions posted by Melissa Highton contained language which seemed quite Curriculum vitaesque and although I have stopped editing the article so as not to cause further disruption the article still contains this link to the subject's booking agencies' page and doesn't mention anything which sources one or two don't mention. I might very well be wrong. However, I think given the methodological issues with the earlier drafts of the page I was within my rights to explore whether Highton has a CoI and I feel deeply saddend and hurt that other editors have piled on and accused me of bad faith editing. I almost killed myself last week and the week before becuase of all the trolling I get online and IRL both becuase of who I am, what I do and my disability. Is that what you want to happen?ديلي سبايدر جلي (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you're having a rough time; it sounds awful.

What I want you to do is not treat other people in a way that might have a similar effect on them. I did not refer merely to your use of a level one template, but also, for example, to your subsequent comment, where you wrote, in part:

"There's currently no COI in the article becuase I have removed the peacock statement which were supported by sources that the subject is directly connected to. Therefore, apart from off-wiki evidence existing that shows a digital marketing junior working for Fields attempting to commission the page, Highton's content itself is a smoking gun"

That is what I mean by "[accusing] other editors of having a CoI, without including evidence"; and you must not do so again, regardless of your personal circumstances. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I hear what you're saying and I agree that I shouldn't have accused Mel in the way I did. In hindsight it may very well have been an NPOV issue that caused MH to cite the subject's public speaking agent's page despite the fact that the secondary source and other primary source used for the lede already support the two sentences in the lede and I understand that other editors may not have read Wikipedia – The Missing Manual before beginning their journey. However, what I don't understand is why has no one directly addressed my grievence? Why is everyone piling on on me? And why does the page still contain a link to the subject's booking agency? Maybe I should just kill myself. None of this will matter then. Wikipedia is obviously better off without me and the world is probably better off without me too.ديلي سبايدر جلي (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Ch1p the chop per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ch1p the chop. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on PC Specialist, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]