Hi there! I have seen you create awesome content and new articles on Wikipedia. Having read few of your reasons to retire from Wikipedia and although I do not know of any editor(s)' comments regarding your edits, I would mention that there are a lot many editors who have earlier praised your work here (like GMG, Gerda, etc. just to mention a few). I had earlier also reviewed one or two of your DYKs and that is when I came to know about your immense contributions to Wikipedia. When I saw your note on your talk page, I felt your retirement would make Wikipedia and many more contributors lose an important person from the project. It would make us really happy if you could reconsider your decision and start contributing again! In my opinion, one ought to see the positives (in the sense of the credit people ascribe to your contributions) and not a few negative happenings, right? Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually having looked over Elisa since last July and collaborated on occasion, I think it is for the best if she remain retired/semi-retired due to several reasons. My impression is that Wikipedia is generally not very friendly toward editors who prefer to contribute content quietly, especially the ones who are not keen to develop into some kind of "Wikipedian"; this is nobody's fault, as we are indeed a collaborative project where communication is required, and Elisa have a very specific communicative style that isn't really compatible to our culture here. The second reason is because Elisa generally deals with subjects that normally would not be covered, such as spouse of a famous person; these "fringe" subjects are often far more interesting and deserving than many of current coverage. Unfortunately they tend to be borderline when it comes to the notability guidelines, and the endless debate over their notability would be mentally exhausting for anyone.

Finally, Elisa's editing style reminds me of the earlier years in Wikipedia when people are simply adding as much information as they can, with the assumption that these content would eventually be copyedited and improved; this kind of approach is no longer really accepted, and the incredible pace at which Elisa was adding these content meant that many of these content could/and will contain errors, insufficient attribution or simply sloppy paraphrasing; none of them were done in deliberate fashion, but when they amount together some editors may start to develop a wrong impression. Many editors here, while not condemning it as a malpractice, have the tendency to keep watchlist on editors whom they deem to be problematic; if I was Elisa I probably wouldn't be comfortable contributing much longer. I suppose I could change my editing style, but in the end it's just Wikipedia. If I was adding content at a similar pace, I would probably have ran into similar issues too, particularly considering that Elisa is not a native English speaker (neither am I; but that's irrelevant). Personally I would prefer Elisa to edit less, but maintain a presence here because she is such a useful go-to person for sources, image files and life details about many subjects in general. Sorry about the wall of text. Alex Shih (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

as per above reply, it's pretty much clear that no, I will not reconsider my retirement. BTW, I'm not even sure I like the idea to be considered a source for other editors... if I found something, and I'm in the mood to share, I will probably contact some trusted editors here. But other than that, I would really prefer to be left alone. And this retirement notice include also my Wikimedia contributions, I'm no more in the mood to give for free my works. Thank you. Elisa.rolle (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop saying that so and so is one of the reasons you retired anytime anything has happened to you that you don't like. It can easily be construed as a personal attack and comes off as quite childish. I also think the current content of this page is borderline WP:POLEMIC. If you continue with this behavior, I'll go ahead and block you for personal attacks. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni, if you ask me to stop, then please ask also to the always same people to stop as well. the last message is bordering stalking. An editor (IP address so don't know who), wrote on a talk page, to improve an article to avoid deletion. I said I was retired, the same editor said, someone else can improve it? and someone took upon themselves, instead of improving the article, to put it up for deletion. It's not me that is arising polemic. And I'm not doing anything against the policy right now. I deleted the unwelcomed message, and told to a specific project, if they want, to take care of the article up for deletion. And just to be clear, once I post this, I will also delete the message. But I replied. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni, and sorry, but I do not understand. what did I do today that is polemic? I just removed a message saying that, "as this editor well know, I'm retired". Is it not true? and I posted on a project "As I'm retired, and considering the nominator is one of the reason why I retired, I will not partecipate in this AfD other than notice it here". This is exactly the opposite of polemic. Since I did NOT want polemic, I decided not to partecipate to an AfD opened by an user with whom I had trouble in the past (and not saying where the right side is, could be me, could be them). According to me this is a correct behaviour to avoid unwelcomed confrontation and further troubles. Sincerely I do not understand your message. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your rant on your user page and above here that is basically a thinly veiled attack on editors whom you've had disagreements with in the past. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni, everything above is "quoted" therefore I did not write it, but it was written/directed to me. Everything above can be easily found on my talk page (in the history) or in the talk page where it happened. If quoting it is ranting or polemic, I do not know. But that is what happened, and the reason why I left. Even today AfD would be another reason, but sincerely, I'm too tired to do something else about it, other than let other women know if they want to save that article. Sincerely I would really like to be left alone by the users that I quoted above. I said I was not adding new content. Yesterday night I notice a request to improve an article up for deletion on 25.06. I just added the requested improvement, and after that other two users helped as well. I thought I did something good. But now, considering what apparently that simply action initiated, I will ignore also the request for help. Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, would you mind removing them? I think it is in clear violation of the following from WP:POLEMIC:

Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed.

TonyBallioni (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni, nice that there is always a policy for something. As I always did, I will not go against a policy then. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I miss you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BeenAroundAWhile, as you can see from the above message, as soon as I do something on Wikipedia, there are people that are ready to let me know I'm not welcomed. Having AfD an article of mine that just needed a little bit of improvement (improvement that in the end I did in 4 hours) just because the night before I improved another article, not mine, to avoid deletion, is too near an event, and from the same user I had trouble, to not consider it an "you are not welcome" message. And if you are thinking, "you are not assuming good faith", as I was explaining in the message I was asked to delete, this user is the first to not assume good faith towards me. But I see you are taking care of "my" articles, and I thank you. Alex Shih, you said I was not trying to be "wikipedian" enough, but as you can read here, if the users touching the article I wrote are doing it with a positive attitude and with the real intent to help, looking at the ARTICLE and not at the person who wrote it, I'm more than glad. If instead they are deleting sentences without reason (and sentences proving an important moment in life of that person) or are AfD articles just because, with a false nomination, than yes, I react. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, BeenAroundAWhile had an article of them deleted due to a simple question I asked (I asked why this article exists, similar to an article of mine you want to delete? and they deleted my article and BeenAroundAWhile's article as well). But instead of taking an hatch to me, BeenAroundAWhile started to look at my articles, and improved them. THIS is the wikipedian attitude I would expect, not what I received from the majority of people here. Elisa.rolle (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago ...

historic lesbian women
... you were recipient no. 1698 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

miss you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry Gerda Arendt, but I'm just starting to feel better. the toxic environment that is wikipedia editing is too much to bear for me. the good ones like you are not enough to balance the bad influences. Elisa.rolle (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for replying - was afraid you were so gone that you didn't see this! I accept your point of view, of course, here's mine: there are at least some 1,700 good ones, those found precious, and without you, it's one less ;) - take this fly, dedicated to the missed by a friend who is now missed, - click on it and feel free to enter your name. I entered to you those who just give up on my talk. Best wishes for whatever you do! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have patiently tried to co-operate with you, even though I don't think this person is notable. The two fictional novels were already mentioned. I'm not going to edit war with you but you can take this as notice I will be reporting this if it persists. WCM_email 17:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]