User talk:Paisleypeach: Difference between revisions

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For all the articles you have written plus the numerous images on the Commons. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my belated appreciation, User:Rsrikanth05, for the barnstar. Sometimes, it is difficult for me to set aside the discouragement and maintain focus on what I have, indeed, contributed here. At this point, I just check in occasionally for maintenance purposes. Thank you, again, Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case#Review_of_policy_that_led_to_the_blocking_of_Carriearchdale_in_order_to_avoid_repeat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Review_of_policy_that_led_to_the_blocking_of_Carriearchdale_in_order_to_avoid_repeat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob the goodwin (talk • contribs) 01:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoyment, What Enjoyment?

I had joined Wikipedia's efforts for my own enjoyment of contributing, creating, and informing. While I do appreciate the kindness and support of many editors, those who are continually negative and unprofessional, I believe, have no place here. Such ugliness is continually discouraging and keeps driving folks such as myself away from continued efforts here. I wish things would improve in those regards, but I have not witnessed or experienced the sweeping changes that are needed here for that to occur and to be maintained. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any place in the world, where you can attain 100% support? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, Heaven, I would like to think. Best to you User:OccultZone, Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gernatt Family of Companies Reply

Hello Daniellagreen,

As you already know, there has been a debate on the article Gernatt Family of Companies. I am just giving you a friendly heads up that I have sent the article to AfD; primarily to open the discussion of the article to the greater Wikipedia community. In no way am I attempting to attack the article, your character or edits. Nor am I vouching for deletion; I am primarily focused on the status of the debate and the article. Thank you and if you have questions please ask. --Dekema2 (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly cannot even begin to say how completely offended I am regarding this discussion. This is incredible! This garbage began with Carriearchdale in July, and is continuing with other editors, it appears with every article that I have written in relation to this family and their companies. It should be noted that, for the most part, Softlavender and Eeng (and some others) have had little to nothing good to say about me or my contributions here. I do not believe they are impartial, and in fact, are biased against even considering the perspective that this and related articles are notable. That makes it appear to me - as is understandable, but may or may not be accurate - that because editors simply don't like these articles and don't believe there is "enough" notability (even though it has been achieved) regarding them, that they be deleted. Other articles have met notability, but because the consensus was to delete, they were deleted, and Wikipedia's guidelines were actually not followed and did not take precedence. Another more experienced editor than Dekema2 threatened to put this article up for deletion back around July, and did not. He decided that it met notability. The article was accepted for publication one year ago by User:John from Idegon because it met notability, and it still does. It never ceases to amaze me that people's personal perspectives impede the objectivity of Wikipedia, particularly in relation to whether or not articles are maintained here. The article meets notability because the companies have been discussed at length in St. John's Law Review and The Urban Lawyer, both professional journals. It further meets notability due to additional at-length presentations in McClatchy Tribune Business News out of Washington, DC, and of course, The Buffalo News. Therefore, the article has more than met Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Other references associated with the article simply add to and support already-established notability. That the article has now been put up deletion is pointless and I can see has been a complete waste of my time. Why have I spent so many countless hours contributing here? I regret ever contributing anything to Wikipedia. I expected better from this organization, and am continually disappointed by the politics present here. It is great when people work together to improve and enhance this project, but to continually experience these situations, now in this fifth contribution that I've made regarding this particular family/companies is more than discouraging. I guess I expected that my prior excellent experience as a professional newspaper editor would be equaled here, but it has been more like a roller coaster. Again, that this article has been put up for Afd is unfounded and unnecessary as it has more than met Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance & Salvage

About 2.5 months ago, I had enough of the topsy-turvy situations that I experienced here, and decided to go into semi-retirement. I would like to reiterate that I am maintaining my account and minimal activity here for maintenance and salvage purposes, at this point. Since July, five articles/contributions that I made to this project have been put up for deletion. Each of these items met notability and met Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, but because a consensus of people voted to delete them, 3 of those 5 now no longer exist. This all started with the incessant harassment and cyber bullying of Carriearchdale, having been indefinitely blocked by Wikipedia administrators for her behavior. In that situation, there were about 30 editors who expressed their support toward me, all of whom I sent my personal appreciation. That was an experience that no one on any media outlet should have; it was really over the top. Since that time, other editors have put up more articles/contributions of mine for deletion, all of these in relation to the Gernatt family and/or companies. To continually experience these situations has been unfounded and more than discouraging. And, just for the record, again, for all of the disbelievers out there, I have not received one cent of any type of compensation for my efforts here for anything. And, I do not have any type of personal or professional relationship with any of the articles I have created and edited. I had hoped to have experiences on Wikipedia that would be much more collaborative and cooperative than what I have experienced, overall. Generally, my experience has been that most editors prefer to delete articles and information than to contribute to and expand them. Certainly, no one is obligated to do that, however it is an expected consideration and professional courtesy of people in our business. Unfortunately and for the most part, it is not practiced here. That is where this organization can improve and also work to retain other editors. That stated, the actions of Dekema2 in putting up yet another of my articles for deletion, even though it has met notability, has cured me of ever having any desire, motivation, or interest in contributing anything of significance here. I'm glad for the professional and courteous people with whom I have communicated here, though I will not continue to invest countless hours, effort, and electricity into articles that others can simply delete in one second. This is not what I expected, leaves much to be desired, has the potential for improvement, and which positive change is slow in coming (if at all). Later, Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promotionalism

It may add some context to the remarks about the nature of your editing, that I consider the section "Parish support by the Gernatt Family" in the article St. Joseph Parish, Gowanda, New York is a particularly outrageous purely promotional section. I have previous supported some of your work, but anyone adding material of this nature is not writing for the benefit on the encyclopedia. If you return, I advise you in the strongest possible terms to edit articles that are in no way connected with this family. for therecord, I'm leaving a formal warning. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I take offense to your suggestions. You have decided me guilty while I am innocent, and joined this organization in an effort to contribute. If you also noticed in the article you identified, that section has been removed from the article, and I have not reverted it, so I'm wondering why you have taken issue about this? I don't believe your comments to be necessary regarding this as it is causing an unnecessary focus on this issue. I appreciate your past support, however you have now jumped on the bandwagon with other editors who have been all so quick to attack. I am much more receptive to hearing about what I'm doing well than an overarching focus on the work that I've contributed here that appears to be too awful for acceptance. I'm about informing and providing information that is thorough, as well as about linking articles to each other. If dozens of editors are going to focus on my editing in regard to the Gernatt Family, then my focus is on maintenance and salvage regarding those articles. Further, I have no connection to this family in any way, but when 100s of hours of my work is continually deleted - simply because of editors' incorrect beliefs - that shows alot of superficiality and narrow-mindedness to me. I have stated on my user page and talk page that I have absolutely no relationship with this family, and I continue to take offense to any accusations regarding same as harassment. Too many folks are seeing what you think to be true on the surface, but really have no clue about the reality of the matter, and continue to disbelieve me. Is it any wonder why I've scaled back my work here? This is not what I expected; I expected better, more collaboration instead of conflict, more professionalism rather than politics. At any rate, I don't expect anything to change, and instead, I've observed it to worsen with the passage of the past 4 months. That may be how most people here operate, but it doesn't mean that I have to like it. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of St. Joseph Parish, Gowanda, New York for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St. Joseph Parish, Gowanda, New York is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Joseph Parish, Gowanda, New York until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 03:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 9 other "St. Joseph Parish" articles on Wikipedia should, then, also be deleted for lack of notability. This is another singling out for deletion of work that I have done here. Nothing new. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Differences in Opinion

This is what you get for trying to contribute to this organization, a wide difference in opinions, as continues to be observed in the above. There is much to still be improved here, as continues to be confirmed for me. It's too bad that people cannot agree to disagree, and would rather create conflict. It's not necessary, professional, nor a good reflection on the organization. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well from my perspective you have been given good advice in the past and have often ignored it. I gave you advice about avoiding reference padding, but in the article on the parish church that is being considered for deletion, you put seven (count 'em, seven) references to attest to the fact that Gowanda is in Erie county. That sort of thing is a big red flag that the subject is really not notable, and that the editor is simply trying to give the article a huge reflist so that at first glance there is the appearance of notability. That church is no more notable than any other run-of-the-mill pasrish church (how many others in Erie county have articles?) and it's a shame you spent so much time and effort on it.

Also, while I have seen no evidence of paid editing, and would not suggest that you are editing for pay without proof, you do seem to have a close association with, or at least interest in, the Gernatt family. It might be a good idea to state categorically what, if any, your relationship with that family is, so as to help alleviate any suspicion. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am a person who joined Wikipedia for the sole purposes of contributing and informing. Too many editors here are overly concerned with superficial information. So, if there are too many references for anyone's liking, then delete them, but don't delete the ones that support the notability of the articles, which is done, unnecessarily. As for the continued unprofessional and unnecessary hounding about paid editing, let me continue to make it very clear - as I've also stated on my user page - I HAVE NEVER DONE ANY ANY ANY PAID EDITING ON WIKIPEDIA!!! I HAVE NOT BEEN COMPENSATED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM WHATSOEVER FOR MY CONTRIBUTIONS HERE. How many more times must I communicate that? To continue hounding me about this is just harassment, and as I've stated before, I take high offense to it. I have no relation to this family in any way - not a friend, not family, not an employee, nothing. I am a good citizen whose interest it was to contribute and inform with this organization. It is a multitude of you editors on Wikipedia who have taken up the issue of my editing, how I edit, and the topics that I edit. If any particular observation is given to my user page, it will be obvious that I have created and contributed to a wide variety of topics. It is you all who have made the focus on the Gernatt Family, not me. Someone will do me a favor by putting up ALL of my articles for deletion rather than continuing to subject me to a slow death. I am sorry that I contributed anything here, and really no longer want any of my contributions to remain here. It is truly dumbfounding that people cannot get it through their heads about this issue. This is an issue that you all created and about which you all have attacked me. How sorry that is. Who wants to spend time contributing to an effort that is continually upsetting and disappointing? Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I am not suggesting that you are doing paid editing, and certainly many of your contributions are valuable. And I am glad that you have stated so categorically that you have no connection of any kind to the Gernatt family. But I hope you can understand that it raises a red flag when you create and edit so extensively articles relating to that family, especially when some of those articles do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and when you insert mention of them in other articles, especially ones that some people feel have been created just to provide a platform for mentioning members of the family. And your reactions to people who have been among those to support you when accusations have been made are not helpful either. The appearance of a COI is as important as an actual COI, and I hope you can bear that in mind. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my perspective, everything that I have contributed has met or exceeded Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion, otherwise I would never contribute and/or create it. Why would I invest 100s of hours in creating and/or contributing articles that do not meet the standard, wasting my time, effort, energy, emotion, and not to mention all of that electricity needed for my computer? I always view things as what I have done, not what I haven't done, and the focus here is on criticizing and tearing people down. I would estimate that at least 95% of editors here are quick to delete, criticize, and be generally unsupportive. Those 95%, then, make no effort in improving the article, but instead, simply delete what they don't like. This is not what I signed up for. Surely, anyone can edit Wikipedia, but when the majority of people who edit are not collaborative, that makes for a conflictual and potentially hostile situation. As for mentioning anyone in this family - or really, anything about any article - I do so for linking purposes. The more links between articles, the better, and that makes for increased readership. But, when folks just take out and delete information and articles that are notable, I perceive that as a narrow-minded perspective in which Wikipedia gives more weight to a consensus rather than following set guidelines and policies. When I first joined this organization, an experienced editor shared with me that it is very political, and I continually observe and experience that. When consensus and people's personal perspectives outweigh policy, then it is political. Had I known that is how this organization works, I likely would not have already contributed as much as I have because I'm a person who is all about fairness, balance, and equality. The majority can rule, but it doesn't mean that the majority is right or just. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you raise some valid points, but I would suggest that if you seek a collaborative atmosphere you also adopt a more collaborative tone, despite your obvious frustration. Yes it can become personal as we are human beings and not infallible, although the aim is not to be personal, and I would say that there are guidelines which are clearly set out and which help to determine whether a subject is notable or not, thus making it less a matter of opinion (although there is an element of that). And I would also suggest that we try to operate by consensus rather than majority, although it can seem, when the consensus is overwhelming in one direction, that it is majority rule. But even one voice in a deletion debate that shows clearly how an article meets the criteria for inclusion can outweigh many voices that do not give good reasons for deletion. I have seen it happen. And several of your articles have survived deletion. Some members of the Gernatt family are indeed notable, and those articles are still there. But articles like St Joseph are problematic. Before writing such an article it is always a good idea to look and see what similar articles there are. If there are few articles about simple parish churches, then it is highly likely to mean that a parish church is not in and of itself notable. In that situation, before doing work, there are places where you can get advice as to whether this particular subject really is something special and worthy of inclusion. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you're saying, though I still don't see the fairness in the situation when guidelines and policy aren't followed, and instead, consensus and majority are. After having experienced that so many times already - especially with so many people seeming to focus on and attack these articles that even remotely mention this family - it has appeared to me to be a situation of mass efforts toward deletion due to a lack of insight and openmindedness. So, regarding the parish article, there are also 9 other articles on Wikipedia that are about "St. Joseph Parish," in various other locations. Then, all of those should also be deleted for not being notable, as well. When articles that I have created are attacked for reasons that I view as superficial, then it appears that the work I've done is being singled out for deletion. As far as the collaboration aspect, I believe I have been collaborative, and for so much of my work to be so cruelly attacked by other editors does not promote an atmosphere of collaboration to the point that it seems that some of them are here just to create and be involved in conflict. So, it is really sad when those editors who have been supportive in the past are no longer even getting involved, and the editors who are mainly negative, critical, and judgmental are the ruling consensus. That's why I say, there may be a consensus, but it doesn't mean it's right or fair. When only the editors involved in a discussion have a negative outlook and nothing good to say, then it's the negative perspective that will be reached. A majority of people decided to elect Hitler, but that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. A majority of people in the South wanted to maintain slavery and break away from the union, but that doesn't mean it was right, ethical, or just. Politics put Jesus to death, but that doesn't mean it was right, ethical, or just either. I came here in the spirit of collaboration, but when I continually observe actions by among those editors whom I consider to be the most negative, that also appear to be narrow-minded, lacking in insight, and bent on simply deletion due to politics, that is something that I cannot support. Further, when I voice that, it doesn't appear that most folks can handle it. Most people seem to always want others to agree with them, however when there is disagreement, they cannot agree to disagree. Instead, there is the desire to conquer, control, and silence those who have disagreed. How many more people would have been killed in the Holocaust and World War II if Hitler's regime hadn't been stopped? How many more Blacks would have been lynched and murdered in the South if slavery had continued? How much more good could Jesus have done on earth if he hadn't been tortured and put to death? Perhaps unlike many here, I look at the bigger picture, not solely about seeing how much information can be deleted and trying to justify reasons for it. Thanks for your comment about my work having value. I was beginning to think that none of it was valuable or appreciate here. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 89: / Line 89: @@
 ::::In my perspective, everything that I have contributed has met or exceeded Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion, otherwise I would never contribute and/or create it.  Why would I invest 100s of hours in creating and/or contributing articles that do not meet the standard, wasting my time, effort, energy, emotion, and not to mention all of that electricity needed for my computer?  I always view things as what I have done, not what I haven't done, and the focus here is on criticizing and tearing people down.  I would estimate that at least 95% of editors here are quick to delete, criticize, and be generally unsupportive.  Those 95%, then, make no effort in improving the article, but instead, simply delete what they don't like.  This is not what I signed up for.  Surely, anyone can edit Wikipedia, but when the majority of people who edit are not collaborative, that makes for a conflictual and potentially hostile situation.  As for mentioning anyone in this family - or really, anything about any article - I do so for linking purposes.  The more links between articles, the better, and that makes for increased readership.  But, when folks just take out and delete information and articles that are notable, I perceive that as a narrow-minded perspective in which Wikipedia gives more weight to a consensus rather than following set guidelines and policies.  When I first joined this organization, an experienced editor shared with me that it is very political, and I continually observe and experience that.  When consensus and people's personal perspectives outweigh policy, then it is political.  Had I known that is how this organization works, I likely would not have already contributed as much as I have because I'm a person who is all about fairness, balance, and equality.  The majority can rule, but it doesn't mean that the majority is right or just.  [[User:Daniellagreen|<b style="color:#7F007F">Daniellagreen</b>]] [[User talk:Daniellagreen|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Daniellagreen|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 16:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 :::::Again, you raise some valid points, but I would suggest that if you seek a collaborative atmosphere you also adopt a more collaborative tone, despite your obvious frustration. Yes it can become personal as we are human beings and not infallible, although the aim is not to be personal, and I would say that there are guidelines which are clearly set out and which help to determine whether a subject is notable or not, thus making it less a matter of opinion (although there is an element of that). And I would also suggest that we try to operate by consensus rather than majority, although it can seem, when the consensus is overwhelming in one direction, that it is majority rule. But even one voice in a deletion debate that shows clearly how an article meets the criteria for inclusion can outweigh many voices that do not give good reasons for deletion. I have seen it happen. And several of your articles have survived deletion. Some members of the Gernatt family are indeed notable, and those articles are still there. But articles like St Joseph are problematic. Before writing such an article it is always a good idea to look and see what similar articles there are. If there are few articles about simple parish churches, then it is highly likely to mean that a parish church is not in and of itself notable. In that situation, before doing work, there are places where you can get advice as to whether this particular subject really is something special and worthy of inclusion. <font style="bold italic" color="7C0500">Harry the Dog </font>[[User_talk:Harry the Dirty Dog|<font color="0000FF">WOOF</font>]] 16:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
+{{od}} I hear what you're saying, though I still don't see the fairness in the situation when guidelines and policy aren't followed, and instead, consensus and majority are.  After having experienced that so many times already - especially with so many people seeming to focus on and attack these articles that even remotely mention this family - it has appeared to me to be a situation of mass efforts toward deletion due to a lack of insight and openmindedness.  So, regarding the parish article, there are also 9 other articles on Wikipedia that are about "St. Joseph Parish," in various other locations.  Then, all of those should also be deleted for not being notable, as well.  When articles that I have created are attacked for reasons that I view as superficial, then it appears that the work I've done is being singled out for deletion.  As far as the collaboration aspect, I believe I have been collaborative, and for so much of my work to be so cruelly attacked by other editors does not promote an atmosphere of collaboration to the point that it seems that some of them are here just to create and be involved in conflict.  So, it is really sad when those editors who have been supportive in the past are no longer even getting involved, and the editors who are mainly negative, critical, and judgmental are the ruling consensus.  That's why I say, there may be a consensus, but it doesn't mean it's right or fair.  When only the editors involved in a discussion have a negative outlook and nothing good to say, then it's the negative perspective that will be reached.  A majority of people decided to elect Hitler, but that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.  A majority of people in the South wanted to maintain slavery and break away from the union, but that doesn't mean it was right, ethical, or just.  Politics put Jesus to death, but that doesn't mean it was right, ethical, or just either.  I came here in the spirit of collaboration, but when I continually observe actions by among those editors whom I consider to be the most negative, that also appear to be narrow-minded, lacking in insight, and bent on simply deletion due to politics, that is something that I cannot support.  Further, when I voice that, it doesn't appear that most folks can handle it.  Most people seem to always want others to agree with them, however when there is disagreement, they cannot agree to disagree.  Instead, there is the desire to conquer, control, and silence those who have disagreed.  How many more people would have been killed in the Holocaust and World War II if Hitler's regime hadn't been stopped?  How many more Blacks would have been lynched and murdered in the South if slavery had continued?  How much more good could Jesus have done on earth if he hadn't been tortured and put to death?  Perhaps unlike many here, I look at the bigger picture, not solely about seeing how much information can be deleted and trying to justify reasons for it.  Thanks for your comment about my work having value.  I was beginning to think that none of it was valuable or appreciate here. [[User:Daniellagreen|<b style="color:#7F007F">Daniellagreen</b>]] [[User talk:Daniellagreen|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Daniellagreen|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 17:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)