User talk:Paisleypeach/Archive 8

HAPPY HOLIDAYS! Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I hope you have good holidays. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Gernatt Asphalt Products

There was a previous decision at AfD that Gernatt Family of Companies should be redirected to a section of the article on the founder. You have just constructed an article on one of the companies, which would certainly seem to have been included all the more in that community decision that a separate article for the companies was improper. I have therefore redirected it also.

I warned you previously about editing in this subject area. I have been active enough in this that I can personally take no administrative action against you for this, but that will not prevent any other administrator from acting with respect to obvious promotionalism and very probable conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Permit me to add my complete agreement with DGG's concerns. Unfortunately your track record here is one that has caused a number of experienced editors to seriously doubt your ability to edit any article where the subject has anything to do with the Garnett Family in an unbiased and non-promotional manner. To which end I respectfully request (I have no personal authority of any kind) and urge you to refrain from any future editing on this subject. If you ignore this request, and the identical one made by DGG, I believe it is very likely that the next time you engage in promotional or POV editing on this subject you will be asked to defend yourself at ANI. I sincerely hope this will not be necessary. Please accept my best wishes for you and yours in the new year. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like to endorse the previous remarks by DGG and Ad Orientem. I have been observing your edits for quite a while, and I agree that you are well-advised to cease all editing related to the Gernatt family, broadly construed, and including all businesses, charities and educational institutions that they are associated with. We have millions of other articles that you can edit productively. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Gernatt Asphalt Products is an internationally known and major US company that can stand on its own. I doubt any of you even checked the additional, new references that I added that support this. Gernatt Asphalt Products is more known than Gernatt Family of Companies, which original article title could have been changed to Gernatt Asphalt Products with some other revisions. I would also like to reply that everyone's comments have no merit, and are baseless and incorrectly judgmental. I have repeatedly stated that I have no connection in any way with this family, their companies, whatever. I simply attempt to do a service to our readership by including information that is relevant and notable, as reflected by the new references that I added. All of this just appears to me that no one is interested to take another look with an unbiased perspective. Again, too bad for this organization. I figured you guys would axe it and get on my case again because no one can review it with a fresh perspective. And again, articles related to this company are not the only ones that I edit. Don't pigeon hole me into something that I'm not. One day, you'll see and likely be quite surprised at how wrong you are. More hours down the drain - when will I learn? I will have a happier new year to remain uninvolved here. Later, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

"Gernatt Asphalt Products is an internationally known and major US company that can stand on its own." That statement shows that you have lost all perspective and are incapable of editing productively on any article containing the word "Gernatt". These companies provide asphalt, sand and gravel to their paying customers in western New York state. That is an honorable, legitimate business but utterly trivial in the grand scheme of things. These are not major companies, and are "internationally known" only to the extent that the internet enables people to know lots of trivial things all over the world. Please try to gain some perspective. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

And yet again you edit in this area, despite not addressing legitimate concerns about your relationship with the Gernatt family. I ask again - if as you say you have no relationship to them (indeed you claim never to have met them), how can you have uploaded photos of them that you say you have taken? If you expect me to review the issue with a fresh perspective, please answer that question. Until you do so, I think there is a legitimate cause for concern. Thank you. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

All of you appear to desire for me to "out" myself, and by keeping my reasons to myself, I plead the fifth on this issue. Even if I exposed my true identity here - which is against Wikipedia policy - and explained my reasons, those of you who have repeatedly attacked me on this issue likely would not believe me anyway, would blame me, and would stick with your incorrect judgments anyway. I know how the world works. I have been made guilty when I am innocent. You all can think what you like, as I have repeatedly explained that I have no connection with this family. It is you all who have made the focus of my work on this family, for which I have repeatedly defended myself. To me, it has just become an issue of harassment and cyber bullying. I came here to create and contribute, not to be involved in petty issues that all too many of you have created, which really leads me to believe that some of you have nothing better to do than create and maintain conflict, including by not adhering to your own policies. Because you have already judged me, and judged me incorrectly, what further need is there for me to explain anything additional if none of you who are my accusers will not view the issue with a fresh and unbiased perspective anyway? Further, I have stated before, this is not the appropriate forum to go into the issues that you would like me to, and therefore, I will not. For you all, the issue appears to be about winning and being right (even when you're not), but it's really about how you play the game. It's unfortunate that people have to play dirty just in order to edit on Wikipedia. Shameful. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a simple enough question to answer. You should be able to do so without outing yourself. There are legitimate ways that you can come into ownership of copyright of photos without having taken them yourself. You can state how that happened without going into any great detail. I have kept an open mind and supported you in the past, but your refusal to address this issue makes that more and more difficult. No one is trying to out you or prove themselves right. We are trying to protect the reputation of Wikipedia as an impartial source of information. This means that someone with a conflict of interest must declare it if they wish to edit articles on that subject. You have said many times you have no COI - indeed any connection with the family. Yet claiming photos such as this [1] and this [2] as your "own work" is at odds with that assertion. As I have said to you before, this is not about you. It's about the integrity of Wikipedia. You have a choice. You can either explain the discrepancy or accept that the concerns are legitimate - and stop editing anything to do with the Gernatt family. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a note to Harry. Re: "There are legitimate ways that you can come into ownership of copyright of photos without having taken them yourself" -- the term "Own work" on a photograph file on Wikipedia/Wikimedia indicates that the uploader took the photograph him/herself. It does not mean "I own this work", but rather "This is my own work" (same as for illustrations, etc.). I hope that clarifies matters. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, hence my comments about it not being possible for them to be Daniella's own work if she has never had any contact with the family. I am trying to give her the benefit of the doubt by asking whether she thought it meant own in the sense of a possesion ("I own this work"). If that is the case, then as I say she needs to say that and explain how she comes to own the copyright in those photos. She should be able to do that without outing herself if she really has no COI. And she would need to change the licence on the photos. For now I am keeping an open mind, but if she really did take those photos, or come into ownership of the copyright in a way that suggests a COI, then we do have a problem. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

To me, this has become an issue of micromanagement and which my head is being beaten against the wall by others doing the micromanaging. First, the issue is about notability, now it's about photos. What the heck? I don't get what you're trying to prove here. I can take photos and still have no contact or connection with these people. As I've stated before, if there is such an issue with integrity, it is one that you all have created and exaggerated. I have attempted to do a public service which has been repeatedly undone. As I've stated in my comments in the section below, I've been made guilty when I'm innocent. I'm the one with the integrity here. Go beat someone else's head against the wall. These petty issues that have been "created" get in the way of Wikipedia's "integrity." It can be taken at face value and accepted, or repeatedly challenged and disbelieved, as has continued to occur, unnecessarily. So, I say again, make it what you want it. I regret ever contributing anything here. I wish I never had, and I wish it could all be removed - all of what I've created. It is embarrassing to say that I'm a member of this group exactly because of this type of treatment I've continued to experience. Wikipedia is a dictatorship, not an organization based on fairness. This is not what I signed up for, and is not worth it to me. Birds of a feather flock together; I'm not part of that flock. I truly hope things will improve here. They need to. Later, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Warning on Promotional and POV editing

Daniellagreen there are a significant number of experienced editors who are familiar with your editing history, and your defense of said record, and who find it incompatible with the guidelines and policies of the project. I have neither the time nor any interest in further debating this with you. You have been repeatedly cautioned on this and have been asked not to edit on this subject by multiple editors of considerable standing, because you cannot do so in a neutral and non-promotional manner. I repeat that request again. However, if you choose to ignore this request, please be aware that you are courting a topic ban. This is the last time I am going to address this issue outside of ANI. Please regard this as a formal and Final Warning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, I have been made guilty when I am innocent. Wikipedia is an organization that does not adhere to its own policies, and in effect, is a place where anyone really cannot edit. You have judged incorrectly, creating an unnecessary situation. And, no, I have not been "asked," but it has been demanded of me and I have been treated as if I am some child who has no rights and cannot think for myself. It is extremely disappointing the lack of cooperation and support that could be employed to better resolve this matter rather than a series of threats due to demands of compliance and control, which are completely unnecessary. If respect and compliance is what is desired, then it must be provided, rather than threatened about with punishment. The only difference between my accusers and I is that I think differently, and if I must be put on trial and punished for that, then the poor reflection is really on you all who do so. I have never experienced so much harassment and cyber bullying in any online organization as I have here, by you who are such highly-esteemed, experienced editors and by you who seek to further the issue to the point of shutting me down, which is really your ultimate goal of power and control. No surprise there in this highly male-dominated organization. Rather than point fingers at and blame me, some real improvements are what is actually necessary to make it kinder and more user friendly for everyone, not just those whom you wish to keep. It's really not worth it to me. I'd get the same from watching a soap opera; this unnecessary drama is not what I'm here for, but is what I continue to experience en masse. I do have a solution, however, because my latest post was actually your last opportunity to view the topic with a fresh perspective. Because it was not and because it was removed without even following policy, I will take such information elsewhere to perform my public service. The actions experienced regarding these issues have repeatedly proven to me that there is too much anger, rigidity, and inflexibility for any of you, my accusers, to even consider a different perspective. If this is what you wish to focus on, that is your choice, and ultimately, the reflection is on you all. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Tracking Edits

To Softlavender: Why do you insist on tracking me and my edits? I must say it seems obsessive to the point of harassing on your part. Do you have nothing better to do? Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

[3]. If you want to remain under the radar, you'd probably do better if you didn't advertise your own edits on your user page. The fact that you announce every single article you edit every single month on your userpage, and have on your userpage a running history of every single contribution you have made since nearly the day you joined Wikipedia, makes it appear as though you are not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to promote your editing. Softlavender (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, You have been the one and only person who has had any issue about how I arrange my userpage, and to use that and blame me for what you're doing is immature and does not take responsibility for your own actions. You must admit that, since the July fiasco concerning Carrie Archdale, you have been the one and only editor who has tracked, stalked, and harassed me regarding what I create and/or edit. That fact that you do it under the radar and I have not reported you for it speaks to your getting away with it. I feel that if that's what floats your boat, then to each their own, however I find it freaky and inappropriate. I've asked you before to stop, and you have not. You have clearly stated that I am not welcome on Wikipedia and have invited me to leave. I have refused. So, if this is your way of "pursuing" me and continuing to try to get me to leave, I certainly will not. The fact that I have not done the same to you speaks much more about my character and endeavors here than what I have experienced in your actions toward me. Next to Carrie Archdale, you have been the next most stalking and harassing person to me. I again request that you cease and stop blaming me as the victim for what you, yourself, are doing. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you are confusing or conflating me with a lot of other editors, Daniella, because what you say is not true. As in the past, you haven't heard what people have been saying to you for many months on this talk page and in other venues. Please read the link I posted in my reply above. To quote another editor in response to you in another of dozens of similar situations, since you have ignored every word I wrote, as also the well reasoned comments by other concerned and highly experienced editors, instead opting for histrionics, I see no point in continuing this conversation. Softlavender (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, It is you who has continued the histrionics since the Carrie Archdale issue in July. Personally, I don't really care what people say about me. It's obviously their problem and their issue. The issue here is your tracking, harassing, and stalking of me and my edits on many articles that I have either edited and/or created. Again, next to Carrie Archdale, you have been the editor who ranks second on my list for doing this. There is no confusion, but only you again attempting to divert the issue by making it into an entirely different issue, which is not the issue. You obviously get your thrills out of doing this. For the third time, I ask that you cease, stop following me, stop tracking me, stop coming to my user page and talk page, and avoid any and all pages that I edit and/or have created. Simple as that. Let's see if you can do it. My guess is probably not as you are unable to perceive your obsession regarding me and my work here. Please stand down as your tracking and stalking of me and what I edit is inappropriate to say the least. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Daniellagreen within limits you have the right right to ask other editors to refrain from posting on your talk page or user page, however you do not have the right to tell editors to stay away from any article you work on. Please see WP:OWN. If you believe you are being stalked or hounded you may request intervention via the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. However, before going there I would STRONGLY encourage you to read WP:Boomerang.

To my fellow editors, I respectfully suggest that further discussion here is pointless. We have gone as far as possible and perhaps it is time to just move on and let events take their course per WP:ROPE, an essay that is applicable to far more than blocked users. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This has been going on for 6 months. I'm sick of such freakish behavior. I have reached out to Softlavender several times, requesting that said behavior cease, though he/she continues to track and stalk me and my edits. I've both observed and experienced the manner in which things are handled and/or not handled on administrators' pages, and for me, it leaves much to be desired. On one occasion in the past regarding another editor, I made 3 reports and none of them were taken seriously. Why should I believe this will be taken seriously, and then of course, there is the issue of it coming back on me and me getting blamed as the victim. As I stated above, I know how the world works. Let the record be known, then, that this is now my third attempt at requesting that Softlavender stop harassing and stalking me. In attempts to reach a reasonable conclusion, Softlavender has repeatedly denied such behavior, refuses to take responsibility for it, and when confronted about it, deletes all discussion from their user page and refuses to acknowledge such behavior and cease it. Further discussion is far from pointless when freaks are allowed to stalk and harass others for months at a time and get away with it. To make such an offensive comment that such further discussion is pointless is offensive and far overlooks the seriousness of this issue. I have been patient and professional about this long enough. So, enough is enough! Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

As I have already explained, if you believe you are being stalked or hounded you can take it to ANI where the community will examine your grievances. To whom have you lodged your three previous complaints? From my perspective you have been repeatedly advised by a large number of highly experienced editors concerning certain problematic editing on your part, and counselled to avoid a specific subject in particular. Your response as far as I am able to discern, has been to stamp your foot while declaring that you are right, everyone else is wrong, and that we are just picking on you. This has gone on long enough. As I stated in the discussion on your talk page and elsewhere I have no real interest in continuing pointless debates. You will either hear the message, or you won't. If you believe you are being hounded, take it to ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you get involved in order to escalate already choppy waters? I have made the effort to communicate my concerns with Softlavender regarding this issue. And no, it began before what you perceive as "problematic editing." You, as well as Softlavender, are diverting away from the real issue. I am not going to take this to ANI - as I've already stated - that when I did so in the past regarding another editor, I made 3 reports and none of them were taken seriously at all. Those administrators perused my reports promptly dismissed them, likely without reading them at all. How's that for taking things seriously? It appears that things need to reach the level that Carrie Archdale did with me in July in order for any appropriate action to occur. You and I are definitely butting heads here, and you also refuse to see my point of view. This is not a matter of stomping my foot. It is a matter of feeling concerned and fearful of an editor who has continually stalked me and my edits for the past 6 months. As an administrator, you ought to be open to all points of view, rather than criticizing me regarding your own incorrect perceptions about this issue. The cyber bullying and stalking is what has gone on long enough here. Don't get involved if you can't take this issue seriously and, instead, make offensive comments like stating it is pointless. That is definitely not helpful as someone who has already experienced freak stalking and cyber bullying here. When is that going to stop? Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

First I am not an admin. Secondly if you have been to ANI three times, and each time you have been told more or less that you are either wrong or overreacting, then once again, it seems that you have a problem with hearing things you don't like. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You are someone who obviously just likes to argue and fuel the fire, and just another sexist guy who doesn't understand, respect, or appreciate women's issues and concerns in these types of matters. Again, if you are unable to be supportive and unbiased, butt out. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I am going to overlook for now your gross abuse of AGF. However I do think that if we have reached the point where your contributions to the discussion have been reduced to the argumentum ad hominem then this conversation has likely reached the end of its productive course. I would prefer that you did not communicate with me further, but if you absolutely must, please confine the discussion to YOUR talk page where this conversation is based. This is the third time I have made this request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad Orientem (talk • contribs) 18:36 19 January (UTC)

Note that the prior comment was made by Ad Orientem who neglected to sign their name. It appears that Ad prefers to continue this issue by having jumped in the argument, and now, is unable to tolerate being talked back to. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Such immaturity that is here is incredible and never ceases to amaze me. I have the liberty of placing the comments where I chose. If you can't handle it, as I've stated before, then butt out and don't get involved in the first place. Because you are unable to let this go and leave me alone, you are also a stalker and harasser of me. Really, just back off. Stop looking for trouble that you, alone, are creating. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The discussion can be found here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Daniellagreen, please don't post on Ad Orientem's page again. He has asked you twice to stop, to which you responded "I have the liberty of placing the comments where I chose."[4] You're mistaken; after a user has asked you to stop posting on their page, you need to stop. For you to post there again would rise to harassment, in my opinion, and I would consider some sanction. I have also asked AO to stop posting here.

I'm sorry to see on this page that you seem to have a sense of entitlement to speak just as nastily as you like to and about other people, while you're outraged if anybody criticizes you, however civilly. Has Ad Orientem said anything to you that's remotely in the same realm as the insults I see you lobbying at him? "Just another sexist guy", " you are also a stalker and harasser", or this edit summary? (You've called other people "freaks" all over the shop, too.) Not that I've seen. I make allowances for the way you act on your own page, but not indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: that may have been also because of WP:HOUND, WP:BLUD#The act and WP:STICK on others part. It is also clear that some of the editors may have tried to irritate as much as they can, sometimes I would see few of them talking about Daniellagreen on different UTPs, like there is nothing better to do. I also agree that no matter who started it, one has to be civil, lets see if we will need to look for alternative measures. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen, I will respond to any and everyone, including Softlavender and Ad Orientem, who have abused their privileges by continually harassing and stalking me. First, if you have read what has transpired, without bias and with a fair perspective, you will see that I have attempted to stand up for myself to both of these editors. Softlavender has stalked and harassed me, now, for the past 6 months. Prior to that, there was the Carrie Archdale situation that was way over the top. Then, Ad Orientem believed the necessity of getting involved and not letting up, despite my continual requests and demands for cease. If you hadn't noticed, this is national stalking awareness month, and I am sick and tired, as well as fearful of these people who have exhibited absolutely no respect, understanding, or appreciation for my feelings and concerns. With people like this who continually stalk and harass, I am concerned and afraid of them for my own safety. Only on Wikipedia have I experienced this type of thing to this extent - cyberbullying, harassment, and stalking. I have done my best to appeal to each of them, kindly informed them of my feelings and perspectives, and then, when they would not listen, I have refused to be intimidated by their continual bullying, stalking, and harassment. They have escalated the situation, continued to comment on my talk page, and track and edit what I edit, for months at a time. Obviously, by your comments made herein, you are in support of them for that. So, this is exactly what Ad Orientem has desired to occur - as I stated to them that they want to escalate the situation. By continuing to bully, stalk, and harass me, and report me to administration, after stating that they would not, they have escalated the situation - such a great reflection on them for Wikipedia. I have not reported the situation to administration because 1) it should not be happening to begin with, and 2) I've reported situations in the past that have not been taken seriously and nothing positive or effective has been done about it. To be sure, it appears that only situations that rise to the level of Carrie Archdale's bullying, stalking, and harassment receive any merit whatsoever by administration. Additionally, I scanned the administration page for the frivolous and unfounded complaint made against me by Ad Orientem and did not find it. The absolute nerve of this editor getting involved in something that is absolutely not their business, escalating it to a level far beyond excessive, and then making a complaint regarding it about me. How absolutely absurd and ridiculous, continuing to reflect the insensitivity and immaturity of people who simply desire to create conflict. If these folks would butt out, back off, and leave me alone, and gain some sense of mental stability, then these situations would likely never occur. It would be helpful for no more fuel to the fire being added, rather than it continuing and escalating, as with your unnecessary involvement. I never asked for this. They are those who have looked for trouble, only creating a bad reflection on themselves and the organization. A perspective that can fully appreciate and understand my concerns, without prejudice, is what is lacking and what is necessary here, not more beating of me as their whipping boy. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, OccultZone. I believe that you are the only person on Wikipedia who is truly supportive of me at all, very much reflecting an attitude and approach of fairness, neutrality, and professionalism. I appreciate that you are able to perceive these situations, and contribute sensitively and maturely. I have been pushed way over the top with these situations, particularly with doing my best to handle them myself between Softlavender and Ad Orientem. I believe, however, that because I've attempted to reason with them, myself, they view me as weak when I am really the strong one. I have had to be strong when bombarded with such craziness. Obviously, there are many folks out there who believe they can get away with it because they don't have to show their face or put their real name behind their words. Wikipedia truly needs not only better policies to prevent the type of situation that I've endured for these past 6 months now, but also that the policies are enforced. I've observed and experienced inconsistent and biased appraisals of these situations by people who merely view the surface issues rather than those that extend much deeper. I am relieved to say, however, that you are one who is dependable - that is much appreciated. Thank you, again, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Anytime. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Advice

Daniella, you need to immediately stop casting aspersions at other editors. Please take a break from Wikipedia and think over the good advice provided by DGG at the top of this page. He is one of the kindest people I've met here. No, we won't try to out you, but if your editing looks promotional, it will be treated as such, and you could be excluded. Thank you for listening. Jehochman ^Talk 06:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC).

Cheers for OccultZone

At least there is one fair and insightful editor on Wikipedia. Thanks again, OccultZone. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Just Checking In

Just stopped in today, and found a whole different Wikipedia, headed up by MetaWiki... Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The Holidays are Here!

		Happy holidays.
		May you enjoy restful and blessed holidays. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 00:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Daniellagreen. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

happy new year

Hi, I happened across a discussion with positive mention of your editing along with concern expressed about what I gather was harassment of you as an editor here having likely driven you away. I notice Pat McGee Trail and other nice contributions on your part, and am sorry that you have largely withdrawn, as the world would be better if you were contributing more. :) I have edited a lot of upstate New York articles, and have hiked some trails, and have in general enjoyed contributing photos and editing about non-controversial historic sites such as are listed here. Unexpectedly I encountered a lot of negativity and it colored my entire experience here, although I persisted and currently am cautiously optimistic that people and processes have somewhat changed and/or I have better skills to deal with awful stuff when it happens, including to help editors being treated badly. I hope you might consider returning more in 2017 or eventually; if you do please feel free to contact me (at my Talk page or by email) at any time, and allow me to possibly be helpful. Happy trails! --doncram 20:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Name Change

As of today, I am now Paisleypeach on Wikipedia. Paisleypeach ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back

Glad to see that you feel able to contribute again.

However, I do caution you that the unanswered questions from the past have not gone away. Specifically, I see that you are drafting an article on Carol A. Greiner. That article (and several others) have photos that you claim to have taken, and yet you also say that you have no connection at all with these subjects. Both cannot be true. I would urge you to address this discrepancy now before you find yourself embroiled in more controversy and get frustrated again. It shouldn't be difficult to clarify what your connection is (or that you did not in fact take those photos). Having a connection does not automatically preclude you from writing about a subject, but if your fellow Wikipedians feel that you aren't being straight with them, you will face further challenges. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I wouldn't call this a 'welcome back,' as I've only come back temporarily. My statement on my User Page will answer your comments. Photographing someone or something does not make me connected to the subject if no relationship exists. There will be no embroiling, controversy, or frustrations this time - it is simply not worth it, as stated on my User Page. If there is that much controversy about anything I have contributed, I invite for all of it to be removed. At this point, it is no loss to me. I have been here only to neutrally contribute, share, and compile information. If that's not what Wikipedia is about, then I have been reminded that it's not the place for me. Thanks. Paisleypeach ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that taking a photo of someone once does not imply a connection. I have actually taken a photo of the Queen of England during one of her public appearances, and I have no connection with her! I simply note that you have taken an awful lot of photos of the Greiners for example, in various settings and at various times. I am simply saying that it might strike people as odd that you are taking all these photos of people you have absolutely no connection with. Simply explaining that, without outing yourself in any way, would be helpful. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that you understand. This is a can of worms, re-opened. If you were to read back through my archives, this is how all of the harassment started toward me on Wikipedia. I created an article that some people did not believe I did not have any connection with. I was crucified multiple times to a truly unbelievable extent since some people could not believe it. It was even suggested that I was a family member in relation to this particular article. I am not. I laugh about it now - because, as I state on my User Page - I have no connection with any of the articles I create or edit. Seven years ago, I was more emotionally invested in Wikipedia and it mattered to me that people did not believe me, that people did not believe the truth. It is disappointing to experience this type of thing again now, however I am much more detached about it. It was to the point of people wanting me to reveal my identity, and I will never do that. Even if I did that, I am sure there would still be people who would disbelieve. I would prefer that all of my contributions be deleted than to reveal my identity, as I also stated in the past when all of that nonsense was going on. I am older and wiser now. I learned a great deal about contributing on Wikipedia, including that when there are issues in question, the consensus rules, even if it against policy, even if what I have stated is the truth, and whether or not there is proof. The majority rules, but the majority can be and has been wrong. For the most part, what I have experienced here has been supportive. However, in relation to that one particular article, the harassment and maltreatment I experienced was obscene. It showed me how people can work themselves up into a frenzy over nothing, just because they believe they are right. Their actions were harmful to me and to Wikipedia - and to the knowledge base of the general public - though they do not see it that way. Again I state that I am here to neutrally contribute information, and my intention in doing so is for the greater good, but I can easily walk away. I do not consider a couple of photos of a couple of people to be an awful lot of photos. I have no connection. I am nobody. I simply take photos and share information. I had some time during the past week, and I gave Wikipedia another chance. I have nothing to prove and I have no regrets, only disappointment. There is no outing myself because there is nothing to out, and as past Wikipedia experience has shown, it would not be helpful, least of all to me. If this is escalated to another level, I will not be participating; it is not worth it. Paisleypeach ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)