User talk:Paisleypeach/Archive 6

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
John from Idegon (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!
To Tomwsulcer: Thank you for being able to relate with me regarding the afd. I appreciate hearing that you've experienced similar things, and I sympathize with you. This is exactly why I am lessening my involvement here. The afds have actually done me a favor, and helped me realize that there are other things outside of Wikipedia for which I am more appreciated, less hurt, and not as stressed. Thanks again! Daniellagreen (talk) (cont)  00:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey thanks, perhaps I'll drink it tomorrow morning, nuke it to warm it up, add some coffee creamer, maybe some mustard to give it some zing. If it is any consolation, years back I wrote a long article entitled History of citizenship in the United States. I must have spent several days putting it together. It was a mishmash of cited sources and some original thinking, my baby as it were, and my article lasted in Wikipedia perhaps a year, maybe longer, until it was nominated for deletion. During the time when it was still around, I kept contributing to Wikipedia, getting into edit battles, learning from other Wikipedians (there are many smart folks here to learn from.) So, I was able to look at the History... article with fresh eyes and see what other contributors were saying. I had become somewhat more detached, objective, impartial. You may find that happening to you if you stay here long enough, like it is kind of a training ground for thinking, helps you develop your rational-critical mind, sharpens your intellect. Long story short: the article came up for the axe, and others persuaded me that yes, I should go about deleting my baby. So I voted delete during the deletion discussion to axe my own article even though I thought my article was right, good, but still, I had to admit, yes, there was some original research in parts, enough so to warrant deletion. It was bittersweet. But, over time, it was not all bad. I learned more, kept open-minded, developed my research skill, and not so long ago I wrote History of citizenship which was not original research, which worked from reliable sources to content (as opposed to the other way around -- that is, coming up with ideas, and then trying to find the sources to prove those ideas are correct). So History of citizenship remains even now, read by sometimes hundreds of people each day, and it is a solid article. What I am saying is if you stay here long enough, you'll grow as a thinker, but whatever you decide, I wish you the best.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Tom, You provided the relational aspect of this, and it is what I needed. I really appreciate that you are able to understand what it feels like to invest many, many hours into one's work and contributions here, only to repeatedly have them torn down.  I did not come from a professional environment like that.  In my arena, writers were all supportive of each other, learned from each other in a positive way.  If someone was going to be critical about something, it was done professionally, not as if it was an attack.  Then, no one felt hurt, insulted, offended, or threatened.  Here, there is the online component, which makes it easier for people to be ugly with each other.  The personal aspect of it all is gone.  What should be focused on, in my opinion, is what is right with the article.  And, if there are things that are not "right" with it, then those things can be worked on and improved.  Here, if something isn't "right" in the opinion of most editors (meaning an article), it is put up for deletion.  Most times, there is no attempt at improving it.  I think it takes a rare, concerned, and caring person who understands the value of others and their contributions to be supportive in trying to work to make an article better, rather than axing it.  In regard to your beautiful article on the history of citizenship, I'm sure it could have been edited for improvements or redirected to another article rather than deleted.  At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if all of the articles that I created come up for deletion.  It is just too easy for anyone to do that.  I would never do that because I am a person who believes that improvements and further effort should be invested before removing something (unless it is just completely socially unacceptable, profane, etc.).  So, thank you, again, for reaching out and sharing with me some things about your experiences.  Maybe some folks can cope better with the repeated negativity and harshness, but to me, at this point, and having sacrificed so much from my family, myself, and other obligations, it actually feels like a relief to have given myself freedom from feeling obligated to contribute here.  I have worked through and diminished my feeling of absolute commitment here, and am much more detached, however, the repeated and unnecessarily critical experiences caused that.  In order for Wikipedia to improve, as I have continued to promote, there needs to be more sensitivity and professionalism here.  Best, Daniellagreen (talk)  (cont)  00:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You still sound hurt, bitter, resentful, and again I know how you feel, and again let me say, that many of us who have been around here can sympathize. That was how I felt when after that and some other of my articles got nixed a while back and when I quit for perhaps six to nine months. Wikipedia can be a battleground, insensitive, and sometimes bad decisions get made, but overall, and maybe you'll come to feel this way in time, it works for the best in that the process -- which is unfair to some, contentious at times, cold as a law court, with unfeeling facts hurled with sometimes a nasty spin -- the process improves the encyclopedia. It works. It is why Wikipedia is a powerful web source. I contributed to Wikipedia's "competitor", Citizendium, only to run into much worse problems, and it made me appreciate Wikipedia for its tremendous readership. Nobody reads Citizendium; everybody reads Wikipedia. So I came back. It is the motherlode of eyeballs, with spot-on information, not always well-written, but superior (in my view) to Brittanica or any other encyclopedia. During my absence, few cared. When I came back, still nobody cared. It is how it is. If you decide to stick around, there are tips I can offer you about how to contribute so that your contributions stick around; in the meantime, I have to rebuild a porch, tile a bathroom, work on draft #4 of my novel, and othersomesuchstuff -- a new word I thought I'd coin.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Tom. I have rationalized my decision based on that no one will likely miss me or care, that Wikipedia will continue without me, and that there will always be someone else who will likely make contributions/creations that I would. Somehow, I thought that I mattered. In my own mind, it made me feel good to create and contribute - that's what I've gotten out of it. But, it's okay that I don't contribute, too. It's not that critical. Certainly, I am saddened, hurt, and disappointed as it is not all that I thought it would be (or could be).  I came from a very positive and supportive environment, but I do see an unfairness and an application of policies that are not consistent and that are often based on people's personal subjective views rather than on a definitive understanding.  This, therefore, obviously does make Wikipedia political, and is unnecessary, however I also recognize that it is no different than most other places.  I was holding it to a standard of idealism that it is unable to attain.  I do have more ideas and other things that I would like to create, but it's not the end of the world if I don't.  Life will go on.  Right now, I am breathing a sigh of relief at the prospect of not having to deal with so much incredible contention, as that is definitely not what I expected here, nor is it what I signed up for.  Now I know better what to expect should I have a future change of heart. I don't want to come here being required to suit up in armor.  I want to be the real person whom I am - sensitive, caring, openminded, creative, intelligent, positive, and cooperative. I came here with an overall different set of views for harmony among editors that is not supported to my satisfaction. I can look back on it and realize that I made some contributions, and be accepting and happy with those. Right now, I will leave it at that. There are many other people and activities that deserve my quality time, efforts, and attention as well. If you don't mind, I'm also going to copy our discussion to my talk page so that I remember it for the future. Thanks again, Daniellagreen (talk)  (cont)  19:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
NorthAmerica1000 05:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The Ugliness
Again, I would like to take a moment to thank you, sincerely, for those of you who are supportive of me and each other here on Wikipedia. You should know that there are also things going on outside of Wikipedia (not just on Wikipedia) that have been ugly toward me in relation to my involvement here. In our free democracy, it is obviously okay for people to be ugly toward each other, but that does not mean it is acceptable to me. I have tolerated, I believe, more than enough of my share of ugliness here, and it has still continued, even outside of Wikipedia. It is these editors who not only diminish themselves, but also bring each other down. When good faith is overlooked and ugliness is the continual issue of the day, including when such ugliness stems from editors who are "experienced" and "highly respected," it does not say much for the organization. There are surely some great folks here, but there are also folks who are bullies, jerks, and control freaks. Some of you believe, here on Wikipedia, that these folks are respected and you look to them because of the male code, however, and due to the continued ugliness I've experienced outside of Wikipedia, I am happy to have made my decision to lessen my involvement here. Just because someone's actions are unethical and/or unacceptable, does not mean they should be "highly respected." It appears to be more of a men's organization in which the testosterone is too often aimed at bullying and control. Those of you who believe that certain editors are highly respected truly need to see below the surface. I had already tolerated this garbage for longer than I should have, and have even more resolve against not being involved in an organization that supports this, as my statement against such deplorable conduct. There are too many who do not assume good faith and continue their ugliness outside of this. I hope that it is recognized that such people only bring themselves and the organization down. I have said my piece. Daniellagreen (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)