User talk:Madame Sosostris

Look, a talk page.

Articles needing attention

Ashlee Simpson: Threat Or Menace?

Ironically, I do work on several topics related to communism, and I've generally done so uncontroversially. What do you think, is it everyone else, or just me? Maybe it is just me.. Everyking 19:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay... with all due respect, I think it is you, but I think it's largely a misunderstanding. Reading over the disputes, it seems to me that you're misconstruing people's efforts to tighten up the articles as attempts to remove the information you've collected (which is indeed impressive). Those articles could be condensed quite a bit, I think, without any appreciable loss of information -- it's a matter of grammar and style edits, mainly -- but you seem oddly resistant to any edits, whether or not they change the actual content.

That being said, I think it might be in everyone's best interests if you were to take a break from editing the Ashlee Simpson stuff for the time being and let other people take a crack at it. (I'd actually like to try my hand, but I haven't because I was kind of afraid that you'd revert me.) You might be pleasantly surprised at what others have to offer to the project. Madame Sosostris 20:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've seen their work; take a look at the article now—that's their work. They're doing more than taking a crack at it; they've taken over. And it's downright scary, I tell you; since they know next to nothing about the subject, their liberal editing results in all kinds of factual errors and misleading phrases that they don't realize. And earlier today I was actually reverted when I tried to fix an error! You really want me to take a break? What if, God forbid, somebody actually came to the article looking for information while it's in such a state? Everyking 21:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I guess I'm not quite as worried about it; I haven't seen anything that I would call a major error (checking against the provided sources), and subsequent editors can clear up the minor errors later. My concern is that you seem to have taken these articles as your personal province, and I don't think that's at all compatible with the Wikipedia environment. It's not the articles' content, or their length, or their topic which seems to be at the root of this conflict; rather, it's your emotional attachment to them and your desire to maintain control over them that has caused people to become worried.

You asked whether it was everyone else or just you; there seems to be a consensus that you're "too close" to these articles, and while the people who say that may be completely off the mark, I'd ask you to consider that they may have a point. I proposed that you recuse yourself from the articles in question because it would alleviate people's fears, but also because it would be a chance for you to step back from the situation and gain some perspective. It would also stop the current dispute-resolution process from going any further and help to smooth over the conflicts between you and the other users, which is really the most important thing. Madame Sosostris 02:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've filed an [[WP:RFAr|arbitration request against Everyking. Please comment; brickbats for my foolhardiness are more than welcome. Johnleemk | Talk 07:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Joshua Gardner

I removed two refs from this article that I don't feel are proper: Joshua Gardner. However, it is more of a gut feeling, and I don't have great reasons. I was hoping you could look at them and decide what you think, since you have had some interest there. I won't dispute if you decide to replace them. Then again, if you don't really care, just ignore this message and thanks for your time. --DanielCD 18:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your objection, but I think they should stay; they're primary documents, and as long as they're publicly available we should let people know they're there. Anyway, Mackensen went and reverted you, so I think it's out of our hands. :) Madame Sosostris 19:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. I just wanted another set of eyes. --DanielCD 20:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Artisson

This guy is legendary in the pagan community as a troublemaker, and my commentary on the deletion page is exceptionally mild. Somehow I doubt he'll last very long here at Wikipedia. :) --Modemac 21:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if, in future, you could leave the commentary out altogether; this is a encyclopedic content issue, not a witch-war. Madame Sosostris 22:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, how are you? Terryeo 23:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noch ein

Charles Frederick Field

--Mackensen (talk) 03:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I've listed Image:Dorothy75.jpg at WP:PUI. If you know more about its copyright status, please comment there. Thanks. Chick Bowen 01:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]