User talk:Wiki'dWitch

I just happened to notice your login name and wanted to tell you that I thought it was pretty clever. :)

Thank you. I'm surprised no one's used it before.Wiki'dWitch 17:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, believe it or not, that's exactly what I came here to say. I think it's really neat: Wiki'dWitch... Cheers! --DanielCD 19:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome to the Wikipedia!

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

Wikipedia:Tutorial Wikipedia:Help desk M:Foundation issues Wikipedia:Five pillars For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: Barrettmagic 16:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Again welcome and have fun! Barrettmagic 16:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Masha Allen

Hello Wiki'd Witch,

James Marsh contacted me concerning the sudden, against-policy deletion of the Masha Allen article which I see you've been working on (Are you a fellow IA victim of some sort? You've read our website, http://www.bewareofBBAS.org?) There was no vote.

Anyway, I don't know you but I appreciate what you do (I generally avoid editing adoption-related articles; our website would make it look like a conflict of interest). I think you need to confront User:Phil Sandifer, the admin who completely ignored policy when he made this deletion. She is a notable individual who has testified before Congress under her own name and appeared on TV. WP:IAR doesn't go this far.

You need to take this to deletion review. You might also want to contact User:JamesMarshLaw, and have him cosign an RFC. I think it's at that level. Daniel Case 22:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is on the level where attorneys are involved, RFC and DRV are inappropriate procedures to use. This case needs to be taken directly to the Foundation or arbcom. Phil Sandifer 22:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main question we should all be asking is why now and at whose direction? There are many many people who want to make Masha Allen go away; many powerful people and many cowardly people. There was NOTHING in the entry which was not sourced (at least in regards to Masha) and nothing which was not true (again, at least in regards to Masha). Why Mr. Sandifer chose to delete the entry now, with an election pending in PA and a pornographic book about Masha being published in paperback, is cause for huge public concern. JamesMarshLaw 23:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)JamesMarshLaw[reply]

If you feel that way, talk to the arbcom. Phil Sandifer 03:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alternate?

{{User:UBX/female}} maybe? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wale's talk page

Howdy! Just a quick heads up, your request at User talk:Jimbo Wales won't (and cannot) be acted on because of the discussion here regarding use of lawyers. The page will not be undeleted, any further communication regarding the issue must take place directly to the foundation via counsel. So,um, sorry. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the presence of a lawyer bars it from being discussed. The lawyer has made no mention of legal action. It seems to me he is acting as a spokesperson for Masha, pointing out that Masha wishes her name to be known. We shouldn't have to go scrambling for the hills every time we find out that someone's occupation is in the legal field. —Ocatecir ^Talk 07:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. No legal action is being contemplated at this time. JamesMarshLaw 10:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)JamesMarshLaw[reply]

Hello there

Please pick one account and stick with it. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]