User talk:CassieMe

Welcome!

Hello, CassieMe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 17:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CassieMe, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi CassieMe! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, CassieMe. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Fiddle Faddle 17:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Your understanding of the process for requesting edits

This is excellent. The challenge is that you rely on others to accept or reject your suggestions. I will not do so because, despite having no interest in the article per se, I am involved in that I am guiding you.

Notice the minor formatting changes I have made to your requested edits. I commend these to you for the third, if there is to be a third, etc. They are tiny, but also significant.

I have no idea what you do if no-one answers on the talk page there, so I am going to ping CorporateM, an editor well versed in editing in areas in this manner, to ask them take a look at Talk:Phoenix Nuclear Labs‎ and at the article itself to see if they have any advice, suggestions, or, perhaps, to contribute to the talk page discussion there. Theirs is an opinion I respect in this area. Fiddle Faddle 18:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your time and help! Your advice and guidance are greatly appreciated. This has definitely been a learning process but it's been fun trying to figure this out. CassieMe (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pleasure. CM is a safe pair of hands and has already made substantial contributions to the article, and left a request for you in its talk page. Fiddle Faddle 18:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consistent way to get the attention of an editor, except to ping an editor that is particularly responsive. I am one such editor and you may almost always get an immediate response from me - in particular if there is a factual error or attack page, though it will probably not always be the exact response you were hoping for. In this case, I think the first step is to check whether the company meets the requirements at WP:ORG. CorporateM (Talk) 18:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM: From my perspective anything that improves an article is a great response. I believe that, though slimmed down, the article now represented plain facts better. It may or may not meet CassieMe's objectives in a way that is congruent with her manager's wishes, but it does meet Wikipedia's needs better. I suspect there is sufficient sourcing available, though not necessarily in place, to secure the article's future. Thank you for your speedy response. It was more than I expected, though not radically different from my expectations. I hoped for and expected advice on doing just this. Instead you have led from the front.

CassieMe, you have now had quite a baptism of fire. WIkipedia, as you see, is a place where things can happen suddenly, and not alwasy in the way one requests. The Wisdom of Crowds is a peculiar thing. Mostly it works well. I think you will need a period to study the newly whittled down article to absorb what has taken place. With experience this is the way you need to be able to examine articles you are not connected with Fiddle Faddle 21:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple unfortunate things that happen in COI situations is that the editors become overly fixated on the COI and often make editing decisions based on their support or opposition to the COI's conduct, rather than sources and NPOV; the second being that the importance or sensitivity of the editorial decisions becomes exaggerated, often preventing bold editing. The editors that respond to my COI the best are those that practically act as though it was never disclosed. CorporateM (Talk) 21:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the quality of the end result that is important, with or without COI. Conduct while one is conflicted is simply a social nicety that the community insists on, albeit only some of the time Fiddle Faddle 08:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-a-thon in Madison

CassieMe, I'd like to invite you to an upcoming edit-a-thon:

ART+FEMINISM EDIT-A-THON

Saturday, March 5th, 9:30 a.m. – noon

Madison Public Library (Madison, Wisconsin)

Bring a laptop! There will be snacks and daycare

RSVP on the event page if you plan to attend or have any suggestions. czar 00:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You received this message because you are a member of Category:Wikipedians in Wisconsin. To opt-in to future Madison event messages, add yourself to the mailing list.