<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
And I just realized it's a nomination for Kww for Arbcom, not an
Arbcom case. <br>
<br>
Ugh, sorry. I'm in the middle of finals and preparing to fly out of
the country in a few hours. My brain is fried. <br>
<br>
I'm still pissed though. ;)<br>
<br>
-Sarah<br>
<br>
On 12/1/11 9:37 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4ED7910C.6070805@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
Hi everyone,<br>
<br>
A few months ago Kelly Wearstler appeared - I think on this list.
I had never heard of her, but, a small stink was being made on her
talk page about whether to feature the Playboy model infobox for
her page. So, I took a look, and of course got sucked in. I
rewrote the article and blahblabhlah. One user was claiming that
only claim to fame Kelly Wearstler has is being a Playboy model. <br>
<br>
Someone linked me to an interesting comment on some arbcom case.
Now, I'm not into getting involved in the drama llama known as
Arbcom, but I'm a bit irked by this guy's comments here:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates/Kww/Questions#Question_from_Newyorkbrad">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates/Kww/Questions#Question_from_Newyorkbrad</a><br>
<br>
And I'm not sure the protocol to going about handling this. It
really irritates me, and now he's making some assumption that
Kelly "
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
Wearstler herself would rather that her Wikipedia page emphasize
her interior design business rather than her Playmate past."
Uhhh...I wrote the page, to emphasize that she wasn't just a
Playboy model (and consensus agreed on the talk page that it
wasn't her main claim to fame). I also have NEVER MET KELLY
WEARSTLER let alone do I own her books, nor did I know who she was
(I'm just that involved in the fashion industry anymore.)...<br>
<br>
So, I'm fairly aggravated that this person is claiming that it was
Wearstler doing the manipulating to the article and that by
revamping the page I'm saying (or someone is) that being a Playboy
bunny is inherently bad. It states it in the lead that she was
Playboy of the Month, and there is a section for it - <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Wearstler">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Wearstler</a><br>
<br>
Her clothing and interior design items are sold at Bergdorf
Goodman (which is a VERY high end store - think 1% ;-) ) and she's
published a number of books including a LA Times best seller. <br>
<br>
Obviously I'm pissed, so how does one go about saying "Listen
dude, I didn't write it FOR her, and if you don't think there's
more to her, you need to really look a little closer," without
getting sucked into an Arbcom drama? I try to assume good faith,
that perhaps he's just misunderstanding something, or I don't know
what...<br>
<br>
It also doesn't help that I've had artist biographies I've written
lately speedy nominated because the speedy nominators 1) don't
know anything about art 2) don't do their research properly. <br>
<br>
So yeah, I'm grumpy. <br>
<br>
Sarah<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Sarah Stierch Consulting<br>
--<br>
Historical, cultural, new media & artistic research &
advising.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.sarahstierch.com">http://www.sarahstierch.com</a></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Sarah Stierch Consulting<br>
--<br>
Historical, cultural, new media & artistic research &
advising.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.sarahstierch.com">http://www.sarahstierch.com</a></div>
</body>
</html>