User talk:Comtesse d'Autodidactica

Marie Antoinette article
See Talk:Marie Antoinette. You should comment. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Likens
I stand by my edits, even though I both appreciate you efforts and in no way imtended to offend you. Articles to my mind need to attract and maintain readers' attention.

Quote boxes are better as they place the text in correct context rather than almost sensationalizing the text by stretching the text across the main article. I am not edit warring. If anything the article has (as I have said on the talk page) 182 active watchers and consensus governs. If I am ever lassoed I take things to the talk page or seek sage advice. If you want to make such extensive edits maybe proposals on a talk page would be more appropriate? I wasn't called to account much when I worked on this article a year or so ago. P. 177 of this book quite unequivocally shows even defense attorneys agreed as to this being the worst case of abuse. As for the hymen, it was stated at trial. She was so swollen in that area she could not insert the bottle (a Pepsi one btw if memory serves me right). The coroner (I forget his name) inferred to her being a virgin, I'm sure he did. This case is indeed jealousy. A classic act of sexual jealousy between females it to attack the vagina. Gertrude was jealous of Sylvia's looks, respectability and potential in life as opposed to what she had lost and/or thrown away with her own. With her being downtrodden and having no hope of love or prosperity, Sylvia became an embodiment of her own frustration and despair, and someone she could lash out on. With the exception of youth, the same can be said for Paula.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to with the examples as to the supposed changes I made. You're confusing me with another user on the hymen issue; that wasn't my change. Nor did I change anything's meaning, again, as I stated. What you reverted of mine was the style of writing rather than meaning. Even though those were not your justifications given. I compared the diffs and nothing was changed except, as I said, my simple streamlining where the *meaning* was *not* edited. It was just fixing of run-on sentences. I noticed in the diffs of your reverts that you apparently saw my mere restructuring as entire meaning change when all that occurred was that that a period was inserted and the same issue was continued into a new sentence. You can refer to the edits page as to *my* edits versus others. The only information I removed was the information about Sylvia having a diaper rubbed into her mouth, being given a "half filled" cup of water and then urine because it was in a pattern section when the source I used, Dean, said it was in the days accompanying her punishment for eating the sandwich—which is mentioned in the previous section. So, I put it with that mention instead of floating later with the tag of "at one point" or something similar to it. I made a mistake about the polio afflicted sister (because the text was confusing to read and sounded like it was still referring to Sylvia...) which I went to correct today when I noticed most of the things I'd done were reverted. I thought that an admin had done it and that's why I took the time to cite the single word change of "prosecutors" and a paragraph to explain why—for two separate reasons—it was an odd decision to revert it back to "counsels." I did not go around extensively changing anything. It was purely grammar changes. Thewickedfae (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

"Pattern section" is meant to be "previous section". Thewickedfae (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, my auto-correct must have combined words, actually... I mean that the info I removed was in a separate section away from the sandwich punishment mentioning. Thewickedfae (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. People are bound to step upon each other's toes on articles from time to time, but we get the collective goals in the end. Again I am sorry if I offended you, it was not my intention. I detected your edits were from the heart. I checked the article earlier and it has been improved and I thank you and others for that. I do stand by the observation regarding the quote box, but, consensus governs. This is off-topic, but I will say this. As you probably know, I write a lot of material related to true crime, cases from all over the world and I am largely desensitized to this topic, but this case is the one which I literally flinch when even thinking about. Maybe that is why some edit explanations seemed slightly abrasive...--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Renamed
per request -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 11:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanking The Fae. :)
Oh wow, thanks so much! I try to be useful, hehe. And yes, it's absolutely one of the most terrible cases I've ever read about. Comtesse d&#39;Autodidactica (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --Kieronoldham (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)