User talk:Morwen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archived talk: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14 15. Current talk: User_talk:Morwen

Contents

Request copy of deleted article[edit]

Hi there! I'm looking to obtain a copy of a deleted article called 'Doctor Who story chronology' that was taken off wikipedia on 14th October 2011. I've been searching for the text of this page for some time, but as I'm not an administrator, I cannot view the page (if indeed it still exists somewhere) Many thanks for your time, Josh Rogers RottingMofo (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kieron Gillen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fear Itself (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome[edit]

Welcome back! Hope you'll be around for a while! Warofdreams talk 13:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Morwen - Talk 13:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter[edit]

Hey Morwen. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Non-free restricted use[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Non-free restricted use has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Abigail Brady[edit]

No need to respond; just want you to be aware of User:Abigail Brady in case this is in fact not you, as that account is claiming to be an alternate account of you. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
The Foundry Visionmongers, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Jethro B 06:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

JiM[edit]

Hi, Morwen. I've got limited Internet today, so if I can't respond quickly sometimes, that's the hurricane-related reason. If you're anywhere in the affected area, I hope you and yours and well and safe.

We don't do issue-by-issue plot breakdowns and by extension we don't do laundry lists of story-arc-by-story-arc plot breakdowns, which are just several-issue plots instead of single-issue plots. The basic WikiProject Comics style about this appears at WP:CMOS#PLOT and says in part:

Summarising should never be on a per-issue basis and should only outline the plot rather than describe minor details. Additionally, plot descriptions must include cited reference to critical analysis published in secondary sources. Editors should approach the discussion of fictional concepts within a "real world context"; this means editors should describe fictional elements in terms of how they relate to the real world, as fictional characters or topics.

The key thing is "must include cited reference to critical analysis published in secondary sources"; the articles Spider-Man and Superman are good examples. Obviously, not every WikiProject Comics article is up to their standard, but a great many, as you'll see, do not, in fact, have lists of story arcs with in-universe plot details. I hope this information helps. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Morwen. I would say the article on the series The Amazing Spider-Man would be a good example. And, yes, if there's good, citable commentary available on one particular arc or on one writer's work, then by all means.
What doesn't work under MOS is what we in journalism call "a laundry list" that's basically a bulleted list in prose form. Also, a writer's creation of a character in a given comic isn't necessarily notable: Steve Gerber, for instance, created dozens of characters in his Marvel stories, but only a handful are enduring and notable. There's also a concern about what some editors call "recentism", in which articles get heavily weighted toward content of the last year or two, out of proportion to the overall subject.
If I don't answer right away, it'll be because of the spotty Internet. And I'm glad you're nowhere near this awful mess. --23:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely. And thanks for the word on the Avengers vs. X-Men article. God, do I remember the messes we went through during World War Hulk and Civil War...! With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The article needs more citing, as the obvious tag at the top of clearly states, but the larger point remains; the PH isn't a list of every single story arc and what happened in it. It mentions arcs and particular stories only when notable (e.g. the death of Gwen Stacy) and most importantly puts things in a real-world context. If one word emerges as paramount from all this, it's context.
If you want other examples, perhaps try Jungle Action, Blazing Combat, Tales to Astonish, Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos, U.S.A. Comics, or The Spectacular Spider-Man. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: A + X[edit]

Thank you for responding, I not sure you can equate special series with limited, most limited series have a set number of issues. Also I dont know why that other reference is there, I'll replace it with this one that says it is ongoing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Very well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't really help my case but the Marvel page doesn't make any reference to a set number of issues and says "every month" with (2012 - present) in the title.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael Trent[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Michael Trent has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced BLP

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Patchy1 11:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Concerning a BLP[edit]

Hi, I see that you have hidden some revisions of the above page. There is some dubious material also on the talk page, if you or one of your admin stalkers could deal with it, please.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like my colleague User:Scott MacDonald has taken care of this. Morwen - Talk 10:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, he had also hidden material from the article. I decided that posting to each of your talk pages was the best way to get things fixed without spreading interest in the contents. Thanks for looking. --Peter cohen (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding a recent post of your to a Talk page explaining why you had revdeleted an edit[edit]

Your advice was

  • Hello. I have reverted your edit and hidden it, to this page, because of our policy on biographies of living people. Whatever rumours are flying around are just that: rumours, and Wikipedia would need some serious sources before reporting on them. Please do not add this information again.

and I added a note

  • 'Serious' sources are not a sufficient protection for you, nor for Wikipedia depending on its jurisdiction, against a suit of libel as it still a libel in most jurisdictions, and certainly in the UK, to repeat a libel in good faith. The question of qualified privilege is more complex. Suppose in the UK an MP makes use of Parliamentary privilege to make a statement about an individual which would normally be libellous. Someone in the business of publishing entire parliamentary debates would be protected by so-called qualified privilege, but a newspaper repeating the statement about the individual in a piece devoted to that individual, or the circumstances surrounding him, would probably not be. 93.104.213.2 (talk) 08:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, quite. So, I was simplifying for a user who obviously wouldn't have understood such jargon (if they had they wouldn't have been adding such stuff in the first place). My warning had the intended result. As to your other point which you made elsewhere, whether the entire discussion should be taking place in camera, I can't see how we can practically maintain order on that page without mentioning that there is a problem with that page specifically. That people have been adding stuff to it and it has been revdelled is visible in the history still, just not the particular content. Part of the open nature of this project means we have no private admin-only channels of communication, and not every user has off-wiki contact details, the only way to communicate with some users is their talk page. Now, this might mean the entire use of a wiki to conduct editorial collaboration is doomed under English defamation law, but that's massively speculative, and I'm willing to stand by my actions. Morwen (Talk) 09:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes fair points, but I'm inclined to think that in practice what you describe as editorial collaboration indeed won't be protected by qualified privilige i.e. to say these editorial Talk pages will be regarded as essentially social media pages. In these circumstances when contacting (as an administrator) an editor to explain why you revdeleted a libellous edit, you should use some form of words such as "regarding your recent BLP edit" and not identify the individual who has been defamed. I'm pretty sure a UK civil court will be disinclined to extend qualified privilege to an administrator acting in good faith. I don't know how Wikipedia discusses these issues, but I suggest you might care to open a debate somewhere. And certainly I think you should avoid suggesting to editors that all that is required is a 'serious' source. 93.104.213.2 (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
That latter one is a good point, perhaps "serious" isn't quite strongly worded enough. I'll endeavour to be clearer in future. As to the other point. Well. This is tricky, isn't it. If we put aside the fact that I'm in England for the moment, the reason Wikipedia cracks down hard on this sort of thing isn't because of fear of action - either to itself of to its editors - from what to it is a foreign jurisdiction (I believe the SPEECH Act provides some level of protection from that): it's for our own editorial reasons. Now, let's remember I'm in England. I first was alerted to the problem with the article when another editor posted that there were problems on the article to the appropriate noticeboard. Another admin stepped in and dealt with the situation initially, and I placed the page on watchlist. Later, this user added it back, so I reverted, suppressed the information on the page, and warned them.
If I had merely alluded to the particular page, it would still have been fairly trivial to find out what article was involved, given the fact that everything's in a logged database! So do User_talk pages count as publishing whereas history pages don't? I can't see any reason to suppose that the entire thing wouldn't be publishing.
Obviously this is a complex issue, and I'm not a lawyer, as they say. But, given what I was doing, I find it really unlikely that I'd be the target of action rather than the thousands of people doing actual rumour-spreading on Twitter and Facebook. Can you imagine the public outcry if there someone doing what I was doing would be targetted.
In this case I could have been vaguer and it still have been clear, because this user wasn't making many many edits. Another user might be making enough that it wasn't obvious and a warning would have to be specific to be effective. So, in conclusion, I dunno. Morwen (Talk) 20:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
So, further to this, you'll see that someone left me a note about this article lower down this page page. I literally can't control that. If what it was was saying was actionable, am I liable for leaving it there? It raises all sorts of questions that I can't hope to answer. Morwen (Talk) 09:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you would be wise to factor that edit below in the same manner I did the one above. Qualified privilege almost certainly doesn't extend to you as a Wikipedia administrator. When courts of law refer to Wikipedia they always stress that it is a website anyone can edit and in that respect it is no different at all from other social media sites such as Twitter or Facebook, where the public are gradually been educated they can't in fact post what they like. If I were you I would leave all this to your Foundation and not get involved except to remove violations on your own patch i.e. this Talk page and any page you happen to visit in the course of your admin duties. 93.104.213.2 (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Connected AfDs[edit]

Hey. Yeah, I was going to get it going myself at some point. If you want to, go ahead, I'll support you . doktorb wordsdeeds 16:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I added additional information to Doktorbuk's talk page which may also be of interest to yourself regarding DAB ensemble articles. --tgheretford (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green[edit]

rather interesting edits there recently (not by me), would love to know your thoughts / opinion. i dont have access to good newspaper article databases at the moment (although if i spent some time after work tomorrow....) Decora (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Another question. The talk page for the article above has many 'oversighted'/deleted edits. And some of these have my nickname next to them. It makes it look like I made a bunch of improper edits to the talk page, when I did not. All I did was add ordinary biographical stuff about his parental line, etc. I would like to know if there is any way to 'de-oversight' my particular edits to the talk page somehow? I am assuming that my edits got 'caught up' in some kind of mass-oversighting action but i cannot be sure? Thank you for any insight you can provide. Decora (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Update Nov 9

Egads, the article is becoming a bit of a mess now. I didn't realize until just now that you started the article in 2005. Must be very odd to watch it's transformation the past few days? I notice people are figthing about whether to include denied allegations or not...(a debate i am not taking part in)... but it is interesting to me that I have seen similar arguments before about UK people articles but not about American people articles - do you think it is a cultural thing between the UK and America (i assume those are the two biggest English wiki editors?) ?

The other thing that fascinates me is that German wikipeda on him, which even now contains more details on him than the English version, ( de:Alistair_McAlpine,_Baron_McAlpine_of_West_Green )... has gone completely unchanged since July.... Decora (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hah! Until you pointed that out I had forgotten I started that. I've created quite a lot of articles in my time - despite my prolonged absence from 2007 until a couple of months ago, still number 41 on the articles created high score table. I suppose it's time to crack open Google Translate and figure out what de. have that we don't. Morwen (Talk) 18:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Just to add to the IP above (German incidentally) and to my remarks supporting her here to say that I think you and your fellow administrators did do a good job controlling the situation here. I do think Wikipedia comes out of this rather well. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Callump90[edit]

Sadly the promise not to create any more hoaxes turned out to be false and the editor has continued with their previous action. - SchroCat (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Charlcutt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lyneham
Situation Vacant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Partners in Crime

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

comics help[edit]

i am seeing that you are really doing a lot of research regarding comics articles lately. actually i'm a comic geek and i stay up to date 24/7 regarding comics and i'm trying to update as soon as possible. so if you want any kind of help in setting things up do tell me . and really if you want me to help in your research i'll be glad. we both can set,create and update many articles regarding comics. i'm awaiting your answer. --Shoxee1214 (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Currently I'm just poking around comics articles, trying to take a feel for them and the folks working on them. In the longer term, I've a mind to get an article about a really long-running Marvel title (perhaps Uncanny X-Men) to good article status, so we can use it as an example for other writing. Morwen (Talk) 19:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
yeah good . in time do let me know. hey i want to ask something . long running titles are really of worth so dont you think we should create articles for titles which have been running around for 4 to 5 decades because they atleast deserve their own title after so much time. what do you think? --Shoxee1214 (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I think our main focus should be on improving the articles we have. Morwen (Talk) 19:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
ok then one thing as you have plenty of experience knowing wikipedia. i just want your one help. do tell me all the basic guideline about what to include in article and what makes an article relevant so i should create,set,edit,update according to those guidelines. i'll appreciate that. ok? --Shoxee1214 (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, WP:WAF and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics would seem to be a good place to start. Morwen (Talk) 19:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Proof of identity[edit]

Here is my proof of identity as agreed. 149.255.57.233 (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth Land[edit]

That was a quick addition! You even beat the team at Wikishire, although they put in a full article here.

All that's missing is a photgraph or two. Howard Alexander (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Regards on the article about Marvelous Alejo[edit]

Thanks and apologies for my late reply. I want to clarify that I didn't claim I am Marvelous Alejo or any other person you mentioned. I recognize the provisions on copyright and intellectual property. Do not worry, I will try to fix this mess. Again, my sincere apologies. RafaelPPascual (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

File:CromwellRoadSign.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Igor Mitoraj[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Igor Mitoraj has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Concerns over WP:NOTABILITY for biographies; article suggests no coverage in mainstream sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning[edit]

Very sorry about that, hadn't even heard that Chelsea was potentially trans, let alone that she was now defining as a woman. Feel free to change back! Cls14 (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thread at AN[edit]

I've opened an informal discussion relating to concerns with your conduct:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#Manning_incident:_sanctions.2Factions_against_parties.3F

Regards, --RA () 09:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

RA has now moved this to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Manning#Manning_incident:_sanctions.2Factions_against_parties.3F - David Gerard (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society[edit]

Ten Year Society.svg

Dear Abigail,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. Incidentally, I lived for a number of years quite nearby to you, in Leytonstone!

Best regards, — Scott talk 14:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning[edit]

Thanks for your posts. Beyond the correct application of policy, I think without your work, Wikipedia could get some (well deserved) outside criticism. --\/\/slack (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. Ironically (and unfortunately) what criticism your move is attracting is coming entirely from within the project. The moment I noticed your move I knew this would happen. I see another administrator's already undone the move, despite David's protection. Hoping reason will prevail and that this all gets resolved soon. –Psychonaut (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tivanir2 (talkcontribs) 16:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I applaud your move. So does Slate: Wikipedia Beats Major News Organizations, Perfectly Reflects Chelsea Manning’s New Gender Liz Let's Talk 20:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever posted this template: {{Connected contributor|Morwen|declared=yes|edited-here=no}} ? Perhaps it ought to go on the Media controversy talk page. Face-smile.svg. – S. Rich (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've asked that very thing on Talk:Chelsea Manning media coverage controversy! Morwen (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you did. I wanted to provide it here so a BOLD copy & paste could be accomplished. The Manning stone soup isn't ready to serve up. So the template is just a little more garnish for the pot. (Which, at the moment, has too many chefs stirring it.) IMO it's your call. – S. Rich (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well played, by the by. Quite impressed with your well-formulated, impassioned defense against what I consider to be the single most anti-LGBT movement on Wikipedia in quite some time. Keep on fighting the good fight! QuackCD (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Good press for Wikipedia, thanks to you![edit]

I suppose you've already seen this, but in case you haven't (or others reading your page haven't), Buzzfeed has an article commenting quite favorably on the Wikipedia's handling of the Manning announcement, and your important contribution to it. Dezastru (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Good press, perhaps, but feeding the trolls is never good behavior. Yes, the twitterati are impressed, but we are writing an encyclopedia, not righting an encyclopedia. It's obvious from this that you knew the move would be controversial, yet you didn't use the accepted process for controversial moves? WP:CIR, especially of admins, and you've been around long enough to know that the action you took well outstepped the lines of WP:BOLD. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually it's very misleading, making it look like Wikipedia has decided to change the name now, when that is not the case. Posting off wiki about Wiki debates really is a form of canvassing to the world and is a problem, as I've expressed now in on the Manning talk page and WP:ANI after others brought it up. User:Carolmooredc 04:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY and new related discussion[edit]

As I understand you had a crucial role in the adoption of MOS:IDENTITY, I wanted to make you aware of this ongoing discussion affecting that policy[1]. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian article[edit]

Regarding the Hungarian news article you found, I thought you might be interested in a (human) translation of the paragraph which mentions you. If I've made any mistakes I'm sure someone more proficient in the language can correct them for me:

One of the editors of the online encyclopedia, Abigail Brady (registered under the name "Morwen"), changed the article on Manning immediately following the private's statement, given on NBC's Today Show, that she considers herself a woman, and that her correct name is Chelsea Manning. Brady's swift change resulted in a debate, but editors eventually agreed and accepted the amendment.

Note that Hungarian doesn't have grammatical gender, so all references above to "she" and "her" are the translator's licence. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:States and territories of East Asia[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:States and territories of East Asia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lfdder (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Countries and territories of Southeast Asia[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Countries and territories of Southeast Asia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lfdder (talk) 09:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Commonwealth of Independent States[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Commonwealth of Independent States has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lfdder (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom case[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Chelsea Manning and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,--v/r - TP 22:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I just read your response at this Arbcom page and noticed you mentioned the transphobic comments being made. Are there any not specifically in the list compiled by Phil? Other than the "mentally unstable" comment, I'm not sure if any of them are necessarily transphobic -- yes there are a lot of asinine statements in there and political soapboxing. But the majority seem to be based on the misunderstanding of the nuanced differences between sex and gender. A difference the majority of the planet is understandably not aware. Perhaps the comparison to a dog or cat wasn't wise because being compared to a dog is obviously derogatory. I'm not so sure being compared to a cat is bad, in fact for some it might be a compliment, but I digress. Obviously many statements should have been made with more care. What I'm getting at is if people complain about the sex vs. gender comments, it dilutes the complaint against truly bigoted posts. I understand a comment can be offensive even if no malice were intended. However calling someone a bigot is also offensive, more so if they thought their statements to be reasonable. I'm starting to see the problem in a better light now. Patience and restraint will be needed. Thanks for letting me vent here.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
There's a bloody ton. Note also that you or I may not be the arbiter of what is and isn't - and that requiring people who find a given statement odious and ghastly to justify that to the person who said it before taking the claim seriously may be missing the point. In practical terms, an odious statement made in innocence can be just as seriously problematic; e.g. statements can be clearly racist, sexist or homophobic without requiring mens rea; so too statements can be transphobic, and warrant calling out as such, without also requiring evidence of mens rea - David Gerard (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
@Two kinds of pork: I did not use the t-word on the ArbCom page and I'm not particularly keen on wading into that stuff to identify additional quotes. I was trying to individually argue against each one at first, but I pretty quickly lost my stomach for it. There were how many individual sections started in that first 12-hour period? That's what frustrated me enough to blog about it.
"being compared to a dog is obviously derogatory"
Well, yes. It's almost always dogs, you'll notice. Well, apart from the comparisons to murderers. Those were a bit problematic, too. And anyway, the implication with those - quite apart from the particular animal involved - is that trans people are as unreasonable/unstable for wanting to transition, as this hypothetical someone who wanted to a dog. The continued focus on trans people's genitals is also quite grim.
I can try to explain this further, if you think it would help. Morwen (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I think you both see the issues from each side. The problem is the minority position is difficult to explain. In your co statement you tried to do that. But feathers were ruffled by then. I'll keep watching, but best of luck to both of you.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

just wondering[edit]

Is your username from the character? Double sharp (talk) 05:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Yes. As a random item of trivia, there are huge numbers of talk pages that accidentally link to Morwen rather than User:Morwen because my sig was broken for a few months and I didn't notice. Morwen (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Temporary Injunction Enacted[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has passed a temporary injunction in the case in which you are a party to. The full text of the injunction follows:

The articles "Bradley Manning", "United States v. Manning", and "Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage" are placed under standard discretionary sanctions for the duration of the case. Unless otherwise provided for in the final decision, any sanction imposed pursuant to this injunction will automatically lapse upon the closure of the case.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 23:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Half Yellow Face, Crow Indian[edit]

Hello. Half Yellow Face, Crow Indian would seem to have way more information in it than can be verified by checking the two supplied references. Do you think you could cite the other sources? Thanks, Morwen (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am a little unsure if this is the way to talk to you.

You are right. I intended to return and fill in the citations, but got distracted and have not yet got around to it. I will do that.

NoAmGeogSoc (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom Questions[edit]

In case you missed it, there's a question about your response to Salvio at the workshop. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop#Morwen's answer. I responded to the sentiment behind the question, but - on second reading - it seems more like a direct request for clarification, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. FYI. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 02:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

ANI-Notice: User:David91[edit]

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is IP making unfounded accusations. Thank you. (I have a case against this one User:David91, of the year 2005, and last active in the year 2006, and of whom I accuse of impersonating an English solicitor or barrister, as well as of having an exceedingly poor form of editing especially on facts, and also notorious for his wild original legal research. Would you be so kind as to be willing to speak up for me? I shall not be able to thank you enough. I am in no way seek to punish the now retired editor, but only to remove the bad edits, bad information and the simple rubbish from Wikipedia. This most humble Northern invalid and failed student do most humbly crave your indulgence.) --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute closed[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Hitmonchan (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
  2. IFreedom1212 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
  3. Tarc (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
  4. Josh Gorand (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
  5. Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed. He is also topic banned from all pages (including biographies) related to leaks of classified information, broadly construed.
  6. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is admonished for acting in a manner incompatible with the community's expectations of administrators (see #David Gerard's use of tools).
  7. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.
  8. The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.
  9. All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Protection[edit]

Hey, could you put an expiry on your protection today, otherwise you are excluding unconfirmed editors in perpetuity. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you![edit]

Roadster 2.5 windmills trimmed.jpg A Tesla Roadster for you!
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Good Lord, you just got a Tesla Roadster - David Gerard (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
No information was left as to how I can claim it.  :-( Morwen (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Surely the wiki shall provide! Or put it in your Bitstrip cartoon - David Gerard (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Grange, Cumbria[edit]

A tag has been placed on Grange, Cumbria requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TheQ Editor (Talk) 21:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rock 'n' Roll Loony Party[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Rock 'n' Roll Loony Party has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a notable joke party

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JDDJS (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Landscaper[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Landscaper requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. TheQ Editor (Talk) 17:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)