User talk:Morwen/16

Archived talk: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14 15. 16. Current talk: User_talk:Morwen

Request copy of deleted article

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

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

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

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

Template: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

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

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.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

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

JiM

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

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

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

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

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

Hey. Yeah, I was going to get it going myself at some point. If you want to, go ahead, I'll support you . doktorb _words^deeds 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

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

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

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

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

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

Queen Elizabeth Land

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

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

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:CromwellRoadSign.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 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. . – 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!

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

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

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

Template: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

Template: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

Template: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

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—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

	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

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

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

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)

Extra-parochial areas

What do you think of my proposal at talk. Thanks for your additions here to this thorough summary article. - Adam37 Talk 11:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Cara Ellison has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Cara Ellison. Thanks! EBY (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cara Ellison (November 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hasteur was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cara Ellison and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hasteur (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Morwen, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Hasteur (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"new editors like yourself".

Of course. Morwen (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

FAC

I have nominated Local Government Commission for England (1992) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Draft:Cara Ellison concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Cara Ellison, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Other storylines in Star Trek listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Other storylines in Star Trek. Since you had some involvement with the Other storylines in Star Trek redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Civilian administrator of Iraq

A tag has been placed on Civilian administrator of Iraq 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 "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. Neve-selbert 05:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Andrew Love for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andrew Love is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Love until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Morwen. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Dawson's Creek/Episode guide listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dawson's Creek/Episode guide. Since you had some involvement with the Dawson's Creek/Episode guide redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Morwen.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Morwen. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Morwen. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Ernst Augustus of Hanover listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ernst Augustus of Hanover. Since you had some involvement with the Ernst Augustus of Hanover redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

DUP listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect DUP. Since you had some involvement with the DUP redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nevé–selbert 16:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Morwen. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like NationStates

Hey! If you're interested, I started a series of userboxes for the game NationStates. Feel free to add any or add your own!-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 04:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Where No Man Has Gone Before

Where No Man Has Gone Before, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wylye (disambiguation)

The article Wylye (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

DAB page not needed per WP:2DABS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Counties

You may be interested in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_counties#Request_for_Comment__Proposed_change_to_guidelines_on_how_to_write_about_counties as you participated in the original discussion on that policy. 51.158.24.100 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Morwen. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Osmotherley listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Osmotherley. Since you had some involvement with the Osmotherley redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:BirminghamNumbered.png

The file File:BirminghamNumbered.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious encyclopedic use

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear Morwen/16,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Urhixidur (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Suicidal bheaviour listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Suicidal behaviour. Since you had some involvement with the Suicidal behaviour redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"Political Department" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Political Department. Since you had some involvement with the Political Department redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. buidhe 12:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:British laws has been nominated for renaming

Category:British laws, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Jesus

Template:Jesus has been nominated for merging with Template:Christology. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Inviting you to take place in a discussion about Chris Mullin page

Hi, how are you?

As you know, right now the Chris Mullin page leads directly to the basketball player, which I find a tad ridiculous, as outside of the US, hardly anyone has heard of him, and in Britain when they say Chris Mullin they clearly refer to the politician Chris Mullin (politician).

I've started a discussion on the Talk:Chris Mullin page, under the title Talk:Chris Mullin#Requested move 22 August_2020, and would really appreciate it if you could voice your piece there.

Thank you! Maxim.il89 (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Stolen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anna Smith. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)