User:Matthew Stannard/Scratch

User talk:Matthew Stannard  Leave a Message

Read Messages

Good places
---
 * Special characters
 * Cite_your_sources
 * MediaWiki custom messages
 * Wiki engines
 * Word Net
 * http://sourceforge.net/projects/wikipedia/
 * Dennett's Home Page
 * E2
 * Dictionary
 * ELIZA
 * Dialogues
 * Edit counter

=Dori's Advice= Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.


 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~ 

Dori | Talk 19:47, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi again Stan. I am not sure I understand your question. My post above was simply meant as a welcoming message and a couple of links to help you get started as an editor if you so choose. Could you be a bit more specific as to that you want to do and are having trouble with? I am following your talk page so if you want you can post here (or at my talk page, either is fine). regards, Dori | Talk 20:48, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC): Hi again. I don't think there is a real knowledge of what

Wikipedia covers in depth and what it doesn't. One thing I could point out is the cultural coverage of many countries is lacking. That's just one thing I have come across, but there is no overseeing editor at Wikipedia. There are however more experienced editors, and a better place to ask this question is on the Village pump.

However, if you are looking for something to do, there are some pages you can look at, namely: Cleanup (clean up articles that others have submitted), Pages needing attention (similar to clean up), Requested articles (articles that other Wikipedians want to be written).


 * Regarding, the edit links on the right, those are section edit links. You can divide the articles into sections when they get too long in order to improve the flow. You can also set up your Preferences to not show up the edit links but rather to edit sections when you right click a section name. See How to edit for more information and nifty things that you can do, but you can create sections and subsections by using equal signs. See below for a sample. hth,

Dori | Talk 18:32, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

couple of tips
Hello again Stan. I noticed that you are editing on your talk page and I wanted to give you a couple of tips in case you are not aware of them. First of all, you can have pages under your userspace such as User:Matthew Stannard/My Byron Page. Second, it's usually good to leave a note on the talk page of the original article you are improving that you are doing a re-write (if you are doing this). That way people are aware of the changes. Or you might just work directly on the article itself. This is up to you. Good luck, Dori | Talk 04:20, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

Link archive
http://wiktionary.org/wiki/Fuck http://wiktionary.org/wiki/Naida http://wiktionary.org/wiki/Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon http://wikiquote.org/wiki/Confucius

In Finnish:
http://wiktionary.org/wiki/Naida

= Moved from Talk Page 13-Mar-2004 =

Culture Pages
What I mean was many countries of cultures do not have a Culture of ... article about them yet in Wikipedia. I think it would be worthwhile to have something on as many of them as possible. Culture lists some articles, but even those are not all that complete. You can look at the list of countries or at the list of ethnic groups and see if you can find one that is lacking in the culture section and that you know something about. Dori | Talk 20:46, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

Dog vomit
Trophallaxis. Explain. Psb777 00:40, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's what I figured. My e-mails are possibly widely but not universally so regarded. Franklin Jones: "Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger." Psb777 23:17, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Self-referential words

 * self-referential
 * word
 * newword
 * GNU
 * missspelt
 * glottal

I got those before seeing this: A link to sesquipedalian.

If missspelt is not allowed then many, many others would also have to be disallowed also. I think you must give the reason missspelt should not be allowed. That so-and-so would not allow it is not good enough. Did you see hyphenated and non-hypenated: Mutually-referential. Talk to Psb777 09:16, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Missspelt is self-referential but sjsjssj is not. I allege, however, that it is mis-spelt. Paul Beardsell 03:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Bob Geldof
Hi. I'm sorry, but I redirected Sir Bob Geldof to the existing page Bob Geldof. You might want to re-add your contribututions, in context. Mintguy (T) 18:08, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

=Message Section=

--

Matthew, presumably you're the Matthew Stannard I know. Psb777 14:23, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Quotes

 * As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport. (Gloucester, IV.i) from King Lear
 * http://quote.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogden_Nash

Finding out if anyone's reading your stuff

 * The hit rate is easy to get by visiting http://wikimedia.org/stats/en.wikipedia.org/. Choose the month, in this case March, move down to Urls and see the View all Urls link at the end of that table if your article didn't make it into the top 50. Beware, that list is long... Use you browser's find function to see your articles's rank and hit count for that month. --

Kerry v Bush: Who won the Shared Parenting vote?(McKenzie 63)
Kerry v Bush: Who won the Shared Parenting vote? Well neither, but an interesting side show was the placing of a question about “joint custody” on the Massachusetts State ballot. Around the world, shared parenting has become a left-right issue. Massachusetts is an interesting little laboratory of voting intentions. It is a “liberal” state, that is to say, it went for Kerry and returned a Democrat Senator. One of the obstacles facing the shared parenting movement worldwide is that, for no obvious reason, it gets marginalised as a “right-wing” issue. So all the negative press about the Geldof on Fathers programme was in liberal-left papers like the Guardian, Observer and Independent. Especially where it concerned Gelfdof’s views on marriage (he thinks couples give up on it too quickly) they lost no time in aligning him with those terrifying bogeymen of the sinister “Christian Right” – Bush voters! Yet Massachussetts voters went 8 to 1 in favour of shared parenting. (see page 5). In the UK, Margaret Hodge, after some rhetoric in which she decried the Tories turning of parental equality into a party political issue, turned it into, er, a party-political issue. When FNF visited Shadow Attorney-General Dominic Grieve MP about a year ago, he, like Hodge, said this must not happen; up, he warned, would go the shutters against any meaningful reform. We’d get window dressing instead. He wasn’t far wrong; July’s Family Resolutions Green Paper does look like window dressing. Yet when Grieve’s very reasonable Children Bill amendment was placed, asking for a presumption of equality, Hodge was withering in her dismissal of it, accusing Grieve of “Jumping on a band-wagon” and of “opportunism”. The amendment was roundly rejected. Labour has spent a century championing equality trotting, yet all their MPs - including some who support shared parenting, obediently trotted through the “No” lobby, while Tories and Lib-Dems went through the “Aye” lobby. There were no exceptions, no rebels, no MPs voting acccording to conscience. It was as if this were an issue comparable to high or low tax. The strange thing about this polarisation is that both John Baker, FNF chair, and Martin Crapper, vice-chair have been Labour activists. FNF has always been the broadest of churches, with members from all races, all classes and all political persuasions, absolutely not identified with left or right.

For Fathers' rights movement in the UK

Who am I today?
Checking my own ip address. 66.9.197.113 09:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And again: 66.9.197.113 09:52, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Elizabeth Morgan
Dr. Elizabeth Morgan (b. 1948) is a charismatic and brilliant plastic surgeon who succeeded in unilaterally denying her ex-husband, an oral surgeon, any contact with their daughter for almost the entirety of the child's minority, despite many years of strenuous legal effort by him in thier child custody dispute. Dr. Morgan's actions ensured that the custody case was intensely publicized and controversial. For her actions, Dr. Morgan was incarcerated for two years, and following her release from prison she went into hiding overseas. Several books have been written and a television movie were made about this story. The Congress_of_the_United_States passed two laws designed to apply to this case alone, and it's legacy has been to polarize and script the politics of child custody. Dr. Morgan now practices medicine back in the United States, having also gained a degree in psychology and offering herself as a "beacon of hope" that protective parents can free their children from harm. In 2003, she was involved as a consultant in a custody case, where she unintentionally prompted a female United States Department of State officer to attempt to murder yet another supposedly abusive father.

(I recall an early Reader's Digest article on Dr. Morgan, but I will have to find it).

Dr. Elizabeth Morgan, as a surgeon in Wasthington, D.C. had already published in 1980 a successful book entitled "The Making of a Woman Surgeon", which recounted her the rigors of her training in this predominantly male profession. It is still sometimes cited as an inspirational story for girls contemplating their career choices.

Dr. Morgan first met Dr. Eric A. Foretich in Fairfax Hospital, where both were on the staff. Dr. Foretich's second marriage was breaking up at the time. After dating Dr. Foretich for a few months, Dr. Morgan became pregnant. The two flew to Haiti and were married, and their daughter Hilary was born Aug. 21, 1982. By this time, Dr. Morgan had left Dr. Foretich and the two were divorced in late 1982. In 1984, after a legal battle, Dr. Morgan was awarded custody of the child; Dr. Foretich had visitation rights on vacations and alternating weekends. It was after visitations in early 1985, when Hilary was 2 1/2, that Dr. Morgan said her daughter gave the first verbal indications that she had been abused.

Eventually, Dr. Morgan also accused Dr. Foretich's parents of abusing Hilary and Dr. Foretich maintained that Dr. Morgan was mentally ill and that she herself had abused Hilary and that Dr. Morgan was "a pathological liar." All attempts by the court to verify the criminal accusations against Dr. Foretich only cleared him, but Dr. Morgan was found to have reenacted some of the supposed abuse in attempts to prepare her case.

After a series of other inconclusive motions, the presiding judge, Herbert B. Dixon Jr., in 1987 ordered unsupervised visitation for Dr. Foretich. Dr. Morgen then sent Hillary into hiding with Dr. Morgan's parents. Judge Dixon then found Dr. Morgan to be in contempt of court and sent her to prison.

After two years of further publicity about Dr. Morgan's incarceration, Rep.Frank_Rudolph Wolf sponsored and the U.S. Congress passed a bill that limited to 12 months the time that a person can be jailed on civil contempt charges in Washington%2C_D.C., which has only partial home rule. On Sept. 25, 1989, Dr. Morgan was released from prison, she then successfully wrested her passport from the D.C. Superior Court and she went into hiding. In essence, all Dr. Foretich could do was to obtain restraining orders against Dr. Morgan after she had fled the country.

Dr. Morgan, her parents and Hillary were in New Zealand and were located in February 1990 by a private investigator hired by Dr. Foretich. New Zealand chose to maintain the status quo so that Hillary could benefit from the social stability that New Zealand had to offer. At around this time, Hillary had a name change to that of Ellen.

In 1992, a made-for-television movie about this story entitled "A Mother's Right: The Elizabeth Morgan Story" was filmed and aired nationally.

(As I recall, Dr. Morgan discovered the she had colon cancer and she strongly preferred to be treated in the United States. Anyone have a reference?)

In 1995, Hillary, then 13, indicated to Rep. Thomas M. Davis (R-Va.) that she wanted to return the U.S.  In September 1996,  Rep. David sponsored the "Elizabeth Morgan Act" as a rider on an major transportatin bill. While this new legislation was worded to focus on Hillary's needs, it effectively shielded Dr. Morgan from all of the restraining orders that were still in force, and they returned to the U.S in 1997. Dr. Foretich claimed that the damage to his reputation from the Act (which effectively identified him to the World as a child abuser) ruined his practise in the D.C. area and made it difficult for him to find comparable work anywhere else in the nation.

Dr. Foretich dropped all further attempts to gain visitation and focused on the undoing the Act. On December 16, 2003 United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit ruled that Elizabeth Morgan Act was an unconstitutional bill of attainder (Docket 02-5224), but the decision was moot as Hillary was no longer a minor.

Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who represented the Foretich family, said the government will have to pay for legal fees in the case -- about $1 million. He added: "I would hope this would be the final chapter, but such hopes have been dashed many times in the case."

To her detractors, Dr. Morgan represents the embodiment of parental kidnapping and its many smoke screens. To her supporters, she is simply a parent trying to protect her child from abuse. Paradoxically, Dr. Morgan is a poster child for each side of the argument. Her many public speeches focus on child abusers and family-court judges in juxtaposition, mixed with hyperbole of evil and inquisition, respectively.

There are similarities in legistlative interference (more properly federal government branch jurisdiction and constitutional Separation of powers) issues between the "Elizabeth Morgan Act" and the Palm Sunday Compromise of the recent Terri Schiavo conflict.

In 2002, Dr. Morgan was involved in another controversial child abuse case. Elsa Newman, an attorney, was in a custody fight with her husband, Arlen Slobodow. When concerns that Ms. Newman represented a flight risk, Judge S. Michael Pincus said "I don’t want another Elizabeth Morgan case in my courtroom." Ms. Newman later consulted with Dr. Morgan, whose advice was that she knew of only three choices: "Give in and accept the incest, kill the abuser, or grab the kids and run." Interpreting Dr. Morgan's second option literally, Ms. Newman's closest friend, State Department Foreign Service career officer Margery Lemb Landry (at the time rank: FO-01, assigned: the Bureau of Consular Affairs to the Office of Children's Issues) on January 7 2002, broke into Slobodow's home while he was sleeping and, with the children present, shot him twice in the leg. Just before shooting him, Ms. Landry had planted child pornography in Mr. Slobodow's home in order to frame him as a pedophile in case he should survive the attack. Mr. Slobodow did survive. Ms. Landry plead guilty to attempted murder and is serving a 20 year sentence. Ms. Newman was convicted of conspiracy in a jury trail and also received a 20 year sentence. After their arrests, neither was granted their repeated requests for bail for the danger that they each presented to the survivors.

On July 5, 2004, Larry King on his radio show made a reference to Dr. Morgan in a discussion with New York socialite and former Playboy Playmate Bridget Marks about her ongoing and public custody case. Mr. King cited Dr. Morgan as a famous surgeon and Harvard graduate who ran from the jurisdiction of a "rogue judge", but Ms. Marks, who had her lawyer present, demurred, saying "No, never. I believe that the (appellate) legal system will correct itself".

Dr. Morgan still operates a medical practice in Wasthington, D.C.

Note: Schools Superintendent Dr. Elizabeth T. Morgan of nearby Washington county is not related.

Works

 * Cosmopolitan medical columnist, 1972-1980
 * The Making of a Woman Surgeon, (Putnam Pub Group, 1980), ISBN 039912361X.
 * Solo Practice, (Berkley Pub Group, 1982), ISBN  0425059715.  (Reprint 1984)
 * The Complete Book of Cosmetic Surgery: A Candid Guide for Men, Women, and Teens, (Warner Books Inc, 1988), ISBN 0446513709.

Other Books about Elizabeth Morgan

 * Hilary's Trial: The Elizabeth Morgan Case and the Betrayal of Our Children by America's Legal System by Jonathan Groner, (Simon and Schuster, 1992), ISBN 0671691767.

Movies

 * A Mother's Right: The Elizabeth Morgan Story (1992, TV)

Press coverage

 * Archive copy of Washington Post story of about Dr. Morgan's release maintain by Pr. Timothy M. Hagle
 * Foretich v. United States 2003 strking dowwn the Elizabeth Morgan Act
 * Washington Post article on finding Elizabeth Morgan Act unconstitutional
 * After 20 Years, New Twist in Custody Case by Jonathan Groner, Legal Times December 29 2003.


 * Deadly Triangle from June 2002 issue of Online Washingtonian.


 * Newsday 2003 story about Judge Paul R. Michel with recent photos of Ellen (Hillary)

Elizabeth Morgan page has a major re-write
You might want to check out the current Elizabeth Morgan page has had a major rewrite to remove my NPOV issues.