User talk:April Arcus

Template:Christianity
I like what you did with the "wraparound" effect on the template...good work! KHM03 12:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to the Fact and Reference Check WikiProject
Dear new member,

Welcome to the Fact and Reference Check WikiProject!

No doubt you're familiar with what our noble (and somewhat lofty!) goal is, and I'm really glad you've decided to help to try and make it a reality. Thank you so much for helping out in our noble cause :)

You might find the biweekly special article interesting. Every fortnight, an otherwise good article that lacks any sources is chosen, and the Fact and Reference Check team works collaboratively to add references to the article. The current biweekly special article is Johann Sebastian Bach.

Two convenient templates for adding references are and. By specifying a footnote name (eg. "which_university"), these templates allow us to link to notes effectively.

For example, if you want to reference which university somebody went to, simply add next to the fact. At the bottom of the page in a seperate "Notes" section, add, and then your website or book. Wikibib can be used for generating correctly-styled references. Titan (moon) is a good example of a nicely referenced article.

If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the project's talk page. You can also contact me personally. Thanks for joining, and taking the time to read this!

&mdash; Frazzydee|&#9997; 01:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Help on de.wiki?
Hello April,

You asked me to contact you in regard to additions to the article Englische Grammatik. If you need anything just write it in here or submit - as you proposed - your suggested contributions and I will do my best to correct them ;-)

Greetings, -- Totti &#9993; 14:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Napster
Sorry for taking forever to notice this - I haven't done it, but I think the mention of Wrapster and other third party programs should be returned: see its talk page for more. Lovingboth 29 Jun 2005

Image:Heterochromia iridis 01.jpg
Thanks for your help in photoshopping my Heterochromia iridis image! Yours, Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 02:03, August 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem. Glad you think it turned out okay. --April Arcus 05:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This talk page
I'll handle this one as sensitively as possible, but have you had a look at the talk page recently? It's just, DeirYassin hasn't responded to my statement yet and I was wondering how either of you felt about it. Bobo192 | Edits
 * My primary objection was that the images were originally presented in-line on the article page. I thought, for the reasons I stated on that article's talk page, that it would be a better idea to link to them. However, I don't feel that adding an explicit in-text warning is necessary - by the time somebody gets to that point in the article, they ought to be well aware that whatever content is behind those links might shock them. --April Arcus 19:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * They certainly triggered me, although not to anything serious because frankly I'm over that phase now. I have a much cleaner self-harm pic around but I'm never going to upload it here. Why? Because I'm frightened of people having the same objection as me. Pictures of self-harm can be triggering to the wrong people, particularly the kind of people who would want to read the article..
 * I hope this is the right decision to make. I agree most articles need to be pictured up, but when the pictures might cause such reactions, their lack of usefulness would outweigh their pertinence to that particular page. Bobo192 | Edits
 * For whatever it's worth, Wikipedia's image policy agrees that in-text warnings are acceptable for certain content. I still have to question what compelled you to click those links, and whether you really think a warning would have impeded your curiosity. It's sort of a "don't touch the big red button" effect, isn't it? --April Arcus 14:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The Return of the King (1980 film)
Actually, the animated Return of the King was done by the same director/producers (Rankin/Bass), and with much of the same animation staff and cast, as the animated Hobbit. Perhaps you were thinking of Ralph Bakshi's The Lord of the Rings? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, of course. Thanks for the heads up. --April Arcus 03:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Logic
Greetings April Arcus, any attention to the Logical connectives would be wonderful. Currently, I am working on infrastructure stuff for the WikiProject Logic, so I haven't worked on them for a little while. You should sign up on the participants page (don't worry if you are not a "logic" person per se). I think a subproject like this has potential. Gregbard 01:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Five V. Four races
You should just move the Tau'ri then to the Five Great Races and take them out of the human catagory. They were declared by Thor in the show "You Are Now The Fifth Great Race" not to mention there are a few other items wrong in that template that are wrong that I didn't change and was thinking about it at the time. Do you ever watch the show? Rynknx 03:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied at Template talk:Stargate Races --April Arcus 04:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rilo Kiley - Self Titled.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rilo Kiley - Self Titled.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use
Yeah, policy shifted out of a general desire to use more free content and less fair use content, and to avoid using fair use content when free content is available. Basically, this added a second layer of rationale - one that goes beyond "justify why this is legal" and to "justify why this is necessary on a specific article." "Fair Use rationale" is a bit of a misleading term in that regard. I'll add one to the image for you. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Article for deletion/Battlestar Wiki (3rd nom.)
The Battlestar Wiki aritlce has been nominated for deletion for the third time. Feel free to add your comments to the corresponding discussion.--DrWho42 (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Creationism2
Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Napster -- GA but two "needs cites" banners
Hi April -- I was looking at the Napster article, and there are two sections that have the "this section needs references" banners in them. The article is GA, though, but as far as I can tell a GA article shouldn't have any "this section needs references" banners in it (or, regardless of banner notices, it shouldn't need references added to it). The way it is it should be reassessed. However, I didn't want to go and just stick a "reassess!" notice on it without talking to someone who seems to have put some work into it first. I don't have a lot of time right now to help make it better (sorry! somewhat lame I know to point out a problem and not help with it) but maybe if you also think it should be reassessed that could lead to some people helping out with it. --Wmjames (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied at your talk. --April Arcus (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

question
Hi - one of your edits suggested you were open to discussing trans issues, so I hope you don't mind if I ask a question. Can someone be diagnosed with gender dysphoria or GID and *not* be transgendered? Alternately, can someone Be transgendered, but not have gender dysphoria? If we drew a venn diagram, would they be the same, interesecting but not totally, or Would one be a superset of the other? Thanks for any insights. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for your question. The word "dysphoria" was coined by analogy to the Greek "euphoria", so we might colloquially translate "gender dysphoria" as "gender misery". As such, your second question "can someone be transgendered, but not have gender dysphoria" has an easy answer: a transgender person who has successfully completed their transition to the extent that they are happy with their body and place in society can no longer be said to be suffering from gender dysphoria, but is still a trans person due to their gender history.
 * Your first question, "can someone be diagnosed with gender dysphoria or GID and *not* be transgendered?" is a bit trickier. "Transgender" is sometimes used as an umbrella term to cover all non-conforming gender identities — c.f. this illustration from The Gender Book, including "masculine women" and "feminine men", and under such an expansive definition the answer would basically be "no". However, I know several people who are completely comfortable with their bodies but experience discomfort with the social expectations placed on them on account of their gender presentation (think about stay-at-home dads, or women pressing against the glass ceiling in male dominated workplaces). If we construe "gender dysphoria" broadly and "transgender" narrowly, it might be fair to say that these people, who identify as cisgender, are experiencing a mild form of gender dysphoria, but it would be useless to attempt a DSM-V diagnosis since there is nothing they could or would want to change about themselves — the problem is not with them, but with the world around them. --April Arcus (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. While I understand that once a TG-person has transitioned, they may no longer experience dysphoria, the fact that they transitioned suggested that at some point they did experience some dysphoria, no? Otherwise, they wouldn't have done anything? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. --April Arcus (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess one of the issues is we're dealing with contiuums of experience, but trying to put people into boxes nonetheless - I could imagine for example a woman who wants to remain a woman but dresses and acts more "man"-like. She may not identity as TG, but what she's gone through is perhaps a lesser version of what a TG-person who completely converts goes through. Though according to your diagram, she could be TG - so it then becomes a matter of pure personal identification (perhaps similar to homosexuality?). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know a few such people. A close friend of mine identifies as "masculine", "woman", "dyke", dresses in a markedly masculine fashion, uses singular "they" as their pronoun, and has no intention of seeking hormones or surgery. This person is transgender in the broad sense of non-gender-conforming and cisgender in the narrow sense of has-not-transitioned-isn't-going-to-transition. --April Arcus (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * so she is comfortable being a woman, but uncomfortable with society's expectations regarding that gender? So she would experience some dysphoria, but not enough to make her take drastic action or even to have it be clinically classified as GID?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Trans folks sometimes draw a distinction between "social dysphoria" (bad feeling) and "body dysmorphia" (wrong-shape). Although there can be gray areas here too (did I hate my beard because it was a beard per se, or because it caused others to relate to me as a male? did it start as one and become the other over time?), it can be a helpful rhetorical tool. This friend of mine is comfortable with their body (note pronoun usage!), but prefers a more masculine social role, which they are able to achieve through clothing and affect. If they wanted to pursue hormones or surgery I'm sure they would have no trouble obtaining a diagnosis, but absent any desire to do so, why would they bother? --April Arcus (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So perhaps there are intersecting axes - one is the dysphoria axis - how much misery you feel b/c your birth-gender doesn't match your own internal gender (or, alternately, how the way you want to behave/dress/etc doesn't match with how society wants you to behave/dress?) - at the extreme end of this axis, it becomes clinically diagnosable, and as such becomes GID. While another axis is what you want to do about it - e.g. nothing, present yourself slightly different, have surgery + hormones/etc, and then a third axis could be whether you identify as transgender. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The axes of variation that human identity operates on are truly vast. Any attempt to describe them must resort to models and simplification, or you will lose your mind. --April Arcus (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose there could even be a MTF who doesn't identify as transgender, and just thinks she's a woman, end of story - since TG is a particular concept in a particular society, and other societies have different TG-like gender constructs? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, there are also such people. "Deep stealth" refers to the concept of re-engaging with society in a way that explicitly refuses to acknowledge a pre-transition identity. "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" is a rhetorical attempt to reframe transgenderism as an intersex condition. --April Arcus (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Argh the whole thing makes my mind boggle. I think this Manning story, and a previous one I looked into (I wrote Kristin Beck and even emailed with her while doing the article), may be a wake-up call to US-society about that whole umbrella TG picture. I wonder how much of the US population would find themselves somewhere under that TG umbrella? And if Americans have so much trouble understanding something (relatively) simple like gay people wanting to get married, how are they to understand the umpteen different flavors under the TG umbrella? It's like we've been living in this world of man/woman/other, but other turns out to be itself nuanced in 20 different ways... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're interested in this topic, and are making an effort to explore it! --April Arcus (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for your helpful explanations - allow me to ask another question - I'm curious why GID is so disliked by some? If someone is truly miserable as a man and won't be happy until they've transitioned, this anguish can lead to all sorts of issues in their lives (I've read that TG have higher rates of suicide, depression, etc) - when it reaches a certain stage isn't it fair to call it disorder - in the same way depression is part of natural human emotion, but extreme depression is clinical and in need of treatment? I can see how some parts of GD may not be a disorder, and even how GD can be solved by action on the part of the person or, in the long term, changes in society, but why is the word disorder so problematic, at least in certain cases --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems intuitive that a condition that is treated with medicine should have a diagnosis. The trouble is when the medical view becomes the primary perspective from which the trans* community is talked about. Trans* people exist and have always existed in a way that stands apart from the professional opinions of the medical establishment at any given moment. Unfortunately, the tendency of psychiatrists to publish in refereed journals and the tendency of trans* people to attempt to lead quiet and unnoticed lives means that WP:RS constantly threatens to trump WP:UNDUE in these matters. --April Arcus (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (and assuming that once someone like Manning has transitioned, one might say they no longer suffer from GID (and even this I'm curious about - once someone has transitioned to the extent they wish, do those feelings of dysphoria go away? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, since completing my transition I no longer experience gender dysphoria as an ever-present force in my life. Sure, I notice and am annoyed by my wide shoulders and narrow hips, but I do not honestly believe I suffer from more body anxiety than an average woman, and I lead a generally fulfilling life. I am very lucky in this regard. Many trans people are too tall or too short to ever blend in with others of their identified gender. Many cannot afford all the medicine they might need. Many with intersex traits have been permanently disfigured by past attempts to assign them to a sex without their consent. Many are so old by the time they begin to address their issues that their bitterness over their experiences of coercion and oppression will never truly leave them. --April Arcus (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * very informative - thanks for sharing. So it seems the ultimate solution is not to fix their bodies, but to fix society, right? Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)
 * If someone views their body as needing to be fixed, they should be free and able to fix it. Living in a liberal metropolis did not magically make me not trans. --April Arcus (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course - what I meant was, the best surgery and hormones and etc is not a final/complete solution - its a start, but not enough - esp based on what you said above, that there are those who are still dissatisfied even after transition. We need both, no?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. And it all starts with talking about trans* people's identities with dignity and respect. This is why the name we use for Chelsea Manning is not a little deal. Next to this basic requirement of human decency, the walls-of-text at WP:BLP, WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:IDENTITY or any other policy that could be cited are trite and pedantic. --April Arcus (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So that a large trans woman can be accepted as a new gender - not a standard woman, not a standard man, but as they are. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)
 * If a tall woman views herself as a "standard woman", her friends and family should endeavor to accept her as one (there are, after all, tall cis women!). If she views herself as genderqueer, her friends and family should endeavor to understand what that means and treat her appropriately. --April Arcus (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A much harder proposition - but at least in the US I've seen a sea change in my life (and even my own attitudes) towards gay people (previous generations tackled racism, though obviously not solved...) so perhaps in the next decades we could move towards a better societal compact with trans people? I read a fascinating thing on the use of the terms homosexual/heterosexual and how those terms break down when taking about trans ppl, they use gynophylic /androphylic instead - Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)
 * Usually binary-identified trans people use the words "homosexual"/"heterosexual" (or more commonly "gay" and "straight") with reference to their identified gender, since they want their sexuality to be understood in the same way as cisgender people. I can imagine an adrogynous/agender/genderqueer person using the terms "gynephilic"/"androphilic" to discuss the people they are attracted to, but it's hard to picture someone with a strong internal sense of gender using such clinical language. --April Arcus (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm ok, interesting. I agree the "philic" is a bit clinical, but perhaps we just need better words.
 * My favorite word is "queer", which means whatever it needs to mean depending on its context. At a certain point, chopping the range of human variation into little pigeonholes is less helpful than attempting to understand individuals holistically. --April Arcus (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * - but even that is a binary, and having travelled to Thailand I know there are men who are attracted to women with male parts - so I don't even know if we have a word for that - they're not really gay, but they're not really androphylic or gynophylic, they are perhaps trans-phylic (if such a word exists...). Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)
 * With respect to trans women, the words in common currency are "chaser" or "admirer", depending on whether you're being chased or doing the admiring. --April Arcus (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyway, cheers and I hope our society can fix itself sooner rather than later... All this recent press may help start the discussion at national scale (I was shocked that trans ppl get kicked out of the military for example, so for now it's still don't ask don't tell for them. There was even a press statement by one of the top generals on LGBT day, and he said basically greetings and good wishes to all of our LGB service members, and our LGBT civilian colleagues (note the obligatory missing T, as there are no T military folks... Hehe)... Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)
 * That's about as funny as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proclaiming there are no gays in Iran. As people like Kristin Beck demonstrate, there are trans people in the military - they're just not allowed to be out of the closet. But being a closeted trans person is not the same as being not trans, and it's obnoxious of the military to pretend away their trans soldiers. --April Arcus (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I know - it's really silly, right? You can see the tortured language they have to use. With two big media splashes of trans soldiers, perhaps at least they will open their eyes.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But perhaps trans ppl could help lead the way for all of us, as I think you're right that gender dysphoria is widespread amongst many ppl, perhaps low-grade - but still - the men's rights movement is perhaps another example of gender dysphoria - men unhappy with what society today expects, and backlash by some women against feminism is the same thing - it all comes down to simplified pictures of what should be, and complex realities of what is...Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)
 * Any backlash against feminism is truly unfortunate, since the performative nature and social construction of gender are central concepts in the modern feminist movement. --April Arcus (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course - though unfortunately I've also heard there are sectors of the feminist movement that are not very accommodating of trans people...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cathy Brennan and her thugs are no more representative of feminism than Fred Phelps is of Christianity. I've been proud to call myself a feminist since I was a teenager, and I refuse to let nasty fringe elements hijack a movement that has represented and empowered me for most of my life. --April Arcus (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You said: "Yes. And it all starts with talking about trans* people's identities with dignity and respect. This is why the name we use for Chelsea Manning is not a little deal. Next to this basic requirement of human decency, the walls-of-text at WP:BLP, WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:IDENTITY or any other policy that could be cited are trite and pedantic."
 * I don't want to get into a debate about this here, so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point, but I think there is a difference between the name you might call someone when you meet them on the street, and the title of an article in wikipedia - they serve different purposes. Anyway, thanks again for the insights, it was very informative. I wonder if it would be worth writing an essay on trans* issues (if one doesn't exist already), that can explain some of what you explained above, since its obvious to me many editors (including myself) are sometimes confused. Happy to help if you like. Best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me google that for you.
 * I don't see how writing yet another general purpose essay on this kind of thing will help, when there are already a bazillion great resources out there. If folks don't care to do a quick web search to educate themselves, it seems like any such effort would just be shouting into the wind. That said, if you have a particular audience or community you'd like my help reaching, who you think would be willing and interested in educating themselves and who would benefit from a personalized touch, I'm happy to do whatever I can. --April Arcus (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know there is a lot of material out there; I'm just thinking an essay, which you could point to with a link like WP:TRANSEQ or something would be a convenient way to share this info here, and it could be targeted at wikipedia editors and link to relevant policies, etc. Just a thought...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to stub it out, I'll happily give you notes on it. --April Arcus (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI thread
Hi April. I'm sorry to do this because you very kindly helped me understand some issues a few days ago, but I felt compelled to bring attention to this tweet of yours which I just came across at ANI here Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Manning. I'm not suggesting any serious sanctions, but I believe a trout is warranted for non-neutral canvassing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa. –April Arcus (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Trolls
Sometimes its easy to tell when an editor's beliefs and biases are actually the opposite of what they publicly state and persistently claim. See, they start off defending themselves before anyone has even said anything that might be perceived as criticism towards them. Then they try to devalue one's arguments as "emotional" (which itself is a personal attack), and when you object to that reframing,they then accuse you of attacking them. And if you mirror their very own line back at them, they will ignore it and focus on other parts of the message.

You see, their goal is not to win any arguments: rather they want to make the whole discussion so long and boring to other people that no one wants to join the discussion. That way they can dominate it.

Best solution? Let them say what they want, but ignore them and make no replies. When we actually have something ready to accomplish, I suggest we take that approach with our mutual friend. Yworo (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the gif at the top of your user talk page again. --Neil N  talk to me 18:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Doesn't say a thing about not recognizing trolls when you run into them. Nobody has been named. Cheers, NeilN! Yworo (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ooof. I think I just ran into one. Cheers, Yworo! --Neil N  talk to me 21:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * <_<
 * >_>
 * >_<
 * --April Arcus (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Margaret Hamilton
Your undiscussed and therefore non-consensual move of "Margaret Hamilton" to "Margaret Brainerd Hamilton" was not a good idea. "Margaret Hamilton" is the WP:COMMONNAME of the actress, who was never known by her middle name, and the other two ""Margaret Hamiltons" are not sufficiently well-known to take primacy. Please undo your unwise move. BMK (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * They are plainly of equal notability. The proposal to create a disambiguation page was posted years ago and went without objection. My move constitutes a good faith edit under WP:BOLD. Please remove the request for speedy deletion from Margaret Hamilton. --April Arcus (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they are not "plainly of equal notability". One is well-known to the general public, and the other is only known within a small, circumscribed community.  Your judgment in this matter was poor.  It was not I who placed the speedy delete tag, but I totally agree with it, and will not remove it. BMK (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * About that request from "years ago" (2011), there was absolutely no discussion about it, so it's highly inappropriate to take it as something to act on as if the community had agreed to it. BMK (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I came to Wikipedia looking for information about the accomplished computer scientist and was surprised to find an actress who had appeared in a single notable role as the default landing destination. I repeat that the move had already been mooted and received no objection for some time and dispute your assertion that there was some onus on me to achieve consensus before acting — it is not even clear to me whose consensus I should have sought! A WikiProject? Some subset of editors or administrators? WP:BOLD permits editors the latitude to use our best judgement in situations such as these, and I have done so. --April Arcus (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If the use of the middle name is the crux of your objection, I invite you to move Margaret Brainard Hamilton to Margaret Hamilton (actor) or somesuch. --April Arcus (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The rule of thumb here is that the primary target gets the primary article name, and you're not going to find many people here who will support your notion that the actress is the primary target. As for your removing the CSD tag from the article, please note the very clear directive at WP:CSD:"The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it." Since you are the creator of that redirect page, it was improper of you to remove the tag. You can contest the change, but the proper way to do it is to allow the pages to be returned to the status quo ante and then discuss the potential move on the talk page.  If you get a consensus for the move, fine, otherwise things stay as they are. BMK (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that information. Please note your objection on Talk:Margaret_Brainard_Hamilton and let us continue this conversation there, rather than on my talk page. --April Arcus (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have initiated a compromise, based in part on your suggestion. I moved "Margaret Brainard Hamilton" to "Margaret Hamilton (actress)", per your comment above, but I also changed the redirect at "Margaret Hamilton" to point to the actress article.  People looking for the articles about the scientist or the Australian publisher will see the hat note there which tells them to look for other people of the name "Margaret Hamilton" at "Margaret Hamilton (disambiguation)" (to which there is a link).  This leaves the actress as the primary target, fulfills WP:COMMONNAME, and allows those looking for other Margaret Hamiltons to find them easily. I hope this will settle the matter. BMK (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied at Talk:Margaret Hamilton (actress)/Archives/2014. --April Arcus (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please change all the links you made to Margaret Brainard Hamilton, instead to Margaret Hamilton (actress). I really do not understand why you have done this. It wasn't broken before. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)