User talk:Silentmiaow
 | This Wikipedian is deceased. Respectful comments of remembrance may be left below.
|
Welcome!
Hello, Silentmiaow, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! —Remember the dot (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
International wheelchair symbol discussion
[edit]Hello. There is currently a discussion in progress at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Use of international wheelchair symbol concerning whether or not we should use the International Symbol of Access to indicate handicapped-accessible train/metro statains, Disney rides, etc. Our other options are plain text or an alternative icon such as 
Your Bio
[edit]Why don't you do that bio on that article and tell people who you are. You have the right to do that bio and your own main page on this site, because it's you. I know who you are Amanda, but I did not know you were gay. Give it a shot Amanda, they will not think it is false because you are that person. Thank You.--Stco23 23:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Reply
[edit]Hi, Silentmiaow. I'm sorry not all of the BLP-violated statements on Talk: Amanda Baggs were not removed. I haven't read the entire talk page, since I wasn't terribly interested in reading conspiracy theories screeds about CNN being a bad source, so I didn't see the problematic statements. I'm going to be going on my lunch break soon, but when I get back I'll remove the problematic statements from the two talk pages you mentioned.
I and some other admins have watchlisted both of those pages and are keeping an eye out for problems. Two blogs which have been attacking you have also been placed on the spam blacklist, so they cannot be linked anywhere on Wikipedia. We're trying to keep this situation as under control as possible and ensure that this claim is not given any credence here, as it is currently not substantiated by any remotely reliable sources. Natalie (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, and while someone appears to be on it already, I just want to remind you that Talk:Donna Williams (author) has also contained similar statements about me.Silentmiaow (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, SandyGeorgia brought that to my attention. I'll hopefully be able to look at it later today. Natalie (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, so far I think I've removed everything obviously defamatory from the two talk pages, and have been trying to engage Appto in a productive conversation about how Wikipedia works. Another admin blocked him for a short period of time, so he at least has 12 hours to read the various policies that have been repeatedly pointed out to him. The other user, Bettwice, has identified himself both here and on his blog as John Best, who I'm sure you're aware of, so we'll see if he continues to be disruptive. Natalie (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Some of the information also appears to be on his usertalk page, although I don't know if different rules govern usertalk pages than the main pages. Additionally, if any of my statements require proof outside of my word, I can attempt to provide you or other admins in private as much of the documentation as I still have (which is most of it), as well as contact information for human beings who can verify it, although that process may be slowed by not having everything scanned yet. I'm not willing to turn my personal life inside-out in public, but I can (and already have done) provide such information to neutral people who need to verify what I'm saying. I know it pretty much constitutes original research, but I just want it to be known that I have the ability to back up most of what I have to say, and am quite willing to do so (although I suppose I should say I would not provide such information to someone who had been actively seeking to prove that I am not who I say I am, because my experience of that has been that my right to privacy, as well as the privacy of other people mentioned, is not maintained by people doing that). Silentmiaow (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- It would be rather silly to require you to prove various things you've said about yourself, since we don't require that of any other biography subject. As long as the information is properly attributed, readers can consider the source themselves and make up their own minds. Even contentious information is usually allowed to stand until someone notable challenges it in print. As an example, the various articles we have about psychics repeat the subject's claim that they are psychic, and only include conflicting information or denials when other reliable sources have challenged the claim. So I think your article is perfectly fine at the moment, as far as sourcing goes. If this whole conflict goes any further, we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
- I'll take a look at Appto's userpage and remove anything violating the BLP policy. You may also be interested to know that Bettwice33 (talk · contribs) has continued to be disruptive and has been blocked indefinitely. Natalie (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Some of the information also appears to be on his usertalk page, although I don't know if different rules govern usertalk pages than the main pages. Additionally, if any of my statements require proof outside of my word, I can attempt to provide you or other admins in private as much of the documentation as I still have (which is most of it), as well as contact information for human beings who can verify it, although that process may be slowed by not having everything scanned yet. I'm not willing to turn my personal life inside-out in public, but I can (and already have done) provide such information to neutral people who need to verify what I'm saying. I know it pretty much constitutes original research, but I just want it to be known that I have the ability to back up most of what I have to say, and am quite willing to do so (although I suppose I should say I would not provide such information to someone who had been actively seeking to prove that I am not who I say I am, because my experience of that has been that my right to privacy, as well as the privacy of other people mentioned, is not maintained by people doing that). Silentmiaow (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, so far I think I've removed everything obviously defamatory from the two talk pages, and have been trying to engage Appto in a productive conversation about how Wikipedia works. Another admin blocked him for a short period of time, so he at least has 12 hours to read the various policies that have been repeatedly pointed out to him. The other user, Bettwice, has identified himself both here and on his blog as John Best, who I'm sure you're aware of, so we'll see if he continues to be disruptive. Natalie (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, SandyGeorgia brought that to my attention. I'll hopefully be able to look at it later today. Natalie (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Survey
[edit]Hi Silentmiaow!
I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!
It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!
Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!
Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
WikiWomen's Collaborative
[edit]| WikiWomen Unite! | |
|---|---|
 |
Hi Silentmiaow! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative. As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:
We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can participate! |