Hi, I noticed you stated an opinion on Wikipedia talk:Transition to Creative Commons licensing about the license change. However, that poll is not official, so you should officially vote on Special:SecurePoll. Just click vote on the line: "Wikimedia license update vote 2009 12:00, April 12, 2009 12:00, May 3, 2009 Vote | Translate | List | Dump | Tally"

Best of luck! --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I already voted in that poll as well. Thanks, though. --Daira Emma Hopwood (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this username imply that the account is being used by two people? DS (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's a complicated question. I'm a bigender multiple (I'd give a WP link for the latter but the concept seems to have been suppressed here). But as far as the intent of WP:UPOLICY#Sharing_accounts is concerned, no. --Daira Emma Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough; carry on. DS (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your request at WP:REFUND to the bottom of the page where new requests usually go: to save you looking there, I will repeat here that you need to enable email on your account. Under My preferences/User profile, enter the address and check "enable email from other users".

When you say "history", do you want more than just the text of the article?

Replying to your other comments there, if you can cite reliable sources for the view that multiplicity can be a healthy condition, there is nothing to stop you proposing that as an addition to the existing article - that would be better than trying to resuscitate this one, which would still be open to criticism as a WP:POV fork - see Uncle G's comments at the AfD.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Daira Emma Hopwood/Healthy multiplicity, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Daira Emma Hopwood/Healthy multiplicity and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Daira Emma Hopwood/Healthy multiplicity during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Genderqueer, has been proposed for a merge with the article Pangender. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --April Arcus (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you'll consider that things are unlikely to get better if editors allow themselves to be driven away from the project.

At one point I thought things were getting better. I've contributed many times to trying to make it better. But it is an uphill battle, and extremely wearing and, at times, detrimental to my mental health. I can't do it any more if the outcome is going to be decisions like the one made on Chelsea Manning's biography page, which violates established MOS:IDENTITY policy. It seems like Wikipedia is going backwards on this issue. Trans women (and I'm sure trans men as well) are being driven away from Wikipedia by the hostility and erasure of our identities we encounter here. --Daira Emma Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also hope you don't find it rude that your section on [the talk page for Chelsea Manning when it was at her deadname] was hatnoted,

Yes, I certainly do find it rude. --Daira Emma Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

but there is a general (not unanimous) sentiment that it's best to hold off on re-discussing the article title (especially if one has no new arguments to bring to the table) until September 30th, when there will be a new request to move the article back to Chelsea Manning.

There should have been nothing to discuss, but there was because MOS:IDENTITY, and Chelsea Manning's identity, were violated. --Daira Emma Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[most of the rest of that discussion deleted]

I don't know if this is something you're interested in but ...Sue Gardner open request for stories. Either way, I want to thank you for your contributions. __Elaqueate (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is something I'm interested in (even though I haven't decided to stop editing yet, obviously). Thankyou. --Daira Emma Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you haven't left yet, and I hope you don't. I stayed out of the Chelsea Manning arguments because I didn't feel welcome - what's the point of trying to change someones mind when you have to start from the level of convincing them that being trans is even a real thing? However, there are a ton of editors (I hope the majority, even if they aren't as loud a the bigots) that I've been noticing are really great people and as outraged by all this as we are. I find it ridiculous and insulting that they're sending this off to ArbCom, but I am confident that we'll see the article changed to her name by the end of the process. Katie R (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to chime in and say: please don't leave. Wikipedia is wavering on whether or not people like us exist and are valid human beings. 7daysahead (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll chime in as well: don't let disagreeable people or decisions drive you away for good — but take wikibreaks if you need to, to take care of your own mental health, if people are getting to you. -sche (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You came up in the discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you remove or otherwise address the "raving transphobe" remark as some editors really have nothing better to do than try to pick apart their perceived opponents with warning notes and barrage of drama. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a presentation tomorrow (as I said on the ANI page). I'll come back to this in a few days, if I haven't been blocked. --Daira Emma Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, Wikipedia should not be the place where you have to come with your armor on to do battle but that's what it feels like at times. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You won't be blocked for this, no. I would strongly suggest you avoid referring to people as transphobes in the future though, or there is the chance that you will be blocked. If you encounter what you believe to be unacceptably bigoted actions from another contributor, the best thing to do is to open a discussion of their actions at WP:ANI. Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have questions (sincere ones, not trying to grandstand or anything):

1. Why are people who made transphobic comments (I'm not referring to Obi-wan here, but there certainly were some, as well-documented in the Manning ArbCom case) not being similarly warned?

2. Is it intended to be impossible to make allegations of transphobia on Wikipedia as a matter of Wikipedia policy?

3. Is it intended that cisgender administrators should be arbiters of what is considered transphobic?

I apologize sincerely to Obi-wan for using the word "raving". It was not my intent.

--Daira Emma Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[more deleted]

None of the people who made transphobic comments will ever be sanctioned as far as I can see, ever. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't know, there was a remedy at the Sexology arbitration case that resulted in discretionary sanctions being authorized. You are hereby notified that should you fail to abide by the standards normally expected of editors while making edits on any articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification, sanctions can be levied against you by any uninvolved administrator, including but not limited to blocks, topic bans, as well as any other device that is needed to ensure the project can run smoothly. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A follow up: Someone has opened a clarification request about my action, so feel free to comment at that page. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A category of "articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification" is a thing? Sheesh. --Daira Emma Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[rest of that nonsense also deleted]

Your upload of File:Cmyk2.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Cmyk.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]