User talk:Morbidthoughts

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mornidthoughts, appreciate your adding a better source (Buzzfeed). [1] Definitely useful stuff for broader issues of Native identity, faking and representation -- but in a BLP? With the implication that absence of evidence (of Cherokee blood) = evidence of absence and hence a lie on the part of the subject?? Happy editing & New Year --Middle 8 ^privacy • _(s)talk 23:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can raise this implication issue in the article talk page or the BLPN discussion that you started. Note the casting dispute was also covered by Business Insider.[2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Morbidthoughts,

I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to reach out about a consensus debate currently happening on Donald Trump’s page, as it mirrors a similar situation we encountered during Joe Biden’s presidency. Four years ago, we agreed on a consensus to keep the lead sentence format, which I believe was both fair and sensible. Specifically, the line for Joe Biden was: "...who has been the 46th and current president of the United States since 2021." Looking back, I see that you were in favor of maintaining this as the status quo. Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 15#RfC: Should we say he is "current" president in the lead, or not?

I believe we should apply this same structure to Donald Trump’s page, just as we did for Joe Biden and Barack Obama before him, to ensure consistency and clarity. This format clearly conveys the order ("47th"), incumbency ("current"), and start date ("since 2025"), which helps maintain uniformity across presidential biographies.

Given your involvement and knowledge of that earlier consensus, your insights would be incredibly valuable in the current discussion. It’s important that we uphold the same standards regardless of the officeholder, and I’d appreciate it if you could weigh in, share your thoughts, and cast a vote. Here is the current discussion and vote underway: Talk:Donald Trump, Superseding consensus #50, sentences 1 and 2

Thanks a lot, and I hope you’ll consider contributing. TimeToFixThis (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't know, if you want to mention a category in a discussion, you can write it like so; [[:Category:Victims of rape]], turns into Category:Victims of rape. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I see you reverted my edit on Mia Khalifa saying that Tweet does not directly refer to military aid. You are right that this particular tweet doesn't refer to military aid but this is mentioned in that reference article uses for that military aid line and that's why i added that tweet there.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 13:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citing to only the article is adequate then. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 19:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at your contributions to Wikipedia, I see that you are a pornography photographer and subject matter expert. I am concerned this is an apparent COI in regards to editing that article, given your professional involvement with people that were witnesses in legal cases pertinent to that page. Cairnesteak (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, Zak. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Morbidthoughts. It seems to me, too, that due to your professional area, you have a conflict of interests regarding Zak Smith. Would you mind disclosing the COI, as per WP:COI policy? White Spider Shadow (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a COI with Zak, and you should look up WP:OUTING on what you think is apparent. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I will look it up. White Spider Shadow (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]