This user may have left Wikipedia. TaraInDC has not edited Wikipedia since August 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Hello! TaraInDC,
you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse, an awesome place to meet people, ask questions, and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! ... And yes, it's ok to bring a friend. Rosiestep (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually should have been U2 - User page of non-existent user rather than G8 - delete for a move. I deleted as U2 - we get quite a few of these things since they changed the Move thing. I have trouble with it at times, too. It is confusing - but easier than it was before. Really. Peridon (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Barnstar for You
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Smithsonian 2012 Barnstar
Excellent work on your article. Just wanted to leave you a note regarding categorization: see Wikipedia:Categorization if you have questions on adding categories to articles.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Margret Craver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kansas City (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi TaraInDC! 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:
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
Hi TaraInDC! The first ever Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 across the United States and Canada - including Washington, D.C.! Wikipedians of all experience levels are welcome to join!
Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors.
Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here!
{{unblock-auto|1=216.59.106.66|2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Slowking4". The reason given for Slowking4's block is: "Continued systematic abuse of non-free content policy, plus repeated [[WP:NPA|personal|3=Nyttend|4=5049824}}</nowiki>
I really don't know how to do that; I clicked the "unblock" button in the template up above, but I got an error message, and I don't know what else to do. I'm sorry! I've posted a help request at WP:AN, so this should be resolved by someone who's more knowledgeable than I. Nyttend (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding the autoblock is no longer in place, I've "no-wikied" the template so your page no longer appears in the unblock request category. Feel free to revert if that's incorrect. NE Ent19:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RfC
I believe I covered your concerns by adding the 'Also in dispute is whether to include thorough context on each death as a result of the gendered breakdown. ' If this is not correct, please propose an addendum, and I will make sure that I add it in bold as an addition. Tutelary (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I felt that in general the neutrality of the RFC left a bit to be desired. You're overstating what was actually added to the article by describing one brief sentence which described each of the three sets of deaths as 'thorough detail.' 'Disclose' is a loaded term here as well, as it suggests that authors are trying to hide something rather than trying to address the balance issue caused by cherry picking what information about victims is allowed in the article. I think the clarification Bobo added helped to address that issue. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean what text in particular would you prefer to be changed/added/omitted in the RfC? If reasonable, I'll do it with a note at the bottom stating that the RfC changed. You really shouldn't edit them once a tremendous amount of answers has been added, but in this, since only those involved have, I think it's possible. Just trying to make it more fair. Tutelary (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so I see. It seems we've gone with the 'water under the bridge' defense yet again, so I suppose we'll once more have to 'move forward' with Obi's refactoring of the RFC in place. I drafted a summary of the issue for a possible user conduct RFC after I was rebuffed in my attempt to explain on his talk page why his behavior in the RFC has been problematic. I'm not sure whether to go ahead with that now or see if this latest pledge to behave in the future actually sticks. Fool me twice, shame on me, and it's at least thrice now. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely unfair Tara. I removed her because she was not wounded according to the source. Most of the hospital sources state that there were 8 people with gunshot wounds that were treated. That woman had a boyfriend who was wounded by a gunshot, but she wasn't, but we don't know his name. We aren't listing everyone who was shot at, we are only listing those who were confirmed wounded. If you give me a source for another person - man or woman - wounded in the attack I will be the first person to add it. Your sarcasm is uncalled for.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to comment at all on this because it's about a different article, but the "completely unfair" objection does warrant a response. Clearly, a similar issue is going on over on Isla Vista killings main page. I recall you edit warred in category "violence against men" over there a few weeks ago. Your opinion seems to be this isn't misogyny or is at least as much misandry as misogyny, and while that's a reasonable opinion, your editing to support this point of view seems questionable at times. If this woman was grazed by a bullet, seems reasonable to call her a victim. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that, on the whole, your work on topics relating to the 2014 Isla Vista shootings seem to be geared towards minimizing the coverage of female victims and increasing the coverage of male ones. That suggest a particular bias on your part, for all your accusations of bias against any editors who disagree with you. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not true at all, as I said, give me sources for more wounded women and I will add them immediately. My bias is towards neutrality, and opposed to the use of these articles to promote a specific POV. I think you're misinterpreting that edit - the person in question wasn't wounded per the source (although her boyfriend was and was bleeding), there are a number of other pedestrians who were shot and hit with bullets that haven't been publicly named. It seems he took shots at a fair # of women on the street, one or two came forward having been shot at but weren't hit, so it wouldn't surprise me if some of the other shooting victims were women, and I would add them immediately to the article, so your theory about downplaying coverage is bogus.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you always say you would do the same if the genders were reversed, but actions speak louder, and my evaluation of your actions stands. I consider this line of discussion closed: please don't inject yourself into this conversation further. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We invite you to join Gender Gap task force. There you can coordinate with users who are trying to identify gender bias on Wikipedia (including gender bias in articles, in editor interactions, policies and implementation of policies) and take steps to counter it. If you would like to get involved, just visit the Gender Gap task force. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other members of the task force.Happy editing, ~~~~--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the talk:gamergate page, I revdel'd out that vertical video YT link that was "proof" as a BLP issue , this included your reply. You're fine, it's the original poster that was a problem but your comment didn't add much alone and thus better to not acknowledge it. --MASEM (t) 03:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm so used to seeing these 'undeniable prooof!!!1' youtube links that I've stopped thinking much of them; I'll keep a better eye out in future. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
I am excited to announce the upcoming Wikimedia DC Annual Meeting at the National Archives! We'll have free lunch, an introduction by Archivist of the United States David Ferriero, and a discussion featuring Ed Summers, the creator of CongressEdits. Join your fellow DC-area Wikipedians on Saturday, October 18 from 12 to 4:30 PM. RSVP today!
Also coming up we have the Human Origins edit-a-thon on October 17 and the WikiSalon on October 22. Hope to see you at our upcoming events!
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Noticed you mentioned me here. I'm not going to bother weighing in the request as honestly my opinion shouldn't matter much there. If you don't feel I'm being helpful on the article please let me know. Also, I'm not very happy with the state of the article at the moment. It seems to give too much weight to Cathy Young and Eric Kain, but I'm sure if I bring that up in the talk page it's not going to go well. Strongjam (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Presumptious.
Firstly, (on another note) I'd like to mention that I agree completely regarding the 8chan fuckers (who fled from 4chan) because they couldn't understand why a site with a structure such as it was prohibiting discussion of "GamerGate" even though it's blatantly obvious Christopher Poole doesn't want people he doesn't even agree with ruining the reputation of his site anymore. Them going to a strip club is the exact sort of reason why I took no association with that name as soon it became a thing - because those overgrown children do not live in the real world. They'd rather ruin everything for everyone because they can. While it varies by situation whether or not they are/are not legitimately what people criticize them to me, before this they had a problem with "trigger warnings", that's how much of an asshole the average user is. It's abhorrent, and if someone identifies with any one particular thing regardless of what you believe, you're subject to harassment. The same goes for the "social justice warriors" - a term I refuse to say in conversation - they're so irate about. Someone could have a completely reasonable point but because they're from Tumblr or Twitter, they're automatically an asshole to those people. However, those people are obviously not representative of any group in its entirety and that's where the problem lies for me.
Now, since drama will arise at one's defense attached directly to your statement:
A - I am not a "sleeper" here, nor am I in any way, shape or form single purpose account. I and my interests in editing only recently began under this handle. You presume far too much with this and your classifications and where you feel someone is "pro-gamergate" if they're pro-neutrality. I have not remotely focused on "GamerGate" more than anything else, and of recent I was far more interested in cleaning up some band pages. This has happened concurrently. Do not generalize.
B - I am not impeding whatever you think is "progress" as I've not even edited this article even once. Again, I have not edited the article one time. I came to the talk page to make a recommendation. It comes as no surprise to me that there's so much controversy involved in something extremely simple if people are unwilling to work with people trying to provide a bridge between both sides of the topic. I could make some tongue in cheek comment regarding your statement, but I didn't come here to stoop so low. I don't care about "GamerGate" and I distanced myself from it as soon as it became a hashtag. My involvement with the Depression Quest I consider to be completely separate and unrelated as that preceded "GamerGate". Even then it was an attempt to balance the article, of which seems to have worked at this point. I felt compelled to see to it that it wasn't ill-represented as I have had friends that would not entertain a single comment any of you would make because they're so sick and tired of this that they've grown into manchildren. The kind that think extensive vandalism is just fine. People who feel Internet Aristocrat is somehow entitled to be representative of people who play video games - something I firmly disagree with. I disagree with their harshness, I disagree with their attempts to create drama and I loathe 4chan's /v/ with a passion mainly because the lack of identity creates a playground where people inclined to troll can roam free with no consequences. I'm not here to sabotage some article. The reason I've taken the time to even watch the GG page is because if people who are not willing to act like adults, not willing to care about everyone who hasn't done anything wrong and not willing aim for neutrality - my initial concern - continuously edit the page then there will be no defusal of the situation at all. Please make an attempt to understand the points other editors are trying to make before jumping the gun, particularly when they haven't edited the article their comments pertain to. Thank you. Swim Jonse (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gamergate talk page
My apologies for the false positive you got regarding me and the Gamergate page. This wasn't vandalism but simply an innocent result of an edit conflict and was instantly restored. Thanks. MediaMaven3 (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GamerGate and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
The arbs are leaning toward a doubling of the usual limits on evidence for this specific case. I am still waiting for final sign-off, but it seems likely that most participants will not need to trim evidence. Three relevant points:
Given the substantial increase in limits, the usual acceptance if counts go a bit over will not be granted. Treat the limits as absolute.
The limits apply to both direct evidence and rebuttal to others.
In the interests of making this case more easily manageable, it is likely that we will prune the parties list to limit it to those against whom evidence has been submitted. Therefore, if anyone has anything to add, now is the time to do so.
See the list of parties not included in the evidence as of 8 Dec 14.
Please note that the purpose of the /Evidence page is to provide narrative, context and all the diffs. As diffs can usually be interpreted in various ways, to avoid ambiguity, they should be appended to the allegation that's being made. If the material is private and the detail has been emailed to ArbCom, add [private evidence] instead of diffs.
The /Workshop page builds on evidence. FOFs about individual editors should contain a summary of the allegation made in /Evidence, and diffs to illustrate the allegation. Supplying diffs makes it easier for the subject of the FOF to respond and much easier for arbitrators to see whether your FOF has substance.
No allegations about other editors should be made either in /Evdence or in the /Workshop without supporting diffs. Doing so may expose you to findings of making personal attacks and casting aspersions.
Also, please note that the evidence lengths have been increased from about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for parties and about 500 words and about diffs for non-parties to a maximum of 2000 words and 200 diffs for parties and 1000 words and 100 diffs for non-parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]
SPA question in the talk page of the current Arb comm.
Hi Tara, I hope it's OK to respond here, if not feel free to delete all of this.
You asked for an example of an editor with similar editing history to you being identified as an SPA, so i'd like to highlight the case of Loganmac, whose editing history closely mirrors yours. All of his recent edits are to do with the GG controversy in some way and in total they make up about half his total edits. Based off your edit history, I see the pattern as being the same.
To be clear, i'm not arguing for or against your identification as an SPA, just answering the question your asked on the talk page.
Nope. LoganMac had around 30 edits prior to August and had been inactive for years. I had hundreds and had been inactive for months. If his editing history 'closely mirrors' mine you'd have to be using a funhouse mirror. TaraInDC (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read his whole series, but I take it that the handful of articles that have come out were based on Mr. Bernstein's frustrated (and understandably so, imo) first reaction to the initial draft. So there are inaccuracies because the information was out of date and because of Mr. Bernstein's obviously emphatic reaction. But they're not actually all that far wrong, with the major flaw being that only four editors are being banned from 'gender related controversy' for 'battleground' behavior in the course of preventing Wikipedia from being used as an outlet for a mass harassment campaign. I think it's unfortunate that when some media sources picked it up they appear to have missed some of the subtleties, let alone the changes that were made in the following days, but I hope it can at least spark a larger discussion about systemic bias on Wikipedia, as this is the second time in two months that an arbcom decision has seemingly come down harder on one 'side' of a gender-related dispute than on the other, and whether you (the collective you, not you personally) believe that's a valid concern or not it absolutely is an issue which needs to be discussed rather than shouted down. TaraInDC (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i will say that I'm glad you weren't topic-banned and i support the feminist (equal gender rights) side in this whole thing. I can understand why things get heated. That being said, how do you feel things came down harder on one side in this issue? Everyone on the other side, who was brought under scrutiny, was topic-banned as well: TDA, Tutelary, Titanium Dragon, and the SPAs and meatpuppets. The arguments brought against Masem were mostly about disagreements over a neutral tone. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the situation - but the most neutral editor and you were allowed to continue working in the topic; and this ArbCom will likely expedite your requests for blocks from future SPA attacks. I'm sure this wasn't your preferred outcome, but isn't it technically a win by removing the most serious antagonizers so you, Masem, and hopefully a fresh batch of editors can work on these topics productively? --ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria11:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your summary is accurate and suspect that you might not be fully familiar with the case. See this followup essay by Mr. Bernstein, especially the section 'majestic indifference,' which I feel is a very apt description of some of the problems with this case. I'd also encourage you to look at the evidence and workshop pages: my perception of the decision is based not just on the voting, but on what issues were being voted on and what never made it into the decision. You could also look at my comments on the proposed decision talk page for more insight into my feelings on the case. The transgressions of the sanctioned editors on one side of the debate are not equal to those on the other, so the 'equal' punishment is anything but fair. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually spent over an hour reading over the Evidence page and reviewing the diffs presented there by both sides before coming here. I did not follow the case as it developed which gives me a broader viewpoint (I will admit that makes it possible to miss some nuances and subtleties though). Bernstein's article has too many factual errors and bases a lot of his interpretations of the decision on outdated info (I had read that article also before coming to you). I'd recommend people point your supporters to a better written article, or have him fix it so he comes off as more credible. I can empathize with you wishing the ArbCom had gone further with some aspects of this case - however the fact that there is now a history associated with this topic can actually help you to get quicker support from admins to quell future similar attacks (admins would much prefer to take action by writing "per ArbCom XXX" rather than actually try to choose a side lol), silver lining? Reviewing your comments on the Proposed Decision, other than defending against accusations (very appropriately), I see you calling out Masem and wanting ArbCom to do "something" about the fact that things got as bad as they did due to the volume of multiple attacks creating a hostile space. While I don't completely agree with you about what's "fair" here considering ArbCom based their decisions on violations of conduct and content policies on both sides - I'll respect your viewpoint, and I thank you for expanding on it.
If you're interested in my defense of Masem's general actions (some specific diffs I wouldn't defend, but his goals and direction I would) I can do that - but that's likely wasted text right? As for ArbCom - I guess all I can ask is what would you like them to do that isn't already available? Massive IP and SPA attacks on pages are generally stopped with temporary/permanent (s)protecting - something which I believe Masem would support you on if you two could at least agree on a barebones consensual article (you both might not like it the best, but if it can at least be a stable starting point, that might be better than what you have to work with now). I've no idea if this is a tried and failed route as protection requests were never submitted as evidence. --ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria08:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I understand that getting a group largely made up of men to care enough about gendered oppression to react effectively or expediently is a painful, mindnumbing, soulsoucking experience every step of the way - and that bc it is, few people want to do it, so it never gets done. It sucks that you're expected to behave as if none of it personally affects you AT ALL TIMES since you're engaging with people for whom it doesn't personally affect (in this case). I also recognize this is likely NOT the kind of discussion you want to be having right now, but I came here because the media storm happening right now is so full of people writing about it that 1. Don't understand WP bureaucracy. and 2. Don't have all the facts. This is slowly going to paint the criticisms of the ArbCom decision as ignorant and be written off. This statement actually does a fair job, I think, of trying to explain your side of what's wrong. Unfortunately they, too, start backing up their viewpoint with patently false (maybe uninformed) claims about many of the pro-gamergate editors who were also topic-banned. I'm writing, also, because I think you and the other editors were largely doing a good thing - but this was a wake-up call that things were getting out of hand on both sides, the other side did win because your side blew up. But ArbCom can't/won't/either/both take the stand that people don't have to be held accountable for their reactions, even if provoked, and especially when those reactions are causing a breakdown of legit consensus-based neutral article building. I'm just hoping this media attention brings in enough energy so no one has to get that jaded, and the article building can keep going in a neutral encyclopedic fashion. --ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria21:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment about systemic bias in arbcom is something of an oversimplification: it's not necessarily that they 'don't care;' it's that everyone has their own life experiences which inform and shape their perceptions of everything. You could take a dozen or so of the most emphatically feminist men on the planet and put them on arbcom and there would still be a systemic bias issue. So saying that the decision was affected by systemic bias is not an indictment of anyone on the committee as an individual.
I don't agree that the inaccuracies in the media reporting are as serious as you imply, or that those inaccuracies are going to make the criticism any more likely to be 'written off' than it already was: some people just don't want to hear it, but some people are going to get the point whether the number of potentially sanctioned editors was right in the initial articles or not.
I don't agree that 'the other side won,' either. Editors were sanctioned who shouldn't have been, which is a loss for the project, but the gamergate POV pushers have not 'won' by any means; they got their bogeymen sanctioned, but Wikipedia's rules remain the same and they still have to follow them, only now under even closer scrutiny. But my issue with sanctions against editors for 'losing their temper' is that those sanctions are simply not issued uniformly on Wikipedia. It matters who is being rude, and who they are being rude to, in this case and in other similar ones dealing with people who are not straight, cissexual men.
Hi TaraInDC! I just wanted to make it clear that "Infamous" was written -- and very clearly states that it was written -- in response to the original draft of the proposed decision. To the best of my knowledge, it is completely accurate, despite GamerGate’s (and Wikimedia’s) facile and unspecific claims that it is not. It does, of course, express a strong opinion. I think that opinion has been justified by events and by the interest of much of the world (http://markBernstein.org/Wiki.html), that the final decision is also deeply flawed, and the subsequent damage control has often been ridiculous.
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
1.1)
(i) The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.
(ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.
(iii) Notifications issued under Gamergate general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from the date of enactment of this remedy, then expire. The log of notifications will remain on the Gamergate general sanction page.
(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under Gamergate general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the central discretionary sanctions log.
(v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.
(vi) Administrators who have enforced the Gamergate general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at Arbitration enforcement.
1.2)
Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:
(ii) Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
(iii) There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
(iv) The default position for BLPs, particularly for individuals whose noteworthiness is limited to a particular event or topic, is the presumption of privacy for personal matters;
(v) Editors who spread or further publicize existing BLP violations may be blocked;
(vi) Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
(vii) Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.
The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case.
2.1) Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.
8.3) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 48-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except The Devil's Advocate's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.
8.4) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is indefinitely prohibited from editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard (including, not not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE), except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.
8.5) The Devil's Advocate(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee. Further, the committee strongly suggests that The Devil's Advocate refrains from editing contentious topic areas in the future.
13) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Titanium Dragon (talk·contribs) from editing under BLP enforcement. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Titanium Dragon is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.
18) The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing GamerGate-related articles, especially GamerGate-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.
February 6–8: The third annual ArtBytes Hackathon at the Walters Art Museum! This year Wikimedia DC is partnering with the Walters for a hack-a-thon at the intersection of art and technology, and I would like to see Wikimedia well represented.
February 11: The monthly WikiSalon, same place as usual. RSVP on Meetup or just show up!
February 15: Wiki Loves Small Museums in Ocean City. Mary Mark Ockerbloom, with support from Wikimedia DC, will be leading a workshop at the Small Museum Association Conference on how they can contribute to Wikipedia. Tons of representatives from GLAM institutions will be present, and we are looking for volunteers. If you would like to help out, check out "Information for Volunteers".
I am also pleased to announce events for Wikimedia DC Black History Month with Howard University and NPR. Details on those events soon.
If you have any questions or have any requests, please email me at james.harewikimediadc.org.
(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 03:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikimedia DC celebrates Black History Month, and more!
Hello again!
Not even a week ago I sent out a message talking about upcoming events in DC. Guess what? There are more events coming up in February.
First, as a reminder, there is a WikiSalon on February 11 (RSVP here or just show up) and Wiki Loves Small Museums at the Small Museum Association Conference on February 15 (more information here).
Now, I am very pleased to announce:
Tuesday, February 17 from 10 AM to 3 PM there will be #WikiTurgy at the University of Maryland. Join fellow theatre enthusiasts for a “mass act of public dramaturgy!”
Thursday, February 19 from 10 AM to 4 PM we are hosting the Howard University Black History Edit-a-Thon. We are working in partnership with the Moorland-Spingarn Research Center to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of African-American and African diasporic history.
Tuesday, February 24 from 6 PM to 8 PM we have the Black History Month “First Edit” at NPR. Help improve Wikipedia and help others make their first edit to Wikipedia!
Finally, our monthly dinner meetup is on Saturday, February 28.
There is going to be a lot going on, and I hope you can come to some of the events!
If you have any questions or need any special accommodations, please let me know.
Friday, March 13: NIH Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon – 9 AM to 4 PM
In honor of Women’s History Month, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is organizing and hosting an edit-a-thon to improve coverage of women in science in Wikipedia. Free coffee and lunch served!
Saturday, March 21: Women in STEM Edit-a-Thon at DCPL – 12 PM
Celebrate Women's History Month by building, editing, and expanding articles about women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields during DC Public Library's first full-day edit-a-thon.
To remove yourself from this mailing list, remove your name from this list. 22:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Art Jewelry Forum
Hello, I am working on a pet project to help digitize information about the field of metalsmithing+jewelry. I started with making a page for Art jewelry forum (AJF), and have a list of artists that I would like to make pages for as well. The AJF page has been nominated for deletion because it is questioned if the organization is "notable". I am reaching out to you because I saw that you edited some pages that relate to studio craft, and thought you may have an informed opinion (unlike the mathematician who nominated the page for deletion) about whether or not it is a "notable organization". If you have an opinion, one way or another, please way in on the articles for deletion discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Art_jewelry_forumClarefinin (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
to be clear, try not to do it again
This time, I'm asserting that slandering other wikipedians is bad for wikipedia. Respect is a two-way street.
On Saturday, February 27, we have three different events. In the morning, we're holding an Accessibility Edit-a-Thon at Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library. In the afternoon, we'll host our second February WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle, followed by our monthly dinner meetup at Vapiano.
We hope to see you at one—or all—of these events!
Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at info@wikimediadc.org!
You added a reference here citing Watching Anime, Reading Manga by Fred Patten, but you did not include a page number. I have looked all over in the book and can not find this reference to Patten calling this film an "animated painting". Will you look up the page number for me? Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
