User talk:TaraInDC

Hello, TaraInDC, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! SwisterTwister talk 21:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Hi!

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)

DYK for Clorindy: The Origin of the Cakewalk

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Thank you!

You're most certainly welcome. Thank you kindly for the thank you !  -- WikHead (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Your leftover

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)

A Barnstar for You

		Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Smithsonian 2012 Barnstar
		Thank you for your participation in Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Backstage at the Smithsonian Libraries 2012! It was a great day, thanks to enthusiastic participants like you. Hope to see you at future GLAM-Wiki meetups. -Sarasays (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Margret Craver

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.

Keep up the good work, and happy editing!

(And by the way, thanks for the excellent work on Clorindy. I'm a great fan of William Grant Still's...as I recall he played violin in the orchestra for Clorindy, which was where he got some of the ideas that led to his own later work.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, they don't call me fastest gun in the east for nothin'. (Actually, they don't call me fastest gun in the east at all.)

I was an art history major, but I'm a huge music nut as well, hence the interest. You know Will Marion Cook is buried here in DC? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Why thank you *blush* That's the nicest thing anyone's ever called me. :-)

Cook is buried out in Woodlawn Cemetery, which I didn't even know about until recently. It's in sad shape, though there appears to be some attempt of late to clean it up. Lots of prominent folk are buried there, it seems. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon 2013

		Archives of American Art Barnstar
		For your contribution in making the Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon 2013 such a success, I award you the Archives of American Art Barnstar. Sarasays (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 2

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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!

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: Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel Feel free to drop by our website, make a profile and see how else you can participate! Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You're Invited: Smithsonian Field Notes Edit-a-Thon, Friday June 21

The Field Book Project, a joint effort of the National Museum of Natural History and the Smithsonian Institution Archives, invites you to an edit-a-thon on the scientific field diaries held at the Smithsonian on Friday, June 21, 10am-5pm. Activities include new editor orientation and a behind-the-scenes tour of the Smithsonian’s Russell E. Train Africana Collection. Participants will also be invited to preview and test transcribe field book materials using the Smithsonian’s new digital Transcription Center. Coffee and lunch generously provided courtesy of Wikimedia DC. --Digitaleffie (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

For your hard work on the safari article. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Roosevelt-Smithsonian Expedition Map.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Roosevelt-Smithsonian Expedition Map.jpg

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.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the Field Notes Meetup & Edit-a-thon 2013

		Smithsonian Institution Archives Art Barnstar
		Thank you for your contribution in making the Field Notes Edit-a-thon such a success, and for your work on the Smithsonian-Roosevelt African Expedition page. I award you the Smithsonian Institution Archives Archives Barnstar! An p.s., I will pop in and add information to the map image! --Digitaleffie (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Space at the Smithsonian WLL event tomorrow

Hi! Looks like there are one or more last minute cancellations at the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/AAPG_Library Wikipedia Loves Libraries meetup tomorrow. Even though you are on the waitlist, feel free to show up! We'd be happy to have you. Thanks! --Sarasays (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice job on new Anna Lea Merritt article. It's interesting, and you found a great quote! -- econterms (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You're invited: Art & Feminism Edit-a-thon

Art & Feminism Edit-a-Thon - In a city near you! - You are invited!

File:Csaky madonna.jpg

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! SarahStierch (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Autoblock

{{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'm at an edit-a-thon today, so this autoblock will likely affect several editors. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

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 Ent 19:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

YesAllWomen

Hi Tara, I asked for assistance on an admin talk page regarding where to go for outside input on dispute on talk:YesAllWomen. Didn’t ping you earlier because was thinking it would get moved to another page, but another participant referred to you by name so figured you might want to be aware of conversation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dennis_Brown#YesAllWomen --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

And I see he's now hard at work on the main article removing the names of female victims. Truly an entirely unbaised and neutral editor. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

discussion notice

There's currently a discussion on ANI noticeboard related to the discussion you participated in today on original research noticeboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_Obiwankenobi --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject:Gender Gap task force

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)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:NorthBySouthBaranof_et_al._reported_by_User:MicBenSte_.28Result:_.29. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicBenSte (talk • contribs) 17:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

quick note:

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)

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)

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.

• Referring specifically to Gamergate controversy and related articles and edits, but note this this alert applies to all edits related to the area identified above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC Annual Meeting and more!

Hello, fellow Wikipedian!

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!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 08:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Mediation

If you are interested in participating, there is a request for mediation regarding the GamerGate article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy. The details of these sanctions are described here.

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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. RGloucester — ☎ 00:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

In the future, keep opinions on individuals out of posts: the whole point of sanctions is to stop using these people as weapons on WP. Acroterion (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Talking about others

Do not discuss other editors on article talk pages as you did here per WP:TPNO, WP:CIV and WP:NPA - follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE instead. If you persist you risk being banned from the GamerGate articles per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate, which is very clear about strictly folliwng The Purpose of Wikipedia. Dreadstar ☥ 06:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

No worries, admins will 'cool' things down by banning or blocking the 'uncool' disruptive ones per the new Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate. You don't have to do it directly, just bring it to an admin. Dreadstar ☥ 06:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

GG Article

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)

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)

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)

Ah, I see you reverted it before my own revert even came into play! Great minds think alike! MediaMaven3 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom notification

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—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)