![]() | This user may have left Wikipedia. PraetorianFury has not edited Wikipedia since 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, PraetorianFury, 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:
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 place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Abductive (
reasoning)
20:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia. I saw you came across DrChrissy in your editing. Her disrespect of other editors are notorious. Please see here for her records. 124.170.242.138 ( talk) 23:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
124.170.203.111 ( talk) 04:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
You experience is relevant to the case, you can voice your opinions in the discussion. 203.158.44.182 ( talk) 01:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The "quote" is not a quote, but a synopsis of the tale told in the primary source. The primary source sure warrants use of words like deep. dark woods and "cruel" robbers and so on, so my synopsis is faithful to the source, but it isn't a quote. Arildnordby ( talk) 21:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I have made some major re-editing on your points of contention. Arildnordby ( talk) 21:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I am very grateful for the improvements you have contributed with directly, and also to those you spurred me into doing. I went over again that 1839 symbolic date for petering out of impalement in the Ottoman Empire section, wasn't too satisfied with it, and have made a rather extensive re-modelling of the point. If you could look it over and say what you think about it, I owe you at least a half, not just a quarter. Arildnordby ( talk) 18:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the indispensable input you have given me in the process. Arildnordby ( talk) 18:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
While we are men, we cannot help, to a great extent, being fans of Malleus, for the great Master does but analyze the thoughts, feelings, views, and opinions of human kind. He has told us the meaning of our own words and ideas, before The Teahouse was born. In many subject-matters, to think correctly, is to think like Malleus; and we are his disciples whether we will or no, though we may not know it."
— Kiefer.Wolfowitz, after Cardinal John Henry Newman's Idea of the University
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion is closed, so I'll briefly reply here:
This is wrong from a practical point of view. If editors followed this model, we would have stubs with a dozen tags. In practice, what Wikipedia editors do is fix things, not tag them. Now, when we can't fix things, we tag, but we do so carefully, judiciously and sparingly. The problem at hand is that taggers have forgotten this and go straight to tagging without attempting to fix or elicit outside help by using the talk page and/or contacting outside parties (projects, cleanup, etc.). Viriditas ( talk) 20:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
This section uses
shallow references to the home page or some other high level page of a website that contains the cited document. (January 2013) |
Can we take a step back for a moment? I think we have an opportunity here to work together and fix the maintenance tagging guidelines. I can foresee a system that works to bring interested editors to articles needing help. I think we all agree that we don't have that system at the moment. Viriditas ( talk) 20:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Let's talk on the Slutwalk talkpage. Hyper3 ( talk) 22:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
[1] Thanks a bunch, very well done! -- 89.0.238.89 ( talk) 19:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for taking the time to explain things and give advice on my talk page, I much appreciate it. In this case [ started a discussion on the talk page of the user who reverted my deletion 5 days ago] and then the talk page of the article 2 days ago. So I was at least trying not to only use edit comments and the RfC wasn't the first comment, it was my 2nd comment because there were 2 days between my (first) comment on the article talk page and the RfC. I realise now that I should have started with the talk page of the article, not the talk page of the user. So when I noticed that nobody responded on the talk page of the article, I was looking for a 3rd opinion. How long is it reasonable to wait for a user to respond? Anyway, thanks again for your advice and I will try better next time! AadaamS ( talk) 18:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I've chosen to expand "Myth and Art" quite substantially, and also increased somewhat Archaic Age/Antiquity, with some minor additions on Americas, England and Byzantine Empire as well. Since the reviewer should be apprised of new changes during review, I thought to mention these to you. Arildnordby ( talk) 20:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The article mentions the word "honor" in relation to the beating of that ethnic Swedish woman. It is honor based violence. The other things you wrote on my talk page is irrelevant. TelusFielder ( talk) 23:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi PraetorianFury, Sorry put it this way, but you clearly have no idea what you are doing, although I'm fully prepared to accept that you did what you did for all the best of reasons.
The instructions for reviewing GAN are given at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions and the requirements are given at Wikipedia:Good article criteria, quite clearly you have never read them, although it appears that you may have read the essay Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, which is an essay, not the instructions.
Looking at User talk:Arildnordby#Re: Impalement GA status and Talk:Impalement/GA2 you appear to opened the review and then wrote "I've already read this article from top to bottom and fixed or helped to fix any outstanding errors that I could find. User:Arildnordby has poured his heart into this article and the quality is a clear reflection of that passion. This seems to clearly meet our WP:Good article criteria, so it has my endorsement".
So why put it has my endorsement? You signed up as the reviewer, so it is your job to review it, not to endorse it.
You then seem to have waited a week or so, (see User talk:Arildnordby#Re: Impalement GA status) on the basis " If no one wanders by and cares to comment by that point, I'll pass", and having been told how to pass it, you passed it just now. But what you have not done is to review it against the requirements of a GA. The impolite term for such a review is a "drive-by-review".
Its a "good article" and its probably good enough to be a Good Article, but there is no evidence that you have reviewed it, or even reviewed it against WP:WIAGA. If the article was bad, I would have opened a new review, but in this case its unnecessary since the article is Good, but don't pretend that you've reviewed it.
The first "review" Talk:Impalement/GA1 was not a review, it was a "quickfail" decision, on the basis of lack of citations. Your's was supposedly a review, but I don't see much difference, other than one said "fail" and one said "pass". Pyrotec ( talk) 19:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Since you asked look [2]. As for the rest, its usually children that make comments of the type that you do: thank you for confirming your age range. Pyrotec ( talk) 15:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi I saw your message about my edit. I am trying to edit in good faith but I am new to wikipedia so please excuse some of my mistakes. My point about the edit is that in some of the battles in imperial campaigns like the Mahdist War some of the heaviest fighting was done hand to hand (like the charge of the 21st Lancers, which defeated a superior force and cleared the town of Omdurman of dervishes and allowed British occupation of the town, I think that makes the charge the decisive point of the battle because Lord Kitchener wanted to occupy Omdurman before sundown and the Charge allowed him to do so). Although it is true that the Western Imperial powers enjoyed a technological superiority I believe that it is a stereotype that technology was the only reason for Western successes. Something I always found interesting is that the Zulus were more afraid of British bayonets that the rifle itself. I believe that more should be said about superior Western military methods other than just technology. Gicantor93 ( talk) 04:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The journal is already specifically sited in the reference, as it has always been. No link to the document whatsoever is required. The link to Halbrooks own site is a mere convenience link, which is explicitly allowed per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Convenience_links_2. Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
"When offering convenience links, it is important to be reasonably certain that the convenience copy is a true copy of the original, without any changes or inappropriate commentary, and that it does not infringe the original publisher's copyright. Accuracy can be assumed when the hosting website appears reliable."
I am struck by the weasel-worded narrative that recent editors have woven around the content on "Totalitarian" In particular, I'd appreciate it if you'd have a look at a recent edit of mine which was promptly undone by another editor. The narrative about Nazi gun control, and then the Nazis "proceeded to..." All support the insinuation that ordinary governments, such as the American government, start with "gun control" and next thing you know it's concentration camps. Interesting. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you need to refresh the Alternative account policy. You abandon a 2 year old account that has a healthy block log on it, to go back to editing under a new name. Shadowjams ( talk) 23:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ROG5728 ( talk) 23:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is " Gun Control". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 15:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You undid my edit adding the article 'Slutdrop' to the see also section of 'SlutWalk', with the edit description "That wikipedia article refers to a dance move. That has nothing to do with "reclaiming" the word "slut"" [3] If you had of actually read the article 'Slutdrop', you would of noticed it states, with a reference "Sophie Wilkinson from The Guardian described naming the dance move a slutdrop an example of the word 'slut' being reclaimed by women, and also reclaiming the term 'slutdrop' from its previous meaning. Wilkinson states that slutdropping brings women together on the dance floor and called it a "true signifier of feminine camaraderie"." I'm not going to revert your edit myself, as I don't believe this is important enough to start an edit war over, I just wanted to point out that your justification for reverting my edit was incorrect. Freikorp ( talk) 22:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey there! Thanks for being my first "badguyeditor" ever! :D 190.30.132.232 ( talk) 11:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
(I also forget to sign posts) Luxxxbella ( talk) 12:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this edit; mind if I restore the section you removed? Keep in mind that we're not the ones quoting these individuals, our reliable sources are. There's nothing preventing us from including such observations in the article; while PPM measurements don't mean a lot to most readers, a visual observation can help someone who's unfamiliar with smog relate. m.o.p 23:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
ALL sources provided for your reading in the talk page for every aspect of the setnece in question.,
Better you do that then threaten
Wanted to wish you a Happy Mew Year! I'm amazed at the things I could learn in Wikipedia, and your help is greatly appreciated. I'm glad you nickname doesn't really match your behavior :D
Luxxxbella
"There is no knowledge that is not power"
13:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Alright, warning taken :D -- Luxxxbella "There is no knowledge that is not power" 13:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I have a question about your comment
[4] in the recent
Battle of Berlin RfC.
Do you mean that if the historian Rzheshevsky is a reliable source, his view can be included in the article? -
YMB29 (
talk)
21:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:
Thank you. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 15:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi PraetorianFury,
I highly value your contributions to Wikipedia, and your copy-editing skills are very accurate. I would like to ask you if you could make edits to the page of Expedia ( /info/en/?search=Expedia), as there is some information missing from the page. Would you be willing to make edits to the page so that it's complete? The main areas that I think needs more information are the infobox on the top right, and external links.
To be specific, I think the infobox at top right needs more information, and fields more in line with other global travel brands like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TripAdvisor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivago or and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vodafone_Hutchison_Australia. The infobox also needs to change URLs to be within 'website' (at the bottom) rather than 'Web address' (at the top), and it needs to include links to Expedia ccTLD: US, CA, UK, AU & NZ (in that order) in the same shape as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivago In regards to external Links, I think it should link to Expedia ccTLD in the same shape as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TripAdvisor with the same links as on #3.
Let me know, I would highly appreciate your assistance in this matter.
Erexkiss ( talk) 12:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Your contributions are much appreciated! :) -- Ori.livneh ( talk) 07:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I am rewriting my edits to reinstate these men's contentious histories, without ad hominem, in an encyclopedic fashion. Unless there is some reason you find such histories irrelevant, but without said histories of sexism and other bigotry I really don't see how these specific figures came to deserve relevancy in the article in the first place. What about their obviously problematic histories is worth dismissing? Further, what makes their views so important they must take precedence over the literally hundreds of other opinions by journalists, some of whom have far more expertise in this area? It is difficult to assume good faith on the part of whomever inserted these contentious and controversial figures into the article. Even Rush Limbaugh doesn't have as skeevy a personal history as two of the three reporters I expanded upon. Adding their biographical information to include the reasons they are notable is not in violation of any guidelines or standards, provided it's said in a more neutral way. I will do so this evening, and look forward to discussing why if need be. I am open to your input if you feel it may help.
In addition, some parts of the article are obviously in violation of WP:OR, making lofty claims without proper citations to back them. I only rewrote a few smaller examples, but I spotted several more that I plan on attending to. If you have any interest in working together to fix the unsourced content, great. If the article claims Slutwalk is being criticized for a specific reason, it needs to have a source to back that claim, instead of relying solely on weasel words. 107.178.39.54 ( talk) 20:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Impalement, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.-- I am One of Many ( talk) 19:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
@ PraetorianFury: In an edit summary (23:50, 31 August 2015) to the Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute article, you wrote: "'Roll Call' is an advocacy group and this source is a blog. Not a WP:RS". I refer you to the Wikipedia link for Roll Call, which you may want to peruse before making that rather ill-founded claim. --- Professor JR ( talk) 09:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@
PraetorianFury: Hardly — telephone them and ask them if they disagree. Roll Call conducts no advocacy itself, which you apparently missed, and certainly exists in printed form, not just on-line (with 21,533 subscribers total, per
BPA Worldwide, December 2014).
Here's how Roll Call characterizes itself: "With the largest press corps on Capitol Hill, CQ Roll Call has earned a reputation for delivering comprehensive, accurate and objective congressional reporting. We help you track and understand the people, the politics and the process — and how these forces affect your interests. Moreover, CQ Roll Call provides an innovative array of channels to reach Capitol Hill, empowering private citizens and power players alike with the ability to position their message in front of members of Congress and their staff." (cf.
[6])
—
Professor JR (
talk)
10:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Please stop deleting biographic content from Kim Davis (county clerk) without consulting the talk page. Several very experienced editors have arrived at the current content by engaing in discussion and respecting the work of others. Please do the same. - Mr X 19:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
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.Your recent editing history at Kim Davis (county clerk) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Mr X 20:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't owe you anything except the minimum amount of cooperation required by the encyclopedia
- True. and that is what you will receive.
- False, so far. The minimum amount of cooperation required by the encyclopedia is respect for some process. That's BRD in my view, but it certainly involves discussion with
WP:AGF and not making disputed edits without
consensus.
WP:EW: An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense. This principle applies not only to individual reverts but to your entire campaign to unilaterally "improve" the article through aggressive editing tactics. Your claims of experience are meaningless if you persistently demonstrate a lack of understanding of how to be a Wikipedia editor. We've all seen this many times before, and it always turns out the same. Trust me, there would be no boomerang at ANI. Best of luck,―
Mandruss
☎
04:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
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#User:PraetorianFury reported by User:MrX (Result: ). Thank you. -
Mr
X
18:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. There is discussion regarding a matter in which you have been involved at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Praetorian Fury. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 18:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are topic banned from participating at any article, page or discussion that concerns the topic of "same sex marriage" for an indefinite period of time.
You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=681071787
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
What: | Wikipedia Lab |
When: | Weekly on Mondays, starting 10/5/2015 through 11/30/2015, 4:30pm-6:30pm | |
Who: | UW students, faculty, and staff; Wikimedians; Seattle community members | |
Where: | UW Research Commons | |
Focus: | Women and the Sciences in October and Pacific Northwest in November; weekly topics | |
Wikipedia Lab at the UW Libraries Research Commons brings together local Wikipedia experts with University of Washington subject specialists and UW community members to learn about editing Wikipedia. Come contribute vital, local, and corrective content to the world's largest online encyclopedia. Come as you are with questions, ideas, or content knowledge to share!
The Wikipedia Lab will run weekly, every Monday, during fall quarter. The Lab has two thematic focuses: Women in the Sciences and the Pacific Northwest. Each week will feature a special collections librarian content specialist and Wikipedian editors. Sponsored by the UW Libraries & Wikimedians User Group |
To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. | MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia's 15th anniversary at the Wikipedia 15 meetup in Seattle on Saturday, January 16, 2016, 12:15pm to 5pm at the University of Washington Communications building, Room 126.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
If you are in the Seattle area, please join us for our
Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 17, 2pm. If you cannot attend in person, you may join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link:
https://zoom.us/j/2207426850. The address of the physical meeting is: University of Washington Communications Building, Room 126, 4109 Stevens Way NE, Seattle, WA
47°39′25″N 122°18′19″W / 47.6570676°N 122.3054000°W
Please go to the door on the north-northwest side. The event page is here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing and bringing the membership registration form and $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2017 at the meeting as well. Also, we are pleased to announce that the Cascadia Wikimedians User Group is now a recognized 501c3 non-profit organization in the US. EIN # 47-3513818 Our mail address is Cascadia Wikimedians User Group, 520 Kirkland Way, PO Box 2305, Kirkland, WA 98083. |
![]() |
Social Justice Organizers at University of Washington-Bothell are hosting a two-day editing event for Black WikiHistory Month on Feb. 22 and Feb. 23, 2017.
|
![]() |
![]() | |||
![]() ![]() |
- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC) |
![]() Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon Despite its wide reach, content on Wikipedia suffers from the bias of its editors: white, technically inclined, English-speaking men that live in developed, majority-Christian countries. This represents an alarming absence of voices in an increasingly important repository of shared knowledge. In an effort to change this, the Jake is organizing a Wikipedia Edit-a-thon on Saturday, May 6th, 1 - 5 pm. Our mission is to bring together diverse communities to participate in Wikipedia editing, and improve its coverage of queer people and women of color in the arts. We will provide childcare, snacks, and tutorials for the beginner editor. Bring your laptop, power-cord and ideas for entries that need updating or creation. No previous Wikipedia experience required! RSVP at and stay tuned to our Facebook page for updates. What: Improving Wikipedia's coverage on queer and women artists of color - MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC) |
![]() |
If you are in the Seattle area, please join us for our
Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 23, 1 PM. If you cannot attend in person, you may join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link:
https://zoom.us/j/2207426850. The address of the physical meeting is: Capitol Hill Meeting Room at Capitol Hill Library (425 Harvard Ave. E., Seattle, WA 98102)
47°37′23″N 122°19′20″W / 47.622928°N 122.322312°W
The event page is here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing the membership registration form onsite or (to be posted) online and paying $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2018 at the meeting as well. Cascadia Wikimedians User Group is a recognized 501c3 non-profit organization in the US. EIN # 47-3513818 Our mail address is Cascadia Wikimedians User Group, 520 Kirkland Way, PO Box 2305, Kirkland, WA 98083. |
![]() | ||
![]() the meetup page for Art+Feminism. |
Wikipedia is one of the most wide-reaching repositories of shared knowledge, yet a 2011 survey found that less than 10% of its contributors identify as female, suggesting an alarming absence of voices. What and how information is shared is skewed by this gender disparity. To help change this, the Jacob Lawrence Gallery is organizing a quarterly series of Edit-a-thons to improve Wikipedia's coverage of womxn artists of color.
This Saturday afternoon's gathering will focus on creating, editing, updating, and expanding pages for womxn artists from Latin America and the Caribbean. The Edit-a-thon will feature a talk by Dan Paz, Lecturer in the UW School of Art + Art History + Design, an artist, and an educator who explores the labor of digital imaging production as a collaborative site where the intersections of the image-idea and lived experience are produced and contested. Through videos, photography, and sculptural projects that query the ability of documentary processes to be manipulated—to be multiplied and replicated, stopped and started, rewound and advanced—Dan works within the impossibilities of absolute replication to question the very ability of the image to truly represent. Everyone is welcome. Access to UW WiFi will be provided for non-UW affiliated participants. All you need to bring is your laptop, power cord, and ideas. No previous Wikipedia experience required! Childcare, snacks from local businesses, and editing tutorials will be provided. Please check the Facebook event page for updates. When: Saturday, May 12th, 1-5pm |
![]() Jacob Lawrence Gallery, UW, Seattle |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
If you are in the Seattle area, please join us for our
Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 29, 1 PM. If you cannot attend in person, you may join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link:
https://zoom.us/j/2207426850. The address of the physical meeting is: Capitol Hill Meeting Room at Capitol Hill Library (425 Harvard Ave. E., Seattle, WA 98102)
47°37′23″N 122°19′22″W / 47.622928°N 122.322912°W
The event page is here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing the membership registration form onsite or (to be posted) online and paying $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2019 at the meeting as well. Cascadia Wikimedians User Group is a recognized 501c3 non-profit organization in the US. EIN # 47-3513818 Our mail address is Cascadia Wikimedians User Group, 520 Kirkland Way, PO Box 2905, Kirkland, WA 98083. |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Tuesday evening, January 15, 2019, 6-9pm at Wayward Coffeehouse, 6417 Roosevelt Way NE #104, Seattle WA 98115 Wikipedia Day celebrates the anniversary of the founding of Wikipedia. This year in Seattle, Cascadia Wikimedians' celebration of Wikipedia Day will focus on a different closely related project: Wikimedia Commons, which (among other things) functions as the media repository for Wikipedia. When you see a photo or map in Wikipedia, or hear an audio clip, etc., it usually is hosted on Wikimedia Commons and "transcluded" into Wikipedia. Wikimedia Commons is a mix of users' own works and curated third-party content, either public domain or free-licensed. Our event is a hands-on workshop in curating third-party content, mostly early 20th-century photos of Seattle and other West Coast locations. Currently, Wikimedia Commons has two intersecting sets of older photos, one from the Asahel Curtis Photo Company and the other a more general set of Seattle images. At this meetup, we will celebrate the 18th anniversary of Wikipedia by further curating these images by the creation and addition of categories, adding ImageNotes where useful, linking other versions of the same photo, enhancing the descriptions, and identifying and correcting errors. User:Jmabel has already categorized over 1000 images and corrected several hundred wrong dates, misidentified buildings, and etc., but there is much more to be done. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle#Wikipedia Day 2019 — curating images from Asahel Curtis and older Seattle photos. |
![]() |
Women’s History Wikithon
|
![]() |
![]() |
FREE. Please
register in advance. Includes museum admission and snacks; please bring a sack lunch plus a laptop. Scholars and interested citizens are invited to come together for an afternoon of collaboration to create or improve Wikipedia pages related to Washington State’s suffrage history. Learn from seasoned “Wikipedians” how to edit wiki pages, and work in small groups with women’s history experts. Honor Women’s History Month by updating our reference materials to reflect the dedicated work of Washington’s women suffragists. Bring a brown bag lunch, we’ll provide snacks. Hosted by Washington State Historical Society. Women's Suffrage Centennial Program, Washington State Historical Society -> Events & Programs |
![]() | |
![]() the meetup page for Art+Feminism. |
Wikipedia’s gender trouble is well-documented. In a 2011 survey, the Wikimedia Foundation found that less than 10% of its contributors were women. While the reasons for the gender gap are up for debate, the practical effect of this disparity is not: content is skewed by the lack of representation from women.
Let’s change that. To help change this, the Jacob Lawrence Gallery is continuing a series of Edit-a-thons to improve Wikipedia's coverage of womxn and gender non-binary artists of color. Childcare, snacks from local businesses, and editing tutorials will be provided. All you need to bring is your laptop, power cord, and ideas. No previous Wikipedia experience required! Everyone is welcome. Access to UW wifi will be provided for non-UW affiliated participants. Please create a Wikipedia account before the event. RSVP through this Facebook event link. When: Saturday, Apr. 6, 2019, 1–5 PM |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]()
- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
Please join us for our
Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PST. You can join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link:
https://virginia.zoom.us/my/wikilgbt. If your are in Seattle, the address of the physical meeting is: Capitol Hill Meeting Room at Capitol Hill Library (425 Harvard Ave. E., Seattle, WA 98102)
47°37′23″N 122°19′22″W / 47.622928°N 122.322912°W
The event page is
here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing the membership registration form onsite or (to be posted) online and paying $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2019 at the meeting as well.
|
![]() |
You are invited to the
Great American Virtual Wiknic on Sunday, August 16, 2020, noon to 2pm
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Distant Worlds Coffeehouse. For the address and to RSVP, please click here. |
![]() |
![]() |
Distant Worlds Coffeehouseas they have resumed their normal operating hours at their new location. For the address and to RSVP, please click here. |
![]() |
![]() Part of Wiki Loves Pride/2023 |
When: Saturday, June 17, 10am–3pm & Sunday, June 18, noon–5pm The schedule and details will be posted to the LGBT films from SIFF 2023 edit-a-thon page. Editors can respond there if they plan to attend. To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC) |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Seattle Wikimedia meetup | 16 January 2024 | ![]() |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are on our mailing list. To opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from the list. |
![]() | This user may have left Wikipedia. PraetorianFury has not edited Wikipedia since 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, PraetorianFury, 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:
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 place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Abductive (
reasoning)
20:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia. I saw you came across DrChrissy in your editing. Her disrespect of other editors are notorious. Please see here for her records. 124.170.242.138 ( talk) 23:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
124.170.203.111 ( talk) 04:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
You experience is relevant to the case, you can voice your opinions in the discussion. 203.158.44.182 ( talk) 01:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The "quote" is not a quote, but a synopsis of the tale told in the primary source. The primary source sure warrants use of words like deep. dark woods and "cruel" robbers and so on, so my synopsis is faithful to the source, but it isn't a quote. Arildnordby ( talk) 21:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I have made some major re-editing on your points of contention. Arildnordby ( talk) 21:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I am very grateful for the improvements you have contributed with directly, and also to those you spurred me into doing. I went over again that 1839 symbolic date for petering out of impalement in the Ottoman Empire section, wasn't too satisfied with it, and have made a rather extensive re-modelling of the point. If you could look it over and say what you think about it, I owe you at least a half, not just a quarter. Arildnordby ( talk) 18:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the indispensable input you have given me in the process. Arildnordby ( talk) 18:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
While we are men, we cannot help, to a great extent, being fans of Malleus, for the great Master does but analyze the thoughts, feelings, views, and opinions of human kind. He has told us the meaning of our own words and ideas, before The Teahouse was born. In many subject-matters, to think correctly, is to think like Malleus; and we are his disciples whether we will or no, though we may not know it."
— Kiefer.Wolfowitz, after Cardinal John Henry Newman's Idea of the University
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion is closed, so I'll briefly reply here:
This is wrong from a practical point of view. If editors followed this model, we would have stubs with a dozen tags. In practice, what Wikipedia editors do is fix things, not tag them. Now, when we can't fix things, we tag, but we do so carefully, judiciously and sparingly. The problem at hand is that taggers have forgotten this and go straight to tagging without attempting to fix or elicit outside help by using the talk page and/or contacting outside parties (projects, cleanup, etc.). Viriditas ( talk) 20:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
This section uses
shallow references to the home page or some other high level page of a website that contains the cited document. (January 2013) |
Can we take a step back for a moment? I think we have an opportunity here to work together and fix the maintenance tagging guidelines. I can foresee a system that works to bring interested editors to articles needing help. I think we all agree that we don't have that system at the moment. Viriditas ( talk) 20:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Let's talk on the Slutwalk talkpage. Hyper3 ( talk) 22:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
[1] Thanks a bunch, very well done! -- 89.0.238.89 ( talk) 19:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for taking the time to explain things and give advice on my talk page, I much appreciate it. In this case [ started a discussion on the talk page of the user who reverted my deletion 5 days ago] and then the talk page of the article 2 days ago. So I was at least trying not to only use edit comments and the RfC wasn't the first comment, it was my 2nd comment because there were 2 days between my (first) comment on the article talk page and the RfC. I realise now that I should have started with the talk page of the article, not the talk page of the user. So when I noticed that nobody responded on the talk page of the article, I was looking for a 3rd opinion. How long is it reasonable to wait for a user to respond? Anyway, thanks again for your advice and I will try better next time! AadaamS ( talk) 18:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I've chosen to expand "Myth and Art" quite substantially, and also increased somewhat Archaic Age/Antiquity, with some minor additions on Americas, England and Byzantine Empire as well. Since the reviewer should be apprised of new changes during review, I thought to mention these to you. Arildnordby ( talk) 20:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The article mentions the word "honor" in relation to the beating of that ethnic Swedish woman. It is honor based violence. The other things you wrote on my talk page is irrelevant. TelusFielder ( talk) 23:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi PraetorianFury, Sorry put it this way, but you clearly have no idea what you are doing, although I'm fully prepared to accept that you did what you did for all the best of reasons.
The instructions for reviewing GAN are given at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions and the requirements are given at Wikipedia:Good article criteria, quite clearly you have never read them, although it appears that you may have read the essay Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, which is an essay, not the instructions.
Looking at User talk:Arildnordby#Re: Impalement GA status and Talk:Impalement/GA2 you appear to opened the review and then wrote "I've already read this article from top to bottom and fixed or helped to fix any outstanding errors that I could find. User:Arildnordby has poured his heart into this article and the quality is a clear reflection of that passion. This seems to clearly meet our WP:Good article criteria, so it has my endorsement".
So why put it has my endorsement? You signed up as the reviewer, so it is your job to review it, not to endorse it.
You then seem to have waited a week or so, (see User talk:Arildnordby#Re: Impalement GA status) on the basis " If no one wanders by and cares to comment by that point, I'll pass", and having been told how to pass it, you passed it just now. But what you have not done is to review it against the requirements of a GA. The impolite term for such a review is a "drive-by-review".
Its a "good article" and its probably good enough to be a Good Article, but there is no evidence that you have reviewed it, or even reviewed it against WP:WIAGA. If the article was bad, I would have opened a new review, but in this case its unnecessary since the article is Good, but don't pretend that you've reviewed it.
The first "review" Talk:Impalement/GA1 was not a review, it was a "quickfail" decision, on the basis of lack of citations. Your's was supposedly a review, but I don't see much difference, other than one said "fail" and one said "pass". Pyrotec ( talk) 19:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Since you asked look [2]. As for the rest, its usually children that make comments of the type that you do: thank you for confirming your age range. Pyrotec ( talk) 15:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi I saw your message about my edit. I am trying to edit in good faith but I am new to wikipedia so please excuse some of my mistakes. My point about the edit is that in some of the battles in imperial campaigns like the Mahdist War some of the heaviest fighting was done hand to hand (like the charge of the 21st Lancers, which defeated a superior force and cleared the town of Omdurman of dervishes and allowed British occupation of the town, I think that makes the charge the decisive point of the battle because Lord Kitchener wanted to occupy Omdurman before sundown and the Charge allowed him to do so). Although it is true that the Western Imperial powers enjoyed a technological superiority I believe that it is a stereotype that technology was the only reason for Western successes. Something I always found interesting is that the Zulus were more afraid of British bayonets that the rifle itself. I believe that more should be said about superior Western military methods other than just technology. Gicantor93 ( talk) 04:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The journal is already specifically sited in the reference, as it has always been. No link to the document whatsoever is required. The link to Halbrooks own site is a mere convenience link, which is explicitly allowed per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Convenience_links_2. Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
"When offering convenience links, it is important to be reasonably certain that the convenience copy is a true copy of the original, without any changes or inappropriate commentary, and that it does not infringe the original publisher's copyright. Accuracy can be assumed when the hosting website appears reliable."
I am struck by the weasel-worded narrative that recent editors have woven around the content on "Totalitarian" In particular, I'd appreciate it if you'd have a look at a recent edit of mine which was promptly undone by another editor. The narrative about Nazi gun control, and then the Nazis "proceeded to..." All support the insinuation that ordinary governments, such as the American government, start with "gun control" and next thing you know it's concentration camps. Interesting. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you need to refresh the Alternative account policy. You abandon a 2 year old account that has a healthy block log on it, to go back to editing under a new name. Shadowjams ( talk) 23:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ROG5728 ( talk) 23:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is " Gun Control". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 15:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You undid my edit adding the article 'Slutdrop' to the see also section of 'SlutWalk', with the edit description "That wikipedia article refers to a dance move. That has nothing to do with "reclaiming" the word "slut"" [3] If you had of actually read the article 'Slutdrop', you would of noticed it states, with a reference "Sophie Wilkinson from The Guardian described naming the dance move a slutdrop an example of the word 'slut' being reclaimed by women, and also reclaiming the term 'slutdrop' from its previous meaning. Wilkinson states that slutdropping brings women together on the dance floor and called it a "true signifier of feminine camaraderie"." I'm not going to revert your edit myself, as I don't believe this is important enough to start an edit war over, I just wanted to point out that your justification for reverting my edit was incorrect. Freikorp ( talk) 22:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey there! Thanks for being my first "badguyeditor" ever! :D 190.30.132.232 ( talk) 11:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
(I also forget to sign posts) Luxxxbella ( talk) 12:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this edit; mind if I restore the section you removed? Keep in mind that we're not the ones quoting these individuals, our reliable sources are. There's nothing preventing us from including such observations in the article; while PPM measurements don't mean a lot to most readers, a visual observation can help someone who's unfamiliar with smog relate. m.o.p 23:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
ALL sources provided for your reading in the talk page for every aspect of the setnece in question.,
Better you do that then threaten
Wanted to wish you a Happy Mew Year! I'm amazed at the things I could learn in Wikipedia, and your help is greatly appreciated. I'm glad you nickname doesn't really match your behavior :D
Luxxxbella
"There is no knowledge that is not power"
13:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Alright, warning taken :D -- Luxxxbella "There is no knowledge that is not power" 13:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I have a question about your comment
[4] in the recent
Battle of Berlin RfC.
Do you mean that if the historian Rzheshevsky is a reliable source, his view can be included in the article? -
YMB29 (
talk)
21:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:
Thank you. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 15:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi PraetorianFury,
I highly value your contributions to Wikipedia, and your copy-editing skills are very accurate. I would like to ask you if you could make edits to the page of Expedia ( /info/en/?search=Expedia), as there is some information missing from the page. Would you be willing to make edits to the page so that it's complete? The main areas that I think needs more information are the infobox on the top right, and external links.
To be specific, I think the infobox at top right needs more information, and fields more in line with other global travel brands like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TripAdvisor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivago or and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vodafone_Hutchison_Australia. The infobox also needs to change URLs to be within 'website' (at the bottom) rather than 'Web address' (at the top), and it needs to include links to Expedia ccTLD: US, CA, UK, AU & NZ (in that order) in the same shape as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivago In regards to external Links, I think it should link to Expedia ccTLD in the same shape as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TripAdvisor with the same links as on #3.
Let me know, I would highly appreciate your assistance in this matter.
Erexkiss ( talk) 12:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Your contributions are much appreciated! :) -- Ori.livneh ( talk) 07:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I am rewriting my edits to reinstate these men's contentious histories, without ad hominem, in an encyclopedic fashion. Unless there is some reason you find such histories irrelevant, but without said histories of sexism and other bigotry I really don't see how these specific figures came to deserve relevancy in the article in the first place. What about their obviously problematic histories is worth dismissing? Further, what makes their views so important they must take precedence over the literally hundreds of other opinions by journalists, some of whom have far more expertise in this area? It is difficult to assume good faith on the part of whomever inserted these contentious and controversial figures into the article. Even Rush Limbaugh doesn't have as skeevy a personal history as two of the three reporters I expanded upon. Adding their biographical information to include the reasons they are notable is not in violation of any guidelines or standards, provided it's said in a more neutral way. I will do so this evening, and look forward to discussing why if need be. I am open to your input if you feel it may help.
In addition, some parts of the article are obviously in violation of WP:OR, making lofty claims without proper citations to back them. I only rewrote a few smaller examples, but I spotted several more that I plan on attending to. If you have any interest in working together to fix the unsourced content, great. If the article claims Slutwalk is being criticized for a specific reason, it needs to have a source to back that claim, instead of relying solely on weasel words. 107.178.39.54 ( talk) 20:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Impalement, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.-- I am One of Many ( talk) 19:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
@ PraetorianFury: In an edit summary (23:50, 31 August 2015) to the Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute article, you wrote: "'Roll Call' is an advocacy group and this source is a blog. Not a WP:RS". I refer you to the Wikipedia link for Roll Call, which you may want to peruse before making that rather ill-founded claim. --- Professor JR ( talk) 09:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@
PraetorianFury: Hardly — telephone them and ask them if they disagree. Roll Call conducts no advocacy itself, which you apparently missed, and certainly exists in printed form, not just on-line (with 21,533 subscribers total, per
BPA Worldwide, December 2014).
Here's how Roll Call characterizes itself: "With the largest press corps on Capitol Hill, CQ Roll Call has earned a reputation for delivering comprehensive, accurate and objective congressional reporting. We help you track and understand the people, the politics and the process — and how these forces affect your interests. Moreover, CQ Roll Call provides an innovative array of channels to reach Capitol Hill, empowering private citizens and power players alike with the ability to position their message in front of members of Congress and their staff." (cf.
[6])
—
Professor JR (
talk)
10:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Please stop deleting biographic content from Kim Davis (county clerk) without consulting the talk page. Several very experienced editors have arrived at the current content by engaing in discussion and respecting the work of others. Please do the same. - Mr X 19:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
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.Your recent editing history at Kim Davis (county clerk) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Mr X 20:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't owe you anything except the minimum amount of cooperation required by the encyclopedia
- True. and that is what you will receive.
- False, so far. The minimum amount of cooperation required by the encyclopedia is respect for some process. That's BRD in my view, but it certainly involves discussion with
WP:AGF and not making disputed edits without
consensus.
WP:EW: An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense. This principle applies not only to individual reverts but to your entire campaign to unilaterally "improve" the article through aggressive editing tactics. Your claims of experience are meaningless if you persistently demonstrate a lack of understanding of how to be a Wikipedia editor. We've all seen this many times before, and it always turns out the same. Trust me, there would be no boomerang at ANI. Best of luck,―
Mandruss
☎
04:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
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#User:PraetorianFury reported by User:MrX (Result: ). Thank you. -
Mr
X
18:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. There is discussion regarding a matter in which you have been involved at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Praetorian Fury. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 18:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are topic banned from participating at any article, page or discussion that concerns the topic of "same sex marriage" for an indefinite period of time.
You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=681071787
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
What: | Wikipedia Lab |
When: | Weekly on Mondays, starting 10/5/2015 through 11/30/2015, 4:30pm-6:30pm | |
Who: | UW students, faculty, and staff; Wikimedians; Seattle community members | |
Where: | UW Research Commons | |
Focus: | Women and the Sciences in October and Pacific Northwest in November; weekly topics | |
Wikipedia Lab at the UW Libraries Research Commons brings together local Wikipedia experts with University of Washington subject specialists and UW community members to learn about editing Wikipedia. Come contribute vital, local, and corrective content to the world's largest online encyclopedia. Come as you are with questions, ideas, or content knowledge to share!
The Wikipedia Lab will run weekly, every Monday, during fall quarter. The Lab has two thematic focuses: Women in the Sciences and the Pacific Northwest. Each week will feature a special collections librarian content specialist and Wikipedian editors. Sponsored by the UW Libraries & Wikimedians User Group |
To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. | MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia's 15th anniversary at the Wikipedia 15 meetup in Seattle on Saturday, January 16, 2016, 12:15pm to 5pm at the University of Washington Communications building, Room 126.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
If you are in the Seattle area, please join us for our
Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 17, 2pm. If you cannot attend in person, you may join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link:
https://zoom.us/j/2207426850. The address of the physical meeting is: University of Washington Communications Building, Room 126, 4109 Stevens Way NE, Seattle, WA
47°39′25″N 122°18′19″W / 47.6570676°N 122.3054000°W
Please go to the door on the north-northwest side. The event page is here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing and bringing the membership registration form and $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2017 at the meeting as well. Also, we are pleased to announce that the Cascadia Wikimedians User Group is now a recognized 501c3 non-profit organization in the US. EIN # 47-3513818 Our mail address is Cascadia Wikimedians User Group, 520 Kirkland Way, PO Box 2305, Kirkland, WA 98083. |
![]() |
Social Justice Organizers at University of Washington-Bothell are hosting a two-day editing event for Black WikiHistory Month on Feb. 22 and Feb. 23, 2017.
|
![]() |
![]() | |||
![]() ![]() |
- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC) |
![]() Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon Despite its wide reach, content on Wikipedia suffers from the bias of its editors: white, technically inclined, English-speaking men that live in developed, majority-Christian countries. This represents an alarming absence of voices in an increasingly important repository of shared knowledge. In an effort to change this, the Jake is organizing a Wikipedia Edit-a-thon on Saturday, May 6th, 1 - 5 pm. Our mission is to bring together diverse communities to participate in Wikipedia editing, and improve its coverage of queer people and women of color in the arts. We will provide childcare, snacks, and tutorials for the beginner editor. Bring your laptop, power-cord and ideas for entries that need updating or creation. No previous Wikipedia experience required! RSVP at and stay tuned to our Facebook page for updates. What: Improving Wikipedia's coverage on queer and women artists of color - MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC) |
![]() |
If you are in the Seattle area, please join us for our
Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 23, 1 PM. If you cannot attend in person, you may join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link:
https://zoom.us/j/2207426850. The address of the physical meeting is: Capitol Hill Meeting Room at Capitol Hill Library (425 Harvard Ave. E., Seattle, WA 98102)
47°37′23″N 122°19′20″W / 47.622928°N 122.322312°W
The event page is here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing the membership registration form onsite or (to be posted) online and paying $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2018 at the meeting as well. Cascadia Wikimedians User Group is a recognized 501c3 non-profit organization in the US. EIN # 47-3513818 Our mail address is Cascadia Wikimedians User Group, 520 Kirkland Way, PO Box 2305, Kirkland, WA 98083. |
![]() | ||
![]() the meetup page for Art+Feminism. |
Wikipedia is one of the most wide-reaching repositories of shared knowledge, yet a 2011 survey found that less than 10% of its contributors identify as female, suggesting an alarming absence of voices. What and how information is shared is skewed by this gender disparity. To help change this, the Jacob Lawrence Gallery is organizing a quarterly series of Edit-a-thons to improve Wikipedia's coverage of womxn artists of color.
This Saturday afternoon's gathering will focus on creating, editing, updating, and expanding pages for womxn artists from Latin America and the Caribbean. The Edit-a-thon will feature a talk by Dan Paz, Lecturer in the UW School of Art + Art History + Design, an artist, and an educator who explores the labor of digital imaging production as a collaborative site where the intersections of the image-idea and lived experience are produced and contested. Through videos, photography, and sculptural projects that query the ability of documentary processes to be manipulated—to be multiplied and replicated, stopped and started, rewound and advanced—Dan works within the impossibilities of absolute replication to question the very ability of the image to truly represent. Everyone is welcome. Access to UW WiFi will be provided for non-UW affiliated participants. All you need to bring is your laptop, power cord, and ideas. No previous Wikipedia experience required! Childcare, snacks from local businesses, and editing tutorials will be provided. Please check the Facebook event page for updates. When: Saturday, May 12th, 1-5pm |
![]() Jacob Lawrence Gallery, UW, Seattle |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
If you are in the Seattle area, please join us for our
Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 29, 1 PM. If you cannot attend in person, you may join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link:
https://zoom.us/j/2207426850. The address of the physical meeting is: Capitol Hill Meeting Room at Capitol Hill Library (425 Harvard Ave. E., Seattle, WA 98102)
47°37′23″N 122°19′22″W / 47.622928°N 122.322912°W
The event page is here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing the membership registration form onsite or (to be posted) online and paying $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2019 at the meeting as well. Cascadia Wikimedians User Group is a recognized 501c3 non-profit organization in the US. EIN # 47-3513818 Our mail address is Cascadia Wikimedians User Group, 520 Kirkland Way, PO Box 2905, Kirkland, WA 98083. |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Tuesday evening, January 15, 2019, 6-9pm at Wayward Coffeehouse, 6417 Roosevelt Way NE #104, Seattle WA 98115 Wikipedia Day celebrates the anniversary of the founding of Wikipedia. This year in Seattle, Cascadia Wikimedians' celebration of Wikipedia Day will focus on a different closely related project: Wikimedia Commons, which (among other things) functions as the media repository for Wikipedia. When you see a photo or map in Wikipedia, or hear an audio clip, etc., it usually is hosted on Wikimedia Commons and "transcluded" into Wikipedia. Wikimedia Commons is a mix of users' own works and curated third-party content, either public domain or free-licensed. Our event is a hands-on workshop in curating third-party content, mostly early 20th-century photos of Seattle and other West Coast locations. Currently, Wikimedia Commons has two intersecting sets of older photos, one from the Asahel Curtis Photo Company and the other a more general set of Seattle images. At this meetup, we will celebrate the 18th anniversary of Wikipedia by further curating these images by the creation and addition of categories, adding ImageNotes where useful, linking other versions of the same photo, enhancing the descriptions, and identifying and correcting errors. User:Jmabel has already categorized over 1000 images and corrected several hundred wrong dates, misidentified buildings, and etc., but there is much more to be done. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle#Wikipedia Day 2019 — curating images from Asahel Curtis and older Seattle photos. |
![]() |
Women’s History Wikithon
|
![]() |
![]() |
FREE. Please
register in advance. Includes museum admission and snacks; please bring a sack lunch plus a laptop. Scholars and interested citizens are invited to come together for an afternoon of collaboration to create or improve Wikipedia pages related to Washington State’s suffrage history. Learn from seasoned “Wikipedians” how to edit wiki pages, and work in small groups with women’s history experts. Honor Women’s History Month by updating our reference materials to reflect the dedicated work of Washington’s women suffragists. Bring a brown bag lunch, we’ll provide snacks. Hosted by Washington State Historical Society. Women's Suffrage Centennial Program, Washington State Historical Society -> Events & Programs |
![]() | |
![]() the meetup page for Art+Feminism. |
Wikipedia’s gender trouble is well-documented. In a 2011 survey, the Wikimedia Foundation found that less than 10% of its contributors were women. While the reasons for the gender gap are up for debate, the practical effect of this disparity is not: content is skewed by the lack of representation from women.
Let’s change that. To help change this, the Jacob Lawrence Gallery is continuing a series of Edit-a-thons to improve Wikipedia's coverage of womxn and gender non-binary artists of color. Childcare, snacks from local businesses, and editing tutorials will be provided. All you need to bring is your laptop, power cord, and ideas. No previous Wikipedia experience required! Everyone is welcome. Access to UW wifi will be provided for non-UW affiliated participants. Please create a Wikipedia account before the event. RSVP through this Facebook event link. When: Saturday, Apr. 6, 2019, 1–5 PM |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]()
- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
Please join us for our
Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PST. You can join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link:
https://virginia.zoom.us/my/wikilgbt. If your are in Seattle, the address of the physical meeting is: Capitol Hill Meeting Room at Capitol Hill Library (425 Harvard Ave. E., Seattle, WA 98102)
47°37′23″N 122°19′22″W / 47.622928°N 122.322912°W
The event page is
here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing the membership registration form onsite or (to be posted) online and paying $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2019 at the meeting as well.
|
![]() |
You are invited to the
Great American Virtual Wiknic on Sunday, August 16, 2020, noon to 2pm
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Distant Worlds Coffeehouse. For the address and to RSVP, please click here. |
![]() |
![]() |
Distant Worlds Coffeehouseas they have resumed their normal operating hours at their new location. For the address and to RSVP, please click here. |
![]() |
![]() Part of Wiki Loves Pride/2023 |
When: Saturday, June 17, 10am–3pm & Sunday, June 18, noon–5pm The schedule and details will be posted to the LGBT films from SIFF 2023 edit-a-thon page. Editors can respond there if they plan to attend. To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC) |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Seattle Wikimedia meetup | 16 January 2024 | ![]() |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are on our mailing list. To opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from the list. |