This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk) 08:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I changed it from "Anitfederalism" to "Anti-Federalism", because that is how it's written elsewhere in the article. Thank you for adding the source. SMP0328. ( talk) 03:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.
There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn ( talk) 04:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
Your tireless and selfless work to improve the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution during this last month, putting the interests of the encyclopedia ahead of personal and partisan interests, reflects your integrity and is both difficult and rare. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 14:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC) |
--NBahn ( talk) 02:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I never thanked for your condolence note last year, but I appreciate it more than I can possibly express. All the best, in friendship. Guettarda ( talk) 16:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
There have been more than enough protests about moving other people's comments for you to be aware of the effect it has. MalcolmMcDonald ( talk) 19:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
There is an issue being discussed at WP:ANI#Deleting and readding of talk page comments in which you may be involved.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 21:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. Per my rationale here, you reverted edits that were not vandalism in violation of the Global Warming Probation. The sanction is for 12 hours. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
1. LHvU screwed up. 2. His pride won't allow him to admit it. 3. The current policy on wheel warring gives a first-mover advantage. 4. Block logs are almost never expunged, except in cases of severe misconduct by the admin. A simple bad block isn't enough. 5. Lots of people have been blocked. A single bad block is not a huge deal, though I'm sure it must be frustrating. 6. In short, you're screwed. Continuing to raise the issue will only irritate people. Therefore your most advantageous course from here is simply to move on.
Consider or ignore this unsolicited advice as you see fit. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 11:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe you feel that the GW article (and perhaps that entire suite of articles) reads something like an advertisement.
I have a concern that there is one way to keep these articles the same and many ways to make improvements. This results in a) division of effort and b) large numbers of editors abandoning the effort.
Some editors are prepared to show their support or opposition to movement in specific directions, at a chart on my TalkPage here. "Reads like an advertisement" is on there. Please consider adding your name to that section and any other parts you think important. MalcolmMcDonald ( talk) 17:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi again Kenosis, there is a substantive edit/merge discussion occurring over at Tea Party protests, 2009 and Tea Party movement. Given your significant contributions in the past, I thought you might want to drop by and check out what's going on over there. Thanks! -- Happysomeone ( talk) 22:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for pointing me the IPCC attribution reports. I counted at least 13 "Nevertheless" statements in that report, which may be interpreted as a weasel word for we have a fatal flaw in the analysis that our experts explained away. How the IPCC is able to magically transform uncertainty to certainty amazes me. I've seen magic on the street, the stage, in religion and in the board room with Enron and banking financial engineers. There is magic in the the IPCC methods which some how propagate errors in such a way improve certainty. Properly treated errors are a greatest common divisor for reduction by increasing relevance and reducing redundancy while addressing unintended consequences. Unfortunately, the IPCC must focus on producing a redundant anthropogenic message by minimizing highly relevant natural source accounting. First rule in fingerprint analysis, don't contaminate the evidence. Folks complain that I get them confused, well the IPCC report and the related faith in unspecified modeling assumptions has me bamboozled. I do appreciate your help to clear things up. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 03:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kenosis, would you follow up on the FrescoBot situation at User talk:Basilicofresco#FrescoBot adding WildBot templates? I'd like to wrap up the discussion by saying something like "problem solved!", but I'm not all that familiar with the entire issue, so maybe you'd be better at throwing in a final two cents. Thanks, - M.Nelson ( talk) 00:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thanks for the sun see also links is solar variation. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 18:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Please carefully rethink your edits today. You have done the following:
Thanks! ► RATEL ◄ 04:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll make this comment here rather than the article talk page. You completely farked up this sentence, both in meaning and punctuation, with your edits. Please try to stay alert when editing. before your edit:
Denial, often referred to in this context as "denialism", was defined by one of the developers of the term in the U.S., physiologist Mark Hoofnagle, as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists.
after your edit:
Physiologist Mark Hoofnagle, said by authors Pascal Dietheol and Martin McKee to be one of the developers of the concept of denialism. [should be a comma] argues that <<denialism is>> [missing subject and verb I've since inserted] the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists.
Hmm. ► RATEL ◄ 07:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Re [1] since Gavin is a U.S. Govt employee the govt retains the right to distribute his work, which presumably is what they're doing by putting it on their website. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 03:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated List of Tea Party protests, 2009, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tea Party protests, 2009. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. sparkie 19:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Climatic Research Unit email controversy, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 13:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
With regards to this message, please disregard it. It was placed in error, after I misread one of your contributions as vandalism. Please except my apologies. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 17:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Kenosis, please note that in attempting to revert Macai's addition of "scandal" to Climatic Research Unit email controversy you accidentally reverted my own rewrite of the intro instead, in which that word had already been removed. I've reverted you - hope that's OK. -– ChrisO ( talk) 19:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Ignoring your recent block, why, in your opinion, aren't you an admin? Thanks! Hipocrite ( talk) 13:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
For a great many years there has been an almost-loophole at this policy "cite facts, including facts about opinions, but not opinions themselves." I have always interpreted this to mean that a verifiable account of someone's view is encyclopedic. However, some people read this to mean that Wikipedia should emphasize facts, not opinions. And opinions = views. I think this line of thinking leads to a contradiction in the policy (that we must include all significant views from reliable sources) and undermines the dictum, "verifiability, not truth."
The problem is, there is a user, user:Zaereth who states excplicitly on his user page that he is opposed to our NPOV policy and wishes to change it. And he has been trying to edit the "loophole" I mention above to mean that we should strive to present the truth. He has teamed up with user:QuackGuru who is claiming that there is another policy called "state facts accurately" which he believes means that certain claims do not have to be attributable to any source (since they are "facts" - i.e. a total subversion of "verifiability, not truth.")
Currently, the discussion is happening on the bottommost sections of the talk page (there was a convenience break). I think the discussion really could benefit from the input of experienced editors with real institutional memory and I am asking that you consider participating in this discussion until this issue at NPOV is satisfactorally resolved. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
If you have time can you comment on the renewed ASF discussion here; Kotniski brings it up - I just made a proposal and went ahead and added it to the article; it is a very different formulation but I think more direct and clear. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you comment here: [2] and in the next section, which is entitled Comment? I am asking you to comment solely on policy, not content. This discussoon sorely needs the cmments of others who really know policy. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Will fix. Maurreen ( talk) 13:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
You were right that I should not have made so many changes to the policy page. I have placed a proposed alternative to one section of the policy here - there have been some constructive suggestions by a couple of other editors and since posting it I have made some alterations to it in response to those comments. You know I respect your experience and I hope you will have time to review the proposal and, if you think it is a step in the right direction, see if you can suggest any improvements - or of course if you don't like it register your view. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Alas, I think people still have conflicting views as to the relationship between a content fork, a POV fork, and other kinds of forks. I wish others would continue working on that guideline because I am not sure my revision covers all relevant issues - there was some constructive discussion but it didn't go anywhere. My only desire was to clean it up and make it intelligible. It still needs work but I am glad you think this was an improvement. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kenosis, in case you missed it, you may be interested in this draft. Your comments on the talk page would be very welcome. Thanks, Crum375 ( talk) 19:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from Toronto, Canada!
I just wanted to bring your attention to the Global Warming talk page under the subject "unbiased please". I thought you might want to weigh in on the discussion :)
Take it easy :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontokid2006 ( talk • contribs) 05:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
You didn't discuss this removal on the talk page. Hasn't it been in the article for quite a while? Alatari ( talk) 09:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think using 'survey results' as an example is inappropriate. Let me explain why:
It's true that survey results need to be attributed in-line. It should read like this: "In March 2009, a survey by Reuters found that 59% of the people believed ...." [1] But that is different from saying that a statement needs to be qualified in-line, in which case, it would read like this: "According to Time Magazine, [2] a March 2009 survey by Reuters found that 59% of the people believed...."
This is similar to many statements we make about 'facts'. For example, in the article on Elena Kagan it reads: "Obama nominated Kagan to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy from the impending retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens at the end of the Supreme Court's 2009–2010 term. [3]"
There is no dispute that Obama has nominated her, but we still need an in-line attribution, but not an in-line qualifier of the sort "According to the New York Times, ..."
So, in sum, I think you should let the issue go. There's too much going on at that page to worry about something like this. LK ( talk) 03:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am currently involved in a proposal for a guideline on primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I have just discovered that you were once involved in a similar proposal a while ago - either in contributing to it directly or in discussing it on its talk page. You may wish to get involved in the current proposal and I would encourage you to do so - even if you just want to point out where we have gone wrong! Yaris678 ( talk) 23:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm new here. I was wondering if you are still interested in this Page.
When I first saw it I decided to join Wikipedia as a member right away.
I thought it need clarification and believed I knew just what to do.
My plan was to replace the page with a more coherent definition of just what the thing is and how it works.
I thought I knew just how to do it.
I am much more humble now.
I was originally thinking about replacing the entire article with a different approach and starting from scratch but now I have a better appreciation of how tricky it can be to explain all the topics surrounding it clearly while weeding out irrelevancies in this regard.
My Outline is here (I have not yet included other, possibly related, terms like arguments from personal incredulity or any of the existing examples on the cuurent page)
I invite your comment.
Sincerely,
Agenzen ( talk) 20:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC).
Might want to visit. I think I have finally summarized Feedback's arguments against pending changes; he believes that reviewers are wasting time reviewing edits...yet the same argument could be made for semi-protection with administrators and other users being forced to waste their time adding edits to an article that someone else could have already added...which is what pending changes allows.
I'd be interested in your comments at that page regarding my recent addition, I think I hit the nail on the head this time. CycloneGU ( talk) 05:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the article needs some "summarizing." For the past couple weeks, I've mostly been adding new material that has been disclosed since August of 2008, while avoiding deleting any of the old material from when the case seemed to be a mass of confusion. Deletions are harder to justify, and people tend to be very protective of their favorite postings. Plus, "summarizing" tends to be interpreted as "improper synthesizing" or "original analysis" by those who do not agree with the summarized results.
Please make suggestions in the discussion page for the article. I'll create a new topic heading at the bottom of that discussion page. EdLake ( talk) 15:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I am puzzled about your edit to Frank L. Lambert which you describe in the edit summary as "AfD closed as Keep. Removing AfD infobox". There was no AfD infobox on the article and you seem to have largely reverted to an older version which I thought I had substantially improved by adding references that had come up in the AfD discussion and removing bad links. The new references were independent comment on Lambert's ideas and not self references. What was your intention here? I would prefer to revert your edit and work together to improve the article from that point. -- Bduke (Discussion) 23:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you plan on contributing to the discussion at talk or just continuing to blindly revert? Let us know. Ed Wood's Wig ( talk) 17:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Kenosis, on or around July 5 you posted a tag to the article about the anthrax attacks of 2001 suggesting that its content be summarized and improved. Hundreds of changes have been made since then, but there's no way of telling if it is enough to remove the tag.
Discussions are getting nowhere because there is dispute about the use of FBI documents in the article, evidently because the FBI documents show media reports to be incorrect and some people believe the media instead of the FBI.
If we can remove the summary tag, that might solve one problem. If not, we could use some suggestions on how to further summarize the article. Any attempt to cut out comments by people who had theories about the case but who were not involved in the investigation will generate arguments from those who believe the theories and do not believe the FBI's findings. The article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks EdLake ( talk) 21:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads ( talk)12:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
The link that I edited is not a spam. It is a meeting portal on Xing for people who want to do business with and/or invest in Ukraine. Could you please reconsider ?
Thanks in advance. Selen INAL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seleninal ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
One of your recent edits was to remove my referencing some theories that are commonly accepted as fact. I thought I was making a classic, important point for anyone still underestimating the weight that the word "theory" can have in the scientific community. Your thoughts?- Tesseract2 ( talk) 07:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kenosis, question for you here, in case you missed it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello Kenosis I discovered that the user K was taken in some languages and changed my user to Neltah - I will not try to use K for unified login, as I have Neltah, the only reason for my keeping "K" is that I haven't found a way to merge the two accounts in Norwegian wiktionary. Any tips would be welcome!
Regards Neltah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neltah ( talk • contribs) 11:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to clean up some issues at Climate change denial including some questionable sources.
You added here the McGarity book in a sentence talking about the denial of climate science. I don't know the book, but based upon the title the few descriptions I've read, it doesn't seem to be about climate science. Am I missing something?-- SPhilbrick T 02:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
SlimVirgin turned our previous discussion into a vote retroactively, and placed both your and my comments in the voting section. I've placed the text "Remove" before both our comments so that they specify a vote. Your comment makes it pretty clear that's your position, but I want to make sure you know your comment was edited. Please modify or remove it as you see fit. Thanks! :) Jess talk| edits 23:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
An off-wiki discussion is taking place concerning DC Meetup #12. Watch
this page for announcements.
—NBahn (
talk) 04:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Why did you remove the Sacred Sciences from {{ Science}}? The word "science" simply means knowlege, and philosophy, canon law and theology are forms of knowlege. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 08:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you in control of Kenosis, remade today? Hipocrite ( talk) 22:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
re: your edit here. please watch the particular kind of error you made here. the 'equal validity' section has only been a part of NPOV policy since last April; it was part of the NPOV FAQ (which was never legitimately policy) for far longer, but it was highly contested even there. you're simply (unwittingly, I suppose) buying into the propaganda of skeptics who still think they are fighting the pseudoscience wars against ravening fringe advocates. I'm not going to worry about which template is there (so long as it's templated), but I do get grumpy when people start talking about completely fabricated history as though it were fact. makes my fangs come out, if you know what I mean... -- Ludwigs2 06:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #12 on Saturday, October 23, 6pm at Bertucci's in Foggy Bottom. Special guests at this meetup will include Wikimedia CTO Danese Cooper, other Wikimedia technical staff and volunteer developers who will be in DC for Hack-A-Ton DC. Please RSVP on the meetup page.
You can remove your name from the Washington DC Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I was surprised to find your username (Kenosis) in Hegel's The Phenomenology of the Spirit. So you probably have an opinion on R.G. Collingwood (1946) The Idea of History ISBN 0-19-500205-9, p.175: "the mind is that which knows itself".
My motivation was Peirce's discussion of Mind and also Spirit. I could not understand Peirce, so Collingwood's sentence leapt out at me as a definition. It is very suggestive to me because it can be formulated into a statement in a computer language that supports recursion (and perhaps the 'this' construct).
That meant that I had to find a similar sentence for Spirit. What I found was Hegel's "Spirit knows itself" in The Phenomenology of Spirit which shows where Collingwood got the sentence I liked.
Thus I am still searching for a sentence about Spirit; if you find one sometime I would appreciate a message from you. If you like I can also let you know if I find one. -- Ancheta Wis ( talk) 22:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
K, I have tracked the first transition of solar from a warming impact to a cooling impact to your edit [3]. There is no citation which supports solar cooling or the consensus upon it and there are some that indicate the influence was warming. As a courtesy I'm notifying you of the discussion, here [4]-- Africangenesis ( talk) 19:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Mass attribution is never supposed to be done all time. For instance, if the source says "a majority" that should not be used to say "most", or if the survey says "90% in favor" that does not become "an overwhelming majority". A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion should accurately describe what the group is saying. You should not use the word some when the source does not say that. Using the word some when the source does not say that is mass attribution. This is an important part of policy. This is about how to present the text neutrally.
The result of a survey is a non-debatable fact. This is a great example. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the mailing list.
You can remove your name from future notifications of Washington DC Meetups by editing this page:
Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.
BrownBot (
talk) 13:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Southern Poverty Law Center. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 05:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I did. Frankly as one of the two admins administering the 3RR report in this situation, I've already taken my share of flack over it. The warning was a way of me saying "stop it" that edit warring over a bias tag is uncool; if you disagree and think the editor is disruptive, I recommend an RFC on the article or user himself. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 22:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering if you would be willing to offer an opinion on this. It really puzzles me... the user most involved in those articles is trying to establish notability by sources such as [7] [8] [9]. He has a good point that the show has aired around the world. Yet, does that fact alone establish notability? Does it offer enough third party sources to make an article? BE——Critical__ Talk 06:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C.
Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.
Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot ( talk) 02:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you made this edit summary , "making a bit clearer that this is Silverstein's assertion--it's not at all clear how he arrived at this calculation, seemingly different from Charity Navigator's numbers." The problem is Silverstein is playing games with the numbers -- legal services is only a portion of the SPLC's expenses. The largest portion of its expenses go towards tolerance education expenses. Silverstein's comparison is not really relevant. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 23:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:PD-Pre1964 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 20:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Archives of American Art Backstage Pass! - You are invited! | |
---|---|
The Smithsonian is hosting its first Backstage Pass at the Archives of American Art in, Washington, D.C., on Friday, July 29. 10 Wikimedians will experience the behind the scenes aspects of archiving the world's largest collection of documents and photographs related to American art. After a complimentary lunch, an edit-a-thon will take place and prizes will be awarded. Followed by an evening happy hour. We hope you'll participate! SarahStierch ( talk) 14:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC) |
The first ever WikiProject National Archives newsletter has been published. Please read on to find out what we're up to and how to help out! There are many opportunities for getting more involved. Dominic· t 21:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
|
DC Meetup 21 - Who should come? You should. Really. | |
---|---|
DC MEETUP 21 is July 29! This meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. See you Friday! SarahStierch ( talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC) |
National Archives Backstage Pass - Who should come? You should. Really. | |
---|---|
On Saturday, August 6, the National Archives is hosting a Wikipedia meetup, backstage pass tour, and edit-a-thon in College Park, Maryland. Meet staff and fellow Wikipedians, go behind the scenes at the National Archives, help digitize documents, and edit together! Dominic· t 21:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC) |
A tag has been placed on File:WilhelmRöntgen.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
National Archives Backstage Pass - Who should come? You should. Really. | |
---|---|
You are invited to the National Archives in College Park for a special backstage pass and scanathon meetup with Archivist of the United States David Ferriero, on Saturday, October 8. Go behind the scenes and into the stacks at the National Archives, help digitize documents, and edit together! Free catered lunch provided! Dominic· t 16:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC) |
Debate has started anew to get science to GA or FA status. Join in the fun at Talk:Science#Let.27s_cook_up...... and scroll down...we'll try not to reinvent the wheel Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
See here. Thanks, Calliopejen1 ( talk) 14:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Fine Art Edit-a-Thon & Meetup - Who should come? You should. Really. | |
---|---|
FINE ART EDIT-A-THON & DC MEETUP 26 is December 17! The Edit-a-Thon will cover fine art subjects from the Federal Art Project and the meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. You don't have to attend both to attend one (but we hope you do!) Click the link above and sign up & spread the word! See you there! SarahStierch ( talk) 17:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC) |
You are invited to the
National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my
stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!
This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic· t 01:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited. |
DC Meetup #28: March 10 at Capitol City Brewery | |
---|---|
DC Wikipedia meetup #28 is on Saturday, March 10, 2012, from 7pm on at Capitol City Brewery in downtown DC. (11th & H St NW). Join us for an evening of socializing, chatting about Wikipedia, discussing Wikimedia DC activities and the latest preparations for Wikimania 2012. ( RSVP + details) |
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot ( talk) 03:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC), on behalf of User:Aude
Who should come? You should. Really. | |
---|---|
Sarah ( talk) 23:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
|
|
"Masterpiece Museum" Edit-a-Thon at the Smithsonian American Art Museum | |
---|---|
The Smithsonian American Art Museum and Wikimedia DC present the "Masterpiece Museum" Edit-a-Thon. Drawing from their vast vaults of art, the caretakers of the Smithsonian American Art Museum have meticulously drawn forth canvas jewels to import into Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia articles. The museum directors and staff are excited about this project, and would love to have experienced Wikimedians help in the effort! Kirill [talk] 18:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
|
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tea Party protests, 2009 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tea Party protests, 2009 (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Viriditas ( talk) 00:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Backstage at the Smithsonian Libraries is part of Wikipedia Loves Libraries 2012, the second annual continent-wide campaign to bring Wikipedia and libraries together with on-site events. Running this fall through October and November, libraries (and archives) will open their doors to help build a lasting relationship with their local Wikipedian community.
Organized by Wikimedia DC, this event will take place on October 12, 2012, and will include new editor training, a "backstage pass" tour of the National Museum of Natural History, and an edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend!
Kirill [talk] 18:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
December 10 is Ada Lovelace's birthday! Not only was she the world's first computer programmer, but also the world's first female open source developer! Come celebrate with Wikimedia District of Columbia at Busboys & Poets for an informal get together!
The Washington, DC event will be held on Monday, December 10, 2012 at Busboys & Poets on 5th St NW & K St NW near Mt Vernon Square. The area is easily accessible by the Red Line Chinatown stop and the Yellow Line and Green Line Mt Vernon Square stop, as well as by WMATA buses.
Kirill [talk] 14:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Please join Wikimedia DC and four other local media nonprofits—the National Press Club's Young Members Committee, 100Reporters, IRE and the Fund for Investigative Journalism—in winding down another year with a night of well-mannered frivolity.
The festivities will take place on Friday evening from 6:30 PM to 9:00 PM in the Zenger Room on the 13th Floor of the National Press Club, located on 529 14th Street NW, near Metro Center. There will be meat and vegetarian appetizers as well as a cash bar with specially reduced drink prices all night long. In addition, we will be exhibiting the finalists of the Wiki Loves Monuments photo contest at the event.
Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 04:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Please join Wikimedia DC for Happy Hour at the Capitol City Brewery at Metro Center on Thursday, February 28 at 6 p.m. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!
For more information and to sign up, see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 34. Hope to see you there! Harej ( talk) 02:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi K, since you are interested in meetups in DC, I'd like to invite you to attend the Cato Institute's "Wikipedia and Legislative Data" events on March 14. (There's also an all day workshop on March 15; let me know if you are interested, we may be able to add more people.)
There will be an introduction to Wikipedia and open edit-a-thon in the afternoon, and a Sunshine Week Reception in the evening. I hope you can make it!
Hope to see you there! - Pete ( talk) 19:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Guapo's at Tenleytown-AU on Saturday, March 9 at 5 PM All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!
For more information and to sign up, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 35. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 13:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
In honor of Women's History Month, the Smithsonian and the National Museum of Women in the Arts are teaming up to organize a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29, 2013 from 10:00am - 5:00pm. The event is focused on encouraging women editors while improving Wikipedia entries about women artists and art world figures. This event is free of charge, but participation is limited to 20 volunteers, so RSVP today! Sarasays ( talk) 23:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, April 13 at 5:30 PM All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!
For more information and to sign up, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 36. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 19:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The " All Things GW" editathon on Saturday, April 20, 2013 from 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. is a rare chance to go behind the scenes in the University Archives of the GW Libraries and use their unique resources to research and update Wikipedia pages related to The George Washington University and the Foggy Bottom neighborhood. Did you miss our last D.C. history editathon? This is your is your chance to come edit with wiki-friends using different great collection! The event includes a behind-the-scenes tour of the University Archives and a show-and-tell of some of its most interesting treasures, snacks, and the editathon.
Participation is limited to 30 volunteers, so RSVP today! Dominic· t 07:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for two exciting events this weekend:
On the evening of Friday, April 19, we're hosting our first-ever WikiSalon at our K Street office. The WikiSalon will be a twice-monthly informal meetup and collaborative editing event to help build the community of Wikimedia enthusiasts here in DC; please join us for its inaugural session. Light refreshments will be provided.
On Saturday, April 20, we've partnered with the George Washington University to host the All Things GW Edit-a-Thon at the Teamsters Labor History Research Center. Please join us for behind-the-scenes tours of the University Archives and help edit articles about GWU history.
We look forward to seeing you at one or both of these events! Kirill [talk] 20:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, May 11 at 5:30 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!
For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 23:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of May 24 at our K Street office.
The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.
We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 18:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Join us at the NLM next week, either in person or online, to learn about NLM resources, hear some great speakers, and do some editing!
On Tuesday, 28 May there will be a community Wikipedia meeting at the United States National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland - with a second on Thursday, 30 May for those who can't make it on Tuesday. You can participate either in-person, or via an online webinar. If you attend in person, USB sticks (but not external drives) are ok to use.
Please go to the event page to get more information, including a detailed program schedule.
If you are interested in participating, please register by sending an email to [email protected]. Please indicate if you are coming in person or if you will be joining us via the webinar. After registering, you will receive additional information about how to get to our campus (if coming in-person) and details about how to join the webinar. Klortho ( talk) 00:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Thursday, June 6 at our K Street office.
The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.
We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 11:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the last-minute notice, but on Saturday, June 8, from 3 to 6 PM, Wikimedia DC and the Cato Institute are hosting a Legislative Data Meetup. We will discuss the work done so far by WikiProject U.S. Federal Government Legislative Data to put data from Congress onto Wikipedia, as well as what more needs to be done. If you have ideas you'd like to contribute, or if you're just curious and feel like meeting up with other Wikipedians, you are welcome to come! Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.
I hope to see you there!
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for D.C.-area events by removing your name from this list.)
Harej ( talk) 03:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, June 15 at 5:30 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!
For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 19:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Great American Wiknic DC at Meridian Hill Park | ||
You are invited to the Great American Wiknic DC at the James Buchanan Memorial at Meridian Hill Park. We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck! :) |
Boilerplate message generously borrowed from Wikimedia NYC. To unsubscribe from future DC area event notifications, remove your name from this list.
Harej ( talk) 15:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, July 13 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!
For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 00:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)