User talk:Ɱ/Archive 7

Lavender in cookery
Proving a negative is always difficult. On the other hand, there are plenty of 19th century sources which are clear about the uses of lavender. The Larousse du XIXe has a full column on lavender, talking quite extensively about its uses for perfume and pharmaceuticals, but nothing about cuisine. The Dictionnaire universel de la vie pratique à la ville et à la campagne does the same. These sorts of book try to be comprehensive, so their omissions seem like strong evidence. Of course, they never say "don't use lavender in cookery", any more than they say "don't add stones to soup", despite the folk story. Anyway, I have reworded the article so that it no longer claims the negative; it just describes the content of a classic cookbook, and lets the reader draw his/her own conclusions. --Macrakis (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thanks. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 00:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Molecular gastronomy ‎
Care to explain your revert on this article? My edit was clearly not vandalismm and I explained it in both the edit summary and on the talk page. If your revert was a mistake you should be more careful with the revert button. Meters (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Look at the article talk page, as I said. It's clear you don't understand how Wikipedia works, and don't have enough appreciation for content creators. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 22:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have have looked at it and responded. I understand how Wikipedia works very, thank you very much. You have reverted my non-vandalism edit twice now. You have restored a completely unsourced addition twice, and you have twice restored a number of links that have been red-linked and tagged as needing citations for more than five years. See WP:Write the article first. Times have changed. We don't fill articles with ref links in the hope that someone else will come along and write the article anymore. As I said on the talk page, we have no evidence that they are notable or that they are even chefs, let alone that they are they are chefs who are "often associated with molecular gastronomy." I suggest that you self revert. Meters (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Sunday July 10: WikNYC Picnic @ Central Park
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Notifying New York WikiProjects
Hey, thanks for notifying WPNY about the New York Page Move snafu. I think it would also be worthwhile to notify the descendant WikiProjects listed here and maybe go up a level to WikiProject United States as well. What do you think? Antepenultimate (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 16:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would respectfully request you not to make large-scale changes to the New York article at this time. First of all, prior to this recent snafu of it being moved, it had been fundamentally the way it is for a long time and is in my opinion an excellent article. From a common sense standpoint, it would be advisable at this time to concentrate our mutually common energies toward overturning this disastrous and misguided move. And for the record, this is not canvassing, as we have already independently embarked upon this effort. Thank you. Best, Castncoot (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was editing a related article with a colleague, and we discovered just how picture-laden the New York article is. It's fully a gallery in many places, and images take up my entire screen (even on my monster 24" screen). It's far too much and goes well against WP:IG. The article has many sub-articles where such photos will be more relevant anyway. I will wait for the move review to close, however, as you request. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 02:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The current format bears no conflict with WP:IG. If anything, it augments it because New York State is uniquely diverse or nearly so in its topography, and the images are not only geographically relevant but are fundamental to demonstrate this - it is what it is, as the saying goes. As you know, New York is one of the few states known prominently to comprise many geographically and geoculturally distinct regions. It is also proven consistent by the fact that all big city articles and even other state articles carry wide images. Sometimes that's exactly what it takes to demonstrate a scene! All of the images demonstrate certain thematic elements and have a place in the main article. A picture can be worth a thousand words if employed correctly, and so many readers seem to like the article as is. In any case, you have the right as much as any other Wikipedian to Talk this out. But I do appreciate you waiting until the current Wiki-crisis is resolved before attempting to gut the article (also think, would gutting it really be improving it? - I would beg to differ). Best, Castncoot (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Interactive Brokers expansion
I'm probably the wrong person to be asking about this since, although WP permits disclosed paid editing, it is also WP:NOTADVERTISING and I don't like to see a free-use encyclopedia (on which people rely) used by corporations to polish their public image. I also far prefer the approach of directly editing the mainspace article to what I've seen of yours (having a nearly-parallel article in userspace); WP is based on collaborative editing, and your editing makes that very difficult. Corporate articles are not my thing; this one looks okay, although there seems to be a lot of overlap with Interactive Brokers Group and there are a number of complaints on the talk page about its looking like an advert (which, frankly, it does). Good luck and all the best,  Mini  apolis  19:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) You can rely on the draft to be neutral, encylopedic, and very informative. There is no image polishing here; I as a Wikipedian was told to expand their page, so I'm doing that.
 * 2) The approach of directly editing would likely result in me being banned. Most editors frown upon direct editing, and many have found ways to nearly get me banned without such a "heinous" act. My method, as approved as best practices across the COI-watching editorspace, guidelines, and more, has allowed many editors to be glad for my care in staying away from the article space and being transparent.
 * 3) I may not have told you; I intend to have the draft replace both the IB and IBG articles (I had the split made in the first place, and changed my mind). IBG alone isn't notable enough, technically.
 * 4) I'm surprised you mentioned the talk page complaints! They all date to before 2009, long before I ever knew what IB was!
 * 5) What "looks like an advert"? I have decent photos I took myself? I write a lot about its history in a very dry style (totally against PR norms), or that it complies with all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on images, reference formatting, the lead, relevant and neutral prose, and an informative and accurate infobox? I don't want it to look like an advertisement, but honestly the company's never had anything notably bad happen to it, so how can I do anything but talk about its aspects and how it's actually been very notable in financial history? Please give me more to work with, as I am serious about wanting to get this to FA, even if my employment with IB ends next week.  ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 01:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just realized that ping template probably won't work in that usage. Pinging you now. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 01:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you're dissatisfied with my reply. You are "directly editing" the article in your sandbox, in preparation for replacing the existing article. To say the least, that's not how things are generally done around here and violates the spirit of collaboration which is the third of WP's five pillars. The paid-editing Terms of Use were intended to facilitate contributions from expert professionals, not to enable PR people to do an end run around WP:NOTADVERTISING (which is policy). Thought I made this clear earlier, but helping a corporate article to reach FA is not the way I contribute here; this is all I have to say on the subject.  Mini  apolis  20:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record only, you're incorrect. I'm writing a draft. It's up to any volunteer user to make whatever changes he likes to the real article. It is how things are done around here, and the only way to possibly do a rewrite without infuriating scores of editors. Major rewrites aren't collaborative in any sense; my rewrite of Briarcliff Manor was an independent task, though you were happy to help with that one... Your views on the ToU are not the standard views of most Wikipedians; expert professionals could edit any page they'd like without needing a disclosure, as long as it's not the article for their employer. I won't have you criticize my methods which are within the ToU, policy, guidelines, best practices, and even community norms, but I am okay with you not taking up my request. Feel free to ignore this message. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 20:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Trump National Golf Club Westchester
Hello! Your submission of Trump National Golf Club Westchester at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Trump National Golf Club Westchester
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

August 17: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Your GA nomination of Trump National Golf Club Westchester
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trump National Golf Club Westchester you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trump National Golf Club Westchester
The article Trump National Golf Club Westchester you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Trump National Golf Club Westchester for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trump National Golf Club Westchester
The article Trump National Golf Club Westchester you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Trump National Golf Club Westchester for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

September 14: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Wikipedia can be so frustrating. Persistence wins over reason. :( Deli nk (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Sun October 16: CommonsLab / Open House NY Photo Contest + Hackathon
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Saturday October 22: WikiArte Latin American Edit-a-thon @ MoMA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Beyond My Ken
Just FYI. Whatever your issues are with Beyond My Ken, per WP:BLANKING they are allowed to remove comments from their own talk pages. Escalating things by readding them won't help anyone. Justeditingtoday (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't want you to get into trouble. Please see WP:USERTALK. What you've been doing at User talk:Beyond My Ken is considered really, really bad form. This is not worth getting blocked over. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * BMK is a vulgar editor who establishes ownership and complete dominance over too many pages, and completely ignores so so many policies and guidelines. I'm so sick of it. Don't complain about me wanting to comment on his talk page, and keep my comments. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 22:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at User talk:Beyond My Ken. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Please note: You have been told by more than one editor to WP:DROPTHESTICK. That would be a very good idea at this point. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Saturday November 12: Women in Science Edit-a-thon @ NY Academy of Sciences (plus Sunday Indigenous People's Justice event)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

You've got mail!
--Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Saturday December 3: Contemporary Chinese Art Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

User name
Hello. It looks this account has been around a while, although I don't recall seeing it before. Perhaps it's because your user name appears as an unreadable character on my system. Can you tell me what it is? Jonathunder (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi there, yeah some devices might just show it as a rectangle. It's an obscure letter mostly used in IPA, the M with hook. You might not see me around much, I largely stay to small and obscure topics and write content, rarely entering debates or doing large cleanup tasks. Good to meet you. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 23:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good to meet you too, M with hook. You've done a lot of edits to a place I lived in, so it's a wonder I have't seen you before. Jonathunder (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess I'd assume you went to the King's College? I've been editing a set of 20 or so articles related to Briarcliff Manor over the past few years, and created that one, but I'm sure there's more to add. Do you have any useful sources or info to add? Photographs would be extremely welcome. I'm a photographer and I'm very dismayed to be unable to take any myself, and I never got a chance to even visit while it was still around. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 00:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was not a student there, but some summers the college rented the Walter Law Mansion to another organization, which is where I was. Do you know if that still stands? I was dismayed to learn about what happened to the Lodge. Even in its declining final years, it was still a marvelous place. I didn't have a camera then, but I can still picture much of the campus in my mind. I have become a photographer since and have uploaded many historic places to Commons. Looks like you have too. This church was right next door to where I stayed. Didn't it have a modern parish hall that was also architecturally significant? Jonathunder (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The house and church still stand. The house is privately owned, though the local historical society has done a number of events there. There are a few contemporary photos of it at Commons:Category:Walter W. Law. The church's parish house is probably significant, but I haven't gotten to researching it yet, and I've found very little about the church in general through my work. The historical society should have more information... ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 01:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You might also be interested to know my grandfather wrote and performed a song about the lodge, which you can find at 27:28 at Dailymotion here. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 00:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a lovely song. Thank you. Jonathunder (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Generation Snowflake
Hi, thanks for for your recent work at the a.m. article. I note that you added several maintenance tags, but did not elaborate the specific issue that is actionable within Wikipedia's content policies. When using the tag, for example, you should add a new section named "Disputed" to the article's talk page, describing the problems with the disputed statements. I'm intrigued also by your use of the tag, as the article uses many sources from outside the USA. Finally, the tag is rather vague. Using instead against the sources you dispute would be much more helpful. Keri (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , such detail is often not necessary. It should be clear the sources are from US and UK papers, so they don't provide a world view. The disputes span your arguments with those other two editors that I'm not going to join in to. The unreliable sources tag should also be evident; these sources all complain about the issue or complain about people's usages. Very few offer statistics, and when they do, they're not linked to research. Academic papers on the subject, with formal research methodology (or articles reporting on these papers) need to be used here. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 21:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, such detail would be helpful as clearly at least one editor here has asked :) As the term is an English-language neologism, I fail to see why a "world view" is considered necessary. As an informal term and neologism, there are no "academic papers on the subject, with formal research methodology" and I would be grateful for a pointer to the policy that necessitates such sources. Keri (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm moving this conversation to the article's talk page. Keri (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As we are now thrashing this out at the talk page, please feel free to archive this thread at your convenience. I shall continue to reply there rather than here. Thanks again for your input, even if I disagree, it is always helpful to edit outside of echo chambers :) Keri (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

December 21: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (plus Wikipedia Day on Jan 15!)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

YGM
~ Rob 13 Talk 06:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Norwalk, CT
Thank you for your recent edits. I rather believe working together is better than engaging in an editing war. Quid pro quo. We can work it out...I will listen to your reasoning; will you listen to mine? StephenTS42 02:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. One of my main focuses is in editing city articles, and I have engaged in Featured Article reviews on such municipalities. I can tell you that via those precedents and WP:USCITIES, TOCs are never displayed horizontally and city seals are never prominent in the infobox. I wish it was written out better or clearer in a more general guideline, but until the awful Wikipedia infrastructure on municipalities is improved, we largely have to rely on precedents and WP:USCITIES. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 02:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I respect your focus. Do you also believe that precedents should override general rules? ––→  StephenTS42 03:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In general, policies and guidelines are the most important things to follow. Help and general information pages, like the one you mentioned in the edit summary, are useful but do not necessarily represent community consensus. Policies and guidelines obviously do, and precedents trend to. Take a look at this list to see the largest Good and Featured articles on municipalities. They don't feature horizontal TOCs regardless of whitespace. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Without a doubt, your reasoning that to follow tradition (i.e. community consensus) is a valid argument. Can you refer to that consensus? Can you cite where and how it dictates how Wikipedia articles must follow that consensus?  Is doing things the way they have always been done your prerogative? Or is it not simply an Appeal to tradition?——→StephenTS42 14:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The policy Consensus should have all the answers you seek. I am afk right now and would highly recommend a thorough read-through of this well-written policy, however I can give you more direct answers later if requested. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. However, a definition of the word 'consensus' does not answer my question. But it is great as subterfuge!  I will rephrase:  Where in Wikipedia is a consensus that supports your argument that articles should or ought to follow that or any other such consensus?  If you can, I will step aside, concede and apologize for my arrogance.  Otherwise, I will oblige you in every way I can in hopes to continue any further discourse.–—→StephenTS42 22:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you ought not tell me what to do. I reserve the privilege of being courteous to my fellow editors; and that is my prerogative!  I respect your input and advice.  Please allow me to continue my work!——→StephenTS42 07:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not "telling you what to do". I am informing you that the Under Construction template is only meant for significant changes or rewrites to an article, not for minor things like changing the layout of a TOC. Otherwise it's unnecessary and can discourage other editors from making changes while it's present. As for a reply to your previous comment: you likely either have little to no grasp on how Wikipedia works and should read up on all policies and guidelines, or you're trolling me asking such questions about the very fundamentals of Wikipedia, part of the Five Pillars themselves. You also usually fail to sign your comments or do so incorrectly. The proper way using the traditional text editor is by using four tildes (like ~ ). You also apparently failed to read the page I linked (Consensus). No I didn't link Consensus which holds the definition, I linked the English Wikipedia's policy on consensus. That would've told you everything you were asking, but instead you skip over it and accuse me of being deceitful. Please see New contributors' help page if you have more comments, questions, or other remarks. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 22:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I appreciate you trying to improve the article on your hometown. Few people actually do it. I did at Briarcliff Manor, New York, though I followed policy and consensus every step of the way, which allowed it to reach Featured Article status and get featured on Wikipedia's main page. In other words, following the rules and consensus will get you far; not following them won't get you anywhere. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 22:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Call it what you like--'informing me' or using any other euphemism(s), including your veiled 'little to no grasp' insults, is telling me what to do just the same. I don't care about what you appreciate, or not, about my work.  Your claim that Wikipedia articles about cities should, or ought, to follow some vague and esoteric tradition that adheres to some consensus, which you have failed to produce, pales in the dim light of the nonsense that your Wikipedia experience establishes you as some sort of Wikipedia 'authority'. I don't bully into your articles, please stop doing so to mine.  I am all done trying to reason with an unreasonable person!  Thank you and have a nice day.———→StephenTS42 07:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope you come to realize that just because you have the ability to edit an article doesn't mean you can do whatever you want here; you have to follow the rules. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 07:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

February 15: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks JJBers! I really appreciate it! ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 23:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Evergreen
Good catch on Evergreen. I was simply italicizing the species binomial and didn't notice the misidentification. It would be a good idea if you drew the attention of the contributor of the photograph to the fact that his plant is in the Piperaceae and not the Urticaceae. Plant surfer 11:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  06:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was so confused by your first message. What do I have to add to AN/I though? ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 06:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure, just because you were part of the Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut argument. Anyways, I closed it because the user decided to retire. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  16:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Norwalk
I think engagement has proved pointless, from here simple reversion is probably the only option. Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

ANI Request
Have fun! Good luck! Remember: you started this.——→StephenTS42 00:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI
You may want to comment on Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. It's not about you in particular at all. Timothy Joseph Wood 17:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

 * ❤ Don't let other users get to you, they'll always end up the ones in trouble. You helped in this struggle very well, thank you so much for all your continued support. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 05:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you also Briarcliff. Ceoil (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated, both of you! ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 04:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Pan frying
Well, I'm not a qualified chef, but I have been frying things for nearly fifty years... I admit that even I have pan (shallow) fried things in breadcrumbs. Battering doesn't really work with a shallow fry except with small or thin items. On the whole batter and breadcrumbs are used for deep frying. The vast majority of shallow fried food is cooked as is without a coating, and the article as written makes it sound like battering or breadcrumnbing is the norm for pan-fried food, and it isn't - at least in the UK. One swallow does not a summer make and a crumb-coated flounder isn't the whole of pan frying. Peace :-) Stub Mandrel (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. There is quite a bit of confusion in the culinary world between the terms "pan-fry" and "shallow fry"; they're often used interchangeably, even by reliable sources. Regardless, these forms of frying often use breading at least across the US, and you're right that battering is more difficult in this case, though it is used often in Milanese- and Francese-style preparations. In general, I don't like large amounts of content removed, perhaps we should just replace the word "usually" to "sometimes". ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 19:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

March 11: Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon @ MoMA (and beyond!)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vanderbilt Mansion National Historic Site, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Secret Service. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sunday March 26: Action=History Wiki-Hackathon @ Ace Hotel
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Common fig
That's a 335 page book... a page reference to the bit on fig wasps would be nice. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, right, I forgot it this time. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 23:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hudson River Museum
I was telling you I may had some pictures I didn't put in an album from a short trip I did in NYC and a day out in the Hudson Valley, and I discovered my photo is already there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_River_Museum... I didn't even know I had uploaded it to wikimedia ;-) --Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool, yeah, I went here once and really enjoyed it. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 22:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)