User talk:K/Archive 4

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
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)

November 2009
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're referring to this edit, right? As a WP user with over 20,000 edits to date, before I decide whether and how to analyze and possibly address your apparent hyperbole here, I would appreciate reading what evidence you care to offer in support of your statement to me that: "... we [emphasis mine] must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Second Amendment to the United States Constitution". ... Kenosis (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To be more specific, I am referring to your edit summary for that edit. It started with "Believe it or not". There was no need for that sarcasm. I had made the change I described above, because the rest of the article says "Anti-Federalism". You then changed it back and added a source clarifying that you were using the spelling used by that source. That's fine, I just didn't appreciate the tone of the edit summary sarcastically suggesting your intent was obvious. SMP0328. (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, your interpretation happens to be totally incorrect. The "believe it or not" in the edit summary was referring to the unusual practice&mdash;by the authors of the 1992 book from which the passage is quoted&mdash;of capitalizing "antifederalism" and thereby implying that it's a proper noun-- which by today's basic grammatical rules it is not. It's a common noun that describes a political position, not a formal organization, and capitalizing it is at the very least an obsolete rendering of the word. In other words, I believe the authors are mistaken in capitalizing the word, having written the book in the 1990s, not the 1790s or 1890s when such a use of capitalization might have been regarded as more acceptable than it is today. The lack of a hyphen is a separate issue of course, and it can be rendered either way with equal legitimacy, the unhyphenated form being gradually replaced with more and more instances of the hyphenated form AFAICT. However, being as it was in a quotation, I returned it to the way the authors had it. So believe it or not, that's what the "believe it or not" was referring-- to the choice of the authors which I found unusual and very arguably obsolete. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I will assume good faith and drop the matter. SMP0328. (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I too; no biggie. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #9
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)

You deserve an award

 * Thanks, SB, especially considering the great deal of work you've put in there yourself. Though, I imagine there's still some work to do there. Among other things, I think the Virginia Declaration of Rights will need to be mentioned again (it was removed as part of the "state ratification debate" section) since it is generally viewed as a precedent to the Bill of Rights. Hopefully it will not then open the door to become a forum for POVs about every other arguable precedent to the Second. In general, I agree it's improved overall, which I attribute mostly to an interactive, cooperative effort. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9
--NBahn (talk) 02:40, 10 December 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. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
 * Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

Thanks
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)


 * Haven't seen you in a while - hope things are well with you. Guettarda (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving people's comments is pretty off
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)

ANI
There is an issue being discussed at WP:ANI in which you may be involved.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, Thanks for the heads-up. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 12 hours
for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  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)


 * LHVU has blundered grotesquely over this. Please don't think his behaviour is typical of the project, and do please come back. At the moment he is still in the "oh dear I f*ck*d up but you're blocked anyway stage" - hopefully he'll have the courage to come back and actually apologise William M. Connolley (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice
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)


 * OK, thanks SBHB. Of course, somewhat implicit in you say in #6 is that if I choose to specify directly relevant facts rather than rely on someone else's slanted summary of "who-did-what-and-for-what-reason", and rely upon an erroneous interpretation of what the "rules of encounter" were under those circumstances, then things will somehow become worse because it "will irritate people". Irrespective of any hypothetical "most advantageous course", I chose to present a reasonable documentation of the relevant facts leading up to the erroneous block, and an easygoing request for the administrative community to consider a method of expunging or officially noting the block as erroneous in the log itself, which is where we look for material relating to a given user's prior sanctions. If this is irritating to anyone, then in my estimation the problem (if there is an additional problem from speaking up about it) lies not with shedding light on the facts, but rather on those who either disagree with the facts presented, or disagree with some sort of judgment towards which those facts might tend to lend themselves. A block is, in practical terms, a judgment upon a user. And if an erroneous block can't at least be officially noted in the block log, quite possibly there's something presently missing in the WP administrative equation which if effectively dealt with in the future would tend to benefit the project as a whole. At least that's my take on it. Thanks for the advice. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * hopefully he'll have the courage to come back and actually apologise - well, I was being too hopeful. Boris's advice above is good, though: bad blocks happen, getting them fixed retrospectively is near impossible, put them behind you, there is work to be done! William M. Connolley (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Improvements at Global Warming
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)


 * Actually, your first sentence is incorrect. If that particular article reads "something like an advertisement" as you say, that would be solely due to the recent proliferations of advertisements that mimic objective presentations, e.g. infomercials, "informative advertising" and the like. So somebody's got the cart before the horse here. Nonetheless I'm open to evidence that that article presents its information like an ad for products or services in some way that significantly differs from an encylopedic presentation of information in keeping with WP:Policies and guidelines and/or the WP:GA and WP:Featured article criteria under which the article has already been thoroughly scrutinized. Thanks for the note just the same. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Tea Parties abound...
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)

Nevertheless
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)

FrescoBot
Hi Kenosis, would you follow up on the FrescoBot situation at User talk:Basilicofresco? 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 heads-up. I hope I've adequately summed it up there without stepping on the toes of the WP:BAG on something that possibly is an issue that belongs in front of them. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sun Links
thanks for the sun see also links is solar variation. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Welcome. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Your reversal of my edits
Please carefully rethink your edits today. You have done the following:


 * 1) Restored a sentence that states that Prager objects to denialism being compared to holocaust denial, when this fact is already mentioned 2 paras above.
 * 2) Restored a book reference that I added to Further reading; myself, then immediately removed when I saw it was already mentioned under "References"
 * 3) Moved a general introductory sentence from the top to the bottom of the "Meaning" section, in defiance of logic.

Thanks! ► RATEL ◄ 04:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. For an explanation of why, please read the edit summaries at least (though one of them is a bit clumsy I admit). Any further question please raise on the article talk page. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:19, 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 < > [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)


 * I've copied your response onto the article talk page, where it belongs, such that all involved editors can discuss accordingly. ... Kenosis (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright stuff
Re 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 appreciate the info SBHB. Thanks for relieving my concerns. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of Tea Party protests, 2009
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 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)
 * Yes, I created it to split off excessive material from the main article. Don't really care if it gets deleted or not. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit reverted
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits 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 &#x2622; open frequency 13:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh? Guettarda (talk) 14:03, 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 &#x2622; open frequency 17:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Accidental reversion of my edits
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)
 * Yes it is. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Edit conflicts are a pain, aren't they? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Why
Ignoring your recent block, why, in your opinion, aren't you an admin? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks (I think). There's certainly plenty else to do on the wiki that doesn't require sysop tools. I hadn't ruled it out completely though. I appreciate the note, Hipocrite. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
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)


 * Slrubenstein, please strike all your false statements against me. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

help?
Can you comment here: 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)

Hyperlink to Nupedia broken or obsolete?
Thanks. Will fix. Maurreen (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Underway Regarding DC Meetup #10

 * 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.
 * Please be advised that planning is now underway (see here) for DC Meetup #10. --NBahn (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
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)

content forks
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)

Draft new ATT proposal
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)
 * Hi, I replied to your comment on the talk page. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Your attention
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)

removal
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)

Inline attribution of survey results.
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 ...." 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, 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. "

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)


 * LK, the way the paragraph of ASF currently reads it speaks to "facts" as being those things that don't need inline qualifiers. Right in the next paragraph of ASF it explains that we turn opinions or debated things into facts by attributing them inline to the source of the opinion or value. Now a small number of editors attempts to change this view of "facts" vis-a-vis opinions into something else. What's missing here is an adequate accounting of what to do with POVs, which, when stated without inline qualifiers, are neither quite firmly "facts" nor quite rightly expressed as "opinions" or "values". Which I think is a soluble problem, but not by merely adding one or more examples that do not fit with the statements offered about what is the basic policy. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Reading QG's explanation of his position, I've changed my mind on this, and now disagree with him and agree with you. More on the talk page. LK (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I just saw it. Thanks for the note, LK. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

PSTS
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)

Reviewer permission
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 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 &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Argument from ignorance
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).


 * Yes, that article needs help. I might have time in a few days from now, but no guarantees at the moment. Thanks for checking in about it. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback problem section at Pending changes
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)

Summarizing the article about the anthrax attacks of 2001
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'd recommend just taking it one point at a time for starters. Maybe start by combining closely related points into single statements summarizing them, and put those citations at the end of the respective sentences to which they're relevant. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to Frank L. Lambert
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)


 * Taken care of here. Thanks for the heads-up Bduke--my mistake. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Rasmussen
Do you plan on contributing to the discussion at talk or just continuing to blindly revert? Let us know. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Kenosis...d'ya think Ed can actually discuss anything? Or maybe his wig should discuss the article. If I recall, I asked for discussion several weeks ago and it went nowhere...pehaps my memory is failing, though.
 * Us? The Royal We? Hrrmmm  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 18:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It went nowhere because you, Jim, weren't interested in discussing the issues at hand. If that's changed, please contribute.  Kenosis and I had a fine discussion once we got down to it, and why he gave up in favor of edit warring again, I'm not sure. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You might have a career in stand-up. Been to AN/I? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 19:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing the page about the anthrax attacks of 2001
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)


 * Thanks for the note. I left comment on the article talk page. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Meetup/DC 11
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 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)

Ukrainian Business Club
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)

Science#Scientific method
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)
 * IMO, some of the stuff based on Stanovich's book still needs integrating. Not all of his perspectives are taken as standard by the scientific community. Anyway, I've reinserted the sentence (here) with some minor adaptations of that paragraph in the recently formed section on "Certainty and science". I think titling the section that way does have merit in summarizing scientific method for readers. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

ID
Hi Kenosis, question for you here, in case you missed it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks SV. I just responded after collecting significant markers and diffs in the article history. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

SUL
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)
 * OK, thank you. Will respond at .no.wikt. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change denial source issues
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)


 * The sentence to which I added the cite, one of many that I provided for the other participants at that article, had to do with noting that there has been argued by various RSs to be a broader phenomenon of "denialism" which has identifiable characteristics in common, and of which climate change denial is a member of that set. I"ll try to go back and check, and maybe leave a note on the article talk page about it. Thanks for the heads-up about the current surge in talk-page activity there. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Intelligent_Design
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&#124;edits 23:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK Jess, thanks for the heads-up. It was a very reasonable modification IMO. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

DC Meetup #12
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.

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
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)

Sacred Science
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)
 * I'm moving this over to the relevant talk page(s), where it can be discussed by others to whatever extent they might wish. Talk:Science and Template talk:Science. ... Kenosis (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think that the new humanities template is a great way to solve the debate, I won't try to put the Sacred Sciences into the Natural Sciences template anymore, but I do want to point out that my opinion on the matter has not changed. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 12:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood. Anyway, the normal groupings in academia today, and for several generations leading up to today, are natural sciences, social sciences, applied sciences, formal sciences, humanities and arts, with the latter two sometimes grouped together into "arts and humanities", or alternately with the arts grouped under humanities. In colleges and universities today, philosophy and theology are normally grouped into the humanities; never with the "sciences". ... Kenosis (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Kenosis
Are you in control of Kenosis, remade today? Hipocrite (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Hipocrite. Note sure what you mean by "remade today". I became User:K in the beginning of September (previously it had been used only for one minor edit back in 2002). The original intent was to use K to deal with reviewing and other things that go for beyond the scope of the range of topics for which I originally chose the name "Kenosis", and to keep using the username Kenosis in the areas of interest which were my original focus in WP. For now at least, I'm User:K. Does that sort of answer your question? ... Kenosis (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Kenosis was recreated today. If that was not you, there's a problem. Hipocrite (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, thanks. I see it in the log. I very much appreciate your having called it to my attention. ... Kenosis (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV FYI
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... -- Ludwigs 2 06:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Ludwigs2, I misspoke when I said "5 yrs." in the edit summary. WP:GEVAL has actually been policy since the very beginning of WP:NPOV. And it's been part of WP:NPOV specifically labeled as Giving "equal validity" ever since 29 July 2003. Its policy roots go all the way back to 24 december 2001. ..... And the NPOV/FAQ page was considered a policy page from its inception in 2006 until 2009 when it was downgraded and WP:GEVAL was quickly brought back onto the main NPOV page. If you look through the history of the FAQ page, several policy provisions were spun into the FAQ with the specific understanding that the FAQ page would be an extension of the policy and be maintained as such, implemented on 27 June 2006. ..... On 26 June 2006, WP:GEVAL was moved from the NPOV page to the FAQ page, which was intentionally and by consensus labeled as policy. .....There were several disagreements along the way. On 9 September 2006 "Policy" template was changed to "shortcut". Also on 9 September 2006 it was reverted four minutes later back to policy. .....On 15 March 2007 another attempt to change it to guideline status was two days later, on 17 March 2006, restored to policy status, in which it remained until 18 June 2009. But, Ludwigs2, you're already well aware of this, or should well remember it, because you yourself made a number of the edits regarding WP:GEVAL, for example this edit on 5 May 2009 downgrading the FAQ from policy to guideline, and were reverted eight minutes later.


 * Whereupon, after further discussion, WP:GEVAL was relocated back to the WP:NPOV policy page, first by Dave_souza on on 6 May 2009, reverted by Ludwigs2 here on the same day. Verbal, FeloniousMonk and Dreadstar reverted you and kept WP:GEVAL, with SheffieldSteel tweaking the language on 7 May 2009. it's again remained on the NPOV page since then, with a very brief interruption by way of an attempt by SlimVirgin to completely and unilaterally rewrite the entire NPOV page in April 2010, which was rejected by multiple editors but culminated in some rewriting and reorganizing by a broader set of participants. .....There was another brief disagreement about the policy status of the FAQ page in April 2010, after which the FAQ page settled as neither policy or guideline beginning 1 May 2010. .....Through all of this, WP:GEVAL remained policy. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * interesting... I've only been an editor since 2006/7 (I forget when, exactly) so I had no idea about the early stages of the policy.  I had assumed that the FAQ was not policy originally (because how stupid is that, to list an FAQ as policy?) but I guess I forgot that I'm working on WIkipedia, where logic has its own very questionable logic.    My apologies: I'll drop that bit, which isn't all that relevant anyway, nd focus on the main debate.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia DC Meetup, October 23
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 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)

Yeow
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)
 * I found Dante Alighieri (1265–1321). The Divine Comedy. Purgatorio XXI "any spirit feels itself"
 * That's enough for me. I am mapping that quotation to "spirit is that which feels itself", which is of the same form as the one for mind, above.Thanks. No need to acknowledge or reply. κενόσἰς, best. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

notice of opportunity to provide citation at [Global Warming]
K, I have tracked the first transition of solar from a warming impact to a cooling impact to your edit. 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 --Africangenesis (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * TBH, I don't find the way you've presented the issue here to properly or adequately reflect the facts. Three citations were already there, in response to several attempts to put undue weight on the conclusions of Nicola Scafetta, et al (esp. West and Wilson in separate papers). Scafetta's assertion was that solar variability could account for most of the observed warming (i.e. Scafetta is presenting conclusions and speculations that maybe GW isn't largely or wholly anthropogenic). ..... Problem is, as other competent, well-respected climatologists have pointed out, Scafetta is essentially jiggering the numbers to arrive at an extreme conclusion about solar variability which supports the notion that observed GW might be "natural" and not human-made. The current scientific consensus about solar variability is that the sun has basically remained stable in the last century with little change in its normal 11-year solar cycles except for [possibly] a very slight downward trend in solar activity over the last several cycles. which is capable of accounting only for an extremely small part of the warming in the last half of the 20th Century. If there is any skew here, it's that (1) solar variability has likely had little or no contribution to observed GW, and (2) the most recent acceleration in measured warming in the last half-decade has occurred during an unusually weak solar minimum, which would tend to actually offset some of the anthropogenic warming caused via increases in greenhouse gasses, and does not account for a substantial part of observed warming as Scafetta says in at least one of his papers. IIRC, this was in at least one of the three citations presented at the time of my edit. That section of the GW article has had many hands on it since then. ..... Anyway, Africangenesis, thanks for the note and for giving me a heads-up about the discussion. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
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)


 * The former (mass attribution) is not policy, but rather is inherently guideline material to be, e.g. in WP:WTF, WP:Weasel words, etc.. Moreover, the language has already been included in ASF that we attribute to a person, organization, group of persons or percentage of persons. The latter three are all forms of mass attribution. Speaking of attribution, the leads right to the second point: When a survey is cited, we generally attribute it with inline text, e.g., "according to a recent survey by Gallup" or similar inline reference. So if "fact" is to be defined as that which does not need inline qualification, the example is inappropriate. ..... All this is, of course, why the wiki chose to go with the policy NPOV, not something like "assert facts" or "be objective". As has been pointed out by others on that talk page, it's extremely common for POV pushers to claim they're just stating facts. So as a core editorial policy, NPOV doesn't deal in "facts", but only in the neutral point of view. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly which page did you see mass attribution in a guideline. I could not find mass attribution at WP:WTF or WP:Weasel words. Mass attribution is part of policy. It is irrelevant whether mass attribution is a guideline anyhow. It is not an argument to delete if mass attribution is part of a guideline. There are parts of NPOV there are also part of guideline pages too. Moreover, the language is not included in ASF. Attributing to a person, organization, group of persons or percentage of persons is different than mass attribution. The former is about attributing to the source but the latter is a mass attribution problem. Mass attribution is about using words like some when the source does not say that. When a survey is cited, we can assert it without an inline qualifier. As has been pointed out by others on that talk page, the result of a survey is still a non-debatable fact. Therefore, editors can assert it without saying "According to" for example. "According to" implies the result of a survey was controversial. QuackGuru (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mass attribution and attributing in the text to a group are different. Mass attribution is about using words like some when the source does not say that. Please don't confound different things together. Do you believe it is appropriate to use the word some when it is unsourced.
 * Do you believe the result of a survey is always controversial or the result of a survey is a non-debatable fact. QuackGuru (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is the consensus for deleting this sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I was wondering where is your consensus for these changes. QuackGuru (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia DC Meetup 13
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: Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; 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)


 * Nonsense. I reverted an edit warrior who exceeded 3RR . Sue me if you choose. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC) ... See also: this note of exceeding 3RR by an obvious advocate of the inclusion of white supremacist/white separatist material in that article. In the future, please pay a bit closer attention to the content when posting these kinds of accusations-- thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:15, 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)
 * OK MtO, thanks for the note. Apology for getting a bit snippy last night-- and yes, I understand the flack you've gotten and appreciate your efforts to keep a collective sanity. To me at least, the motive for the tag didn't even deserve a response on the talk page of that article. Y' take good care now, y'heah? ;-) ... Kenosis (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if WP:DIGWUREN applies to the "obvious advocate" statement by Kenosis above. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What do do?
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. 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)
 * Well, one can always have a go at WP:AfD and/or WP:MfD. But it seems to me like it might be fairly well known, so someone ought be able to find third-party RSs in support of the content. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So someone else I asked brought up that it might have foreign language sources. I agree it should have sources, but the author there can't find any good ones.  Thanks (: BE——Critical __Talk 19:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiXDC: Wikipedia 10th Birthday!
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.
 * Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
 * Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
 * Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
 * Details & RSVP:  Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

SPLC
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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PD-Pre1964
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)

The WikiProject National Archives Newsletter
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)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:WilhelmRöntgen.JPG


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)

Ahoy there...science
Debate has started anew to get science to GA or FA status. Join in the fun at Talk:Science and scroll down...we'll try not to reinvent the wheelCasliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I nominated a file you uploaded for deletion at commons
See. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to DC Meetup #28!
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

Nomination of Tea Party protests, 2009 for deletion
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 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
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)

DC Meetup #33
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)

Wikimedia DC Holiday Party and Wiki Loves Monuments Exhibition
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)

DC happy hour on Thursday, February 28!
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 Meetup/DC 34. Hope to see you there! Harej (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to a discussion: Wikipedia and legislative data
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!


 * Please sign up here
 * Announcement on Cato's blog
 * Background from Cato sponsor Jim Harper's perspective
 * Background from Wikipedian Pete Forsyth's perspective

Hope to see you there! -Pete (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, March 9!
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 Meetup/DC 35. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 13:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29
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)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, April 13!
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 Meetup/DC 36. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 19:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to the "All Things GW" editathon on Saturday, April 20
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)

DC meetups on April 19 and 20
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)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, May 11!
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)

DC WikiSalon on May 24
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)

Webinar / edit-a-thon at the National Library of Medicine (NLM)
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 pmhmeet@gmail.com. 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)

DC WikiSalon on June 6
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)

Have time on Saturday?
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)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, June 15!
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)

Join us this Sunday for the Great American Wiknic!
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)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, July 13!
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)