User talk:RoyGoldsmith/Archive 1

Jesus
I really didn't mean to discourage, you you raised a very reasonable issue. I - personally - just am not sure what to say. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 06:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Primary/Centre of mass
The centre of mass of a system is not necessarily contained within the primary. For example the CM of the solar system is often not contained wihin the Sun. Zbayz (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? I don't mean to disagree with you; you're obviously an astronomer and I'm not. But when is the Sun not the center of mass of the solar system?
 * One would think that, with the Sun having 99%+ of the mass, even if the four jovian planets (which account for 90% of the rest) were to line up perfectly on one side of the Sun, it would only shift the CM by, at most, a few thousand miles, certainly not enough for it to move beyond the Sun's surface. Am I wrong?
 * I got into the center of mass in my definition because I don't remember people talking about a primary in binary or multiple star systems or globular clusters. I think you're saying that if you have binary stars and one is just 5% more massive than the other then the one that's more massive (even if it's only 5%) is the primary, regardless if the CM is located just about evenly between them. Is that right? Or are you saying that the center of mass is the primary, even if it's empty space? I'm confused. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Centre of mass is the average position of all the objects weighted by mass. Since the Sun is so massive the centre is very close to the Sun and sometimes within the Sun, but the gas giants are far enough from the sun that the centre of mass can be up to 500,000km outside the Sun despite the Sun having most of the mass.


 * In the case of multiple star sytems the stars may be more evenly matched and therefore there won't be one object which is overwhelmingly more massive and the centre of mass won't be so much nearer one object than the others.


 * Globular clusters can contain millions of stars and the stars move chaotically around all over the place within the cluster - there are no orbits in a globular - just a swarm with no central object.


 * An interesting example is Pluto and its moon Charon. The centre of mass of that system is always outwith Pluto which has led some people to call Pluto-Charon a Binary Planet rather than a Planet and moon (or since 2006, a Binary Dwarf Planet rather than Dwarf Planet and moon.) Zbayz (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK but which is it? If there is a formal, official definition of what constitutes a primary then that would mean that either (a) the Pluto-Charon system's primary is a point in outer space somewhere between Pluto and Charon or (b) the Pluto-Charon system has no primary because its center of mass falls outside of both objects or (c) the Pluto-Charon system's primary is Pluto because Pluto is more massive than Charon or (d) no one knows because (d1) there is no official definition of primary and/or (d2) astronomers are currently debating the issue.


 * Also unless you choose answer (b) or (d), globular clusters must have a primary: if you choose answer (a) then the primary is the average position of all objects within the cluster weighted by mass, even if it's a point in space; if (c) then the primary of a globular cluster is simply the most massive body in that cluster, even if it's way outside of the geometic center. Or is there some other definition? Do astronomers have one definition for inside the solar system and another for globular clusters? Then we have to report on that in the article.


 * Also when was the last time the solar system's center of mass fell outside the Sun? Unless it happens frequently, I'd bet there were a lot of news reports, saying things like "The Sun is no longer the center of the Solar System!!!" because the Earth now orbits a point in space outside the Sun. Or would the Earth behave that way? Even if the center of mass between Jupiter and the Sun is outside the Sun that wouldn't mean that the Earth-Sun system (or Earth-Moon-Sun system) would revolve around that same point, would it?


 * Growl. I'm even more confused. Is there a formal, astronomic definition of a primary? If not and if there is no general consensus about what constitutes a primary in the astronomic community then we have to present all significant points of view in the article on primary. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any formal definition. It just means "main object", whatever that might be. Zbayz (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, I'll ask another astro-Wikipedian that I know: User Bob Hall. I'll add my question to his talk page so you can join us there, if you like. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Friday
Hi! I've found a few more sources, although the references in them to Friday are fairly skimpy. Certainly it wasn't Heinlein's most prestigious book. Do you have access to library databases? I think that where more information will be found: in online databases or even in books. I'll look around for more as I have time. As for the long plot summary-- in my view, they're a problem, but it seems that people come to Wikipedia to rewrite the entire plot of a book. I've managed to rework a few successfully, but painfully slowly. I rewrote Alex Delaware which has 23(!) plot outlines and they were all in-universe. Took some time to find the sources, but it's a much better article now. Anyway, give me a yell if you need it. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYC
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations on talk page
Hi Roy, I added the citations to the Tea Party movement talk page. These are just two of several that I've found. I'll post more later. The New Yorker article is a bit long very revealing and gives more perspective on the average people. Actually, it probably is one of the only articles that bothers to talk engage the protesters themselves in conversation. Malke 2010  18:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

note
Check email. You've got one. Malke 2010  01:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Bunning
Here is the transcript:

This isn't a senatorial hold -- that is a "silent hold" whereas this requires a public and ongoing objection to unanimous consent. Here is the relevant parts of the transcript:"That's why they brought it up under a procedure called unanimous consent, just as it implies. Basically, noncontroversial measures go on the calendar. Everybody agrees to it, and on we go." I hope that helps. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 19:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right -- a senatorial hold is a form of unanimous consent, used mostly for confirmation of officers. One important aspect is that it is silent -- i.e., the actual Senator doing the hold is not known publically. Using unanimous consent for the passage of a bill is a different animal and requires public objection. A senatorial hold is a form of unanimous consent motion but all unanimous consent motions are not senatorial holds. The reason you won't find any newspaper, pundit or politician use the term senatorial hold is because this was a supposedly routine bill to be passed by unanimous consent and Bunning raised a public dissent. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 21:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert on these matters, I'm neither an attorney nor an authority on Senate procedural rules. My understanding of the fine distinction between the two procedural events boils down to public vs. private objections. If I rely on Wikipedia which in this case is relying on The National Journal, a Secret hold states"Although a hold is placed anonymously, the identity of the senator placing the hold can quickly become common knowledge. Under traditional dictates of Senate courtesy, the identity of the holder is not made public." Although Bunning could have elected to do this privately through a Senatorial hold he elected to do this under different rules that require both a public declaration and attendance. Now, whether some may also call this a Senatorial hold, I don't know. I've never seen it but you just may be right. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 18:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No Violation
Hi Roy,

Thanks for your efforts but I've been vindicated. Malke 2010  23:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Replied on my talk page to keep discussion in one place. Thanks. Malke  2010  23:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, Izauze is over on his talk page adding comments to your the discussion between the two of you after I mentioned his posts on the TPM talk page. Just thought you should know in case he starts quoting you. Malke  2010  01:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't care if Izauze transfers the whole section over to the talk page. I believe in transparency and have nothing to hide. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have any thoughts on this matter, you might want to participate in [].--Happysomeone (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)--Happysomeone (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/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) 15:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Tea bag campaign
Hi, Izauze. Sorry it took so long but I had to finish my taxes. I also attended the NYC meetup on Sunday where I brought up our dilemma (see User:RoyGoldsmith/Synthesis and Citations). The conclusion was that consensus trumps everything (except office actions). It doesn't matter that one editor follows the most meticulous path through Wikipedia's policies and another says her stance is arrived at purely by instinct; they're both editors with an equal claim as to what Wikipedia should be.

My comments this time are to your remarks about protesting fried fish (starting at "But how do you connect the nickname JS...") and at the end of the section. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

...So formal, Ray :) Re: your comments on my talk page about the tea bag campaign: I think Malke's campaign to erase the tea bag campaign is misguided, but obviously I'm not able to prevent the article from being manipulated by disruptive or agenda-driven editors, which is why I'm not there now.  If you agree with her or don't care to protest, let the information disappear.  I'm not involving myself in it anymore.  (I can tell you what my vote is, I can give you info re: my previous contribution, but I don't feel it's productive to debate there anymore)  If you want to know my original reasons for inclusion they were:

a) the sources, which i know have been questioned, are valid per wiki guidelines as sources on themselves. Wikipedia makes it clear that some less established sites may not be valid for information regarding something outside themselves, but they ARE valid sources for their own existence.  So, while you could not use a 2008 bulletin board post to show that Michelle Malkin said such and such, you can use a 2008 bulletin board post to show that the person who posted it said such and such.


 * I don't understand. Can we try a hypothetical example? Let's say that Mary Jones is a notable person and her possible allergy to fish is the subject of your article. John Smith (nickname JS), a frequent diner at "Pounds o' Fish" resturant in Soho, posts on a dining-out bulletin board that Mary Jones said "I like fried fish". (Italics indicate all that was posted.)


 * Do you mean we can use this as the only reliable source that:
 * Mary Jones likes fried fish.
 * Mary Jones said she likes fried fish.
 * Someone on a bulletin board said that Mary Jones likes fried fish.
 * Someone on a bulletin board said that Mary Jones said she likes fried fish.
 * John Smith said that Mary Jones likes fried fish.
 * John Smith said that Mary Jones said she likes fried fish.
 * Assume that each bullet point above is the exact text that you want to insert in the article. Or, if none of them apply, show me what would apply as the text you're thinking of adding. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello again - forgive the delay - as I said, things have picked up and I've had less time lately.
 * Hmm... I don't think any of those work as analogous for me.. But perhaps this hypo will make more sense?: In an article about a movement to protest fried fish, you would be able to say "A poster on a bulletin board suggested everyone send tyson a rotten fish".  I have no idea if that helps.  Basically the thing i don't like about your hypo is that it makes a claim about someone ELSE (an outside party).  We can not depend on John Smith to be any kind of authority on Mary Jones - but he is an authority on John Smith.  If he says he would like everyone to join him at the capital to protest Mary Jones, that is usable if we think acknowledging small locally organized protests are important to the Mary Jones article.  If someone on the tiniest blog says he's gonna shoot Mary Jones, we might consider using that to show how Mary Jones has even received internet death threats.  I hope that helps? --Izauze (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * But how do you connect the nickname JS to the real world identity of John Smith? Even assuming that JS had mentioned sufficient details about John Smith's real life in previous posts that the Wikipedia editors were sure that the person who was logging on as JS knew a fair amount of details about John Smith's life, that wouldn't preclude him from being a pretender.


 * Remember, we do not have to assume good faith for every crank on a bulletin board. If his message appeared in, say, an op-ed piece in the NY Times, then we could be assured that the NYT's editors had done sufficient checking that the writer of the piece was, in fact, John Smith. But I don't know anything about the reliability of tickerforum.org.


 * So we could say that "On January 19, 2009, someone posted the message "Mail a tea bag to congress and to senate" on an online bulletin board. Other posters replied that the idea was "cheap and easy to do" and they could "mail it to EVERYONE that voted for the bailout" But is this sufficient to prove your overall thesis to the editors of Tea Party movement?


 * Rather than going through each of your points below (some of which I think are valid), I'd prefer to summarize in my comment at the bottom of the section. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure. I consider that sort of a separate issue regarding HOW to include the information rather than WHETHER to include the information, though...  If, in regards to the message board, one were to say "user JS said" instead of "John Smith said", I don't see that as harming the gist of the information in any considerable way.  Karl Denniger and Stephanie Jansky however you should be able to maintain the identities of if one wanted to since they are both the owners/organizers of the two websites involved and have participated on those sites using their full names, not just their user names.  --Izauze (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

[a2) - some sources have been questioned as not mentioning the tea party - these are generally sources used to identify who a certain person is or what they do for a living or whether they had a history of protesting or had been involved with the media previously. They don't have to mention the tea party to accomplish this]
 * I don't understand this paragraph at all. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try again: I saw some people who said "this source is no good because it doesn't mention the tea party" (paraphrase). However, my intention was to use that specific source to demonstrate that John Smith is a CEO and an investment trader -- not to demonstrate anything about the tea party exactly. --Izauze (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

b) the same symbol - uses both tea bags, and tea partys (referencing boston TP), which seems to me to be significant
 * What do you mean by "symbol"? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Iconography? is that clearer? Like one group of protests used pork as it's main symbol.  The Tea Party is partially identified by those who use small individual tea bags as symbols, and who use iconography from the boston tea party.  This is true of both the modern Tea Party movement, and those who organized the tea bag campaign. --Izauze (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

c) the same prop - before the people were really called tea partyers, they were called tea baggers - the use of small individual tea bags as a prop and the mailing of tea bags is a big part of what initially caught the mainstream media's attention. (they separated themselves by not just talking about tea or carrying prop crates of tea per Boston TP - they used actual tiny bags of tea - and I think that's part of what got them noticed.. it was an interesting, original visual for the visual media.) This action was widely used AGAIN in connection with the tax day protests in April.

d) the same timing - feb 1st makes it only a week and a half before what is credited as the first tea party. Only 19 days before Santelli.

e) the same target - it is the first collective action/protest which specifically directs itself at president obama - posted publicly on inauguration day (which apparently is significant, as freedomworks says the feb 10th protest is a tea party partially because it's the first physical protest against obama)

f) the same content - connected directly to the economic policies specifically associated with the modern tea party - both in terms of the bailouts and the stimulus (and general economic conservativism)

g) an established history of political action - though perhaps less important, I also demonstrated that these same guys had a history of organizing physical protests in DC related to economic policy.


 * For (b) to (g): OK but you can't just say this stuff in a Wikipedia article without citing reliable secondary sources. In this case, "reliable" means some kind of an expert: a journalist, an historian, a political leader. "Secondary" means not the actual people who were involved with tea bagging in the first place.


 * Let's say you thought you had the first-party, primary sources to substantiate that tea bagging was an immediate precursor of the tea party movement. Because of this, you were able to publish those facts in a newspaper or peer-reviewed historical journal or other edit-checking publication, which would become a secondary source. Then, Wikipedia could publish a summary of your work as a tertiary source.


 * This is virtually the definition of original research: depending on unchecked references and/or your own thoughts. We, as unpaid amateurs, cannot do the proper fact-checking so we depend on our sources to do it for us.


 * So, I have to ask, where are the reliable, secondary references that say "Because of reasons (b) thru (g), tea bagging is an immediate precursor of the tea party movement"? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You misread me. My intentions with listing B-G is not to use my own judgement to prove any kind of facts - it is to demonstrate significance.  And significance IS something which can be determined by editors using their own ability to make reasonable judgements.  (Our sources contribute information, we collectively determine if that info is significant for inclusion)  We can collectively acknowledge, that the TBC had all these similarities with what was going on in the TPm.  Now that alone does not allow us to declare that it is generally considered to be part of this movement, but it DOES allow us to say it has some significance to the movement article, like other pre-tea party events were significant.
 * Additionally, I have posted articles both by conservative bloggers and the liberal-leaning huffington post, which DO name this teabag campaign as an important moment in the tea party movement's history.   But whether the event is significant in our coverage of the movement, and whether it is considered an official part of the movement are different things.  --Izauze (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

h) part of a year-old established timeline - It was noted as one of the early contributing elements by the widely distributed "Tea Bagger Timeline" on huffington post (which was a reaction to Michelle Malkin's more self-serving tea party timeline, which says the movement started with the protests SHE was involved in [she describes the april 15th timeline as a cheatsheet for mainstream reporters to find out how everything started] - which is essentially what the wikipedia story will be too if origins like this are removed).

P.S.) the tea bag campaign group - fedupusa.org has since self-identified as a tea party group, just as Carender eventually connected her pre-santelli protest with the movement (though fedup used the tea party and tea bag iconography, she didn't - giving them MORE reason to claim connection than she has, IMO)

Now I realize that this did not get big mainstream attention - it was mostly passed around a LOT of smaller individual-run conservative/libertarian blogs and only had 10 days to mature and spread before the feb 1st mailing date - so I understand the skepticism of it on wikipedia, which leans toward representing large scale coverage. However, we ARE trying to document a widespread movement that originated in a small groundswell, so I think it makes sense that part of the info represented is small-scale stuff.
 * Izauze, you've expressed what I think is the biggest problem with TPM in a nutshell. In my opinion, we are NOT trying to document a widespread movement. We ARE trying to document what other people publish about a possibly-widespread movement. We are not newspaper reporters or pundits or modern historians, in spite of the fact the Wikipedia provides us with a forum. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you misread me again. You can document something by compiling existing documents.  That's what wikipedia does.  That's what you do. That's what I do.  I can compile one document saying Sandy Koufax is Jewish, another saying Sandy Koufax is a baseball player, and another document that says he threw 7 no-hitters.  And I can use those to be able to document on wikipedia that "Sandy Koufax is a Jewish major leaguge baseball player who threw seven no hitters."  Likewise, we can compile material so we can "document a widespread movement that originated in a small groundswell".  Trust me, I know what wikipedia is for :P  Using ones opinion as the basis for edits may be a problem on TPm, but not with this editor :)  --Izauze (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand if someone might want to pare it down in proportion to your opinion of the importance of all the individual details I included, but I leaned towards inclusion in the original draft - I wanted to use everything I felt I could verify and let other people decide what chunks are the most worth preserving for curious readers who want to know how these different elements sprung out of nowhere...

I do think that the significance of the sources, the theme, the target, the content, the prop, the symbolism, and especially the date all contribute to the fact that it does deserve some sort of inclusion. But now that's up to you guys to decide. I'll give you information (because believe me, I found a LOT more than I was able to verify/justify), but I'm probably done trying to save the article or any info on it. Malke has long wanted it gone, and so it'll probably be gone... along with anything that might be viewed as criticism of Fox News, or anything else that contradicts her mythology of the movement as a 100% grassroots nonpartisan movement unaffiliated with conservative media and which pits itself purely against economic policies and not against specific parties or politicians (and which definitely never engages in anything untoward or tinged with racism). But there it is, do with it what you will. If there's any other information I can provide though, feel free to ask - talk page or email. cheers, sir. --Izauze (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello again - I went tot he TPm talk page and saw some of the specific citation requests that haven't been addressed above.


 * On January 19, 2009, Jasky had posted a formal invitation "to a commemorative tea party."[48] -- date and quotation disputed. (Scroll down to The Long Arm of Goldman Sachs.) Date is April 12, 2009; quote is "Attend one of the many Tea Parties; start your own".


 * You must have missed it, because I'm not referring to the April post - I was referring to the January 19th post (which was also attached to the chat thread on market-ticker). You can search for the text "Commemorative Tea Party" or "January 19, 2009"   There's also a time stamp of january 20th when she reposted the same invitation to the forum on the top post here:
 * Also, I wouldn't use this as a source, but it's nice and interesting nonetheless:


 * The founder of market-ticker.org, Karl Denninger (stock trader and former CEO),[49]... -- disputed. A Facebook mirror of that same, self-published chat area.


 * that facebook cite was supposed to be in reference to establishing a date for when the action was organized - there is a mention of the facebook group on the bulletin board - and the facebook group itself just further proves the time frame via the time stamps (it also links itself to fedup and market ticker). Somehow this link was misplaced being next to Karl.  Instead there was supposed to be a simple link showing that he IS who he is...


 * I don't know what I originally intended to show he is who he is (maybe his resume: ), but this is a really interesting newspaper article I just found goggling him now: (9/26/2009 press democrat) which talks about a "populist backlash emerging" even then.  Very interesting.
 * And finally, the TARP section was lifted entirely from the TARP wiki article.
 * Hope that helps. --Izauze (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no 'tea bag campaign.' And Denninger organized the FedUp campaign, which started protesting the fiscal policies of the Federal Reserve Bank which were making the housing crisis worse.  He wasn't telling people to send teabags anywhere.  It's OR, the citations are a joke and it can't be in a live article. Malke  2010  06:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Odd then that he said "I am recommending an act of peaceful, lawful and yet unmistakable protest. That is, to mail President Obama one teabag." But I'm not going to debate with you Malke. (especially here) You're not worth it.  I'm just answering questions that were asked of me.  --Izauze (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So where's the campaign? Where's CNN covering the massive tea bag assault on the White House.  A guy says on a blog to mail a tea bag and you turn that into a tea bag campaign?  The only thing here not worth anything, is your edits. Malke  2010  07:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you have something better to do than pick fights on talk pages??? I will not be responding to such disruptive posts again. --Izauze (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Although we can argue about the validity of various citations, you have not proven to me that the "tea bags protests" are in anyway connected to Carender and thus to the TPm. Zernike wrote in the NY Times that "leaders of the Tea Party movement credit her with being the first". What source do you cite that says, more or less explicitly like Zernike, that the Tea Party movement began with the tea bag idea before Feb 16th? That they were not just unconnected ideas and one of them (Carender) blossomed into the Tea Party movement while the other one died a peaceful death because of the random winds of fickle publicity. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I ever intended to demonstrate or "prove" that this tea bag campaign is connected to Carender directly or really, indirectly. I tried to present it just as what it was -- simply a campaign that some conservative/tea party and liberal bloggers have said are connected to the early stages of the movement, which was indeed self-described as a tea party, and which addressed the same topic that the physical protest rallys did at around the same time.  That it preceded the larger March-April tea bag mailing campaign is also interesting, and perhaps worth noting, but I don't think it needs to be "proven" that one necessarily led to the other either.  It is significant on its own merits.  This information really helps demonstrate the fervor and various activity that was going on around the country at that still rather embryonic stage of the Tea Party movement.  (PS, hope you had fun at the NY shindig. :) --Izauze (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * When I said "prove", I was using literary shorthand. What I really meant was "show me the sources" (like Zernike's piece).


 * You say "I tried to present it just as what it was -- simply a campaign that some conservative/tea party and liberal bloggers have said are connected to the early stages of the movement, which was indeed self-described as a tea party...". What source, other than this homebuyer-helper newscast, do you have that connects "some conservative/tea party and liberal bloggers" "early" to the tea party movement? The homebuyer-helper source connects (sort of) Dave Ramsey to tea party ('tho not the TPM) on Feb 11th and, therefore, the paragraph about Ramsey is still in the article, for now.
 * Firstly, I don't care about Dave Ramsey. I only included the information because it was the earliest reference I could find to starting a Tea Party on Fox News - the fact that he had actual tea bags I thought made it more interesting.


 * Secondly, I have posted two sources in this discussion to A) conservative/tea party blogs crediting the tea bag campaign as a significant early event, and B) a liberal blog (huffingtonpost no less) mentioning it as a significant early tea party event.
 * I never saw these sources. Sorry. This changes everything. First, do you have any other sources that explicitly connect Tea Bags and Tea Party; for example, the FedUpUSA source that connects tea bags and "a Commemorative Tea Party"? (See next paragraph.)


 * Second, Hamster pushes sourced tea bags back further to Feb 1st. However, you said "Karl Denninger, who helped form FedUpUSA... By February 1, the idea had spread among conservative and libertarian-oriented blogs, forums, websites and through a viral email campaign." Based on this source alone, I would substitute for the second sentence something like: By February 1, FedUpUSA had called for people to send tea bags to members of Congress for "a Commemorative Tea Party." However, now that I know what the Huffington Post comments on TPm's talk page were all about, I'll have to look at them again.


 * Next, what is APN? A free forum for blogs or something more? Does it do any fact-checking or can anyone post? Do you know who this Tom Martin was/is? At any rate, you can certainly use some of the sources inside (Pearson of CNBC, Maddow, etc.). Do any of them mention tea bags and tea party in the same story?


 * Finally, do you have any more reliable sources that push the date of tea bags being connected to tea parties explicitly back beyond Feb 1st? And by reliable, I mean non-blog, non-bulletin-board, somewhere we can be fairly sure that the purported author is who they say they are.


 * If you don’t have any more sources then, IMO, the bulk of those three paragraphs should be deleted and the one sentence above ("By February 1, FedUpUSA...”) substituted. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Lastly, (and I've said this before though it was never addressed) I think obsessively focusing on outside sources "declaring" it part of the movement is pretty much succumbing to a distraction. (Though please note that I HAVE shown outside sources pointing to it as connected to the movement)  If you don't allow yourself to be distracted, it seems so obvious that it almost seems silly.  Now if someone protested fried fish and called it a fried fish protest, I'd agree that is not information that is of significance to this article.  If someone protested fried fish and called it a tea party, I'd say "well that's an odd thing to call a fish protest, but its obviously not the same thing as we're talking about here".  But if someone protests this exact topic at this exact time and called it a Tea Party, I don't see how ANY reasonable person can say that this is not germane to the topic at hand - it fits every conceivable definition of what a Tea Party protest is.  I mean, look at the lead section of the article now - arguably the most debated section in the article.  Virtually every phrase, every word of its definition of what makes something a tea party applies to this event (with the obvious exception of "It has been most visible through...".  Saying it needs to be demonstrably shown that it directly caused future events is a burden of proof that doesn't seem to be projected on any other Tea Party event.
 * ANY protest that takes place
 * at this time
 * about this subject
 * with the Tea Party title
 * ...IS a Tea Party event... Just as something is a spec script (for a random example grabbed from the front page) if it is A) a screenplay B) shopped and sold on the open market and C) wasn't commissioned by a studio. I need no source to declare something a spec script.  And it is not original research to recognize such an obvious fact.  THAT's what I mean when I say it is significant on its own merits.  And yes obviously I mean significant to the article that we've been talking about. --Izauze (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree if the source mentions Tea Party and, for our purposes, Tea Bags. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If I read you correctly, all the sources prior to the homebuyer-helper newcasts don't mention "Tea Party". Therefore, those paragraphs really belong in the Background section with Ron Paul, if they belong anywhere. But Sen. Paul used the term tea party whereas the tea bag sources do not (until Feb 11th).
 * No that is incorrect. They called it a Tea Party, they posted an invitation to "a commemorative tea party", they discussed how the reference to the boston tea party was obvious to anyone who would receive the tea bags... this is as early as January 20th. --Izauze (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Hamster article pushes the date back to Feb 1st. Where do you find a reliable source (my definition above) that pushes us back to Jan 20th? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You also say that you “don't think it needs to be "proven" that one [tea bags] necessarily led to the other [Tea Party]...”. You don’t? Could you explain that to me? If someone else had organized a nascent anti-tax campaign in Jan 2009 without using the words “tea” or “party” (which I’m sure a lot of people did), would you say that that “addressed the same topic that the physical protest rallys did at around the same time” and therefore should be included in the TPm article?
 * based on incorrect assumptions. see above. (and also an incorrect paraphrase: I said it's perhaps worth noting that this tea bag mass mailing preceded the 2nd "famous" tea bag mass mailing, regardless of whether it can be proven that one mailing caused the other mailing) --Izauze (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm getting lost again. Could you please rephrase? And if your explanation requires a source, please provide it with a quotation, like:
 * "I therefore invite you to a commemorative tea party" or whatever
 * --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If the tea bag campaign is really (as you say) “significant on its own merits” then you can write a separate article on the “Tea bag campaign” or even "Anti-tax campaigns of early 2009". But I think you mean that "tea bags" as a campaign slogan is only significant in its possible (my word) relationship to Tea Party. Come on, really, isn't that what you mean?


 * Therefore, to sum it up, it is my opinion that the three paragraphs above Feb 11th do not belong in an article about the Tea Party movement. This is only my opinion and of course is subject to consensus. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems most of your objections are based on incorrect data (such as them not using the term "tea party", etc.), which I have already addressed above, however I wanted to note that it is of no real importance that these specific paragraphs be maintained. Those 3 paragraphs simply represent one persons attempt to organize and share a series of data.  I think it is worth noting that it is that data -- the information we are talking about, not this specific iteration.  So I think it is easier to discuss if you talk about what data you think should be deleted or that "does not belong".   (even if that is "I think NONE of the information (in any form) should be referenced in this article")  In view of what I've demonstrated I think that would be hard to defend, but as long as there are no misconceptions, I guess it is what it is... --Izauze (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. I've been thinking that such a vague subject as "Tea Parties" would, more-or-less, have to be identified by explicit name. I mean, if a source was speaking about "the president" and contextually you knew that it was speaking about the US government in 2010, then you could infer that it was talking about Obama. But, to take our case, if a populist, anti-tax protest rally in the summer of 2009 choose not to give itself the name "Tea Party", wouldn't that protest be of equal grist for our mill; that is, couldn't we include it as part of the article on TPm, even if the organizers and the protesters themselves called it something else?


 * I've got to say no. If we did that then, it seems to me, a populist, anti-healthcare-reform protest would have to be included in our article. Is "tea party" now equivalent to "populist, anti-something"? We can't even call tea party anti-tax because some of the speakers at the protests are against deficits, which could mean they are for additional taxes. We've got to allow Tea Party to be source-self-identifying: any reliable source that identifies any protests or ideas as Tea Party is, by (intentionally-circular) definition, material about the Tea Party movement. (This is like Israel's definition of a Jew: Anyone who calls himself a Jew, is a Jew.) Nevertheless, I'll bring this up on TPm's talk page.


 * However, to take your other point, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Material must be significantly related to the article's subject or it doesn't belong in that article. In my opinion, of course.


 * So, to sum up, the Huffington article may push the tea bag timeline back to Feb 1st. (I still would like the original FedUpUSA post that mentioned a Commemorative Tea Party.) All of the tea bag material that was in the article before that is still (IMO and so far) invalid. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I found the FedUpUSA post here. It's a very large webpage. Commemorative Tea Party is about a fourth of the way in; you can just "find" Commemorative Tea Party. The post consists of an old-style picture of the Boston tea party followed by the line "You're Invited to a Commemorative Tea Party", Place: Boston, Date: February 1, 2009. Its title is "NEW PROTEST ANNOUNCED: - January 19, 2009" and below is "Please click the above link for more details". Unfortunately, the link is dead.


 * So, a Hamster/Huffington blog pushes the first mention of Tea Party back to either Feb 1st or Jan 19th. Now we have to decide what to do with it. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Roy, do you want us to comment directly on the sandbox, make changes there, or should we open a discussion page on the sandbox? Or, do you want us to go back to the TPM talk page?  I've never done edits in a sandbox, so I don't know the protocol.  Thanks.   Malke  2010  20:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Malke 2010  03:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahalani
Hi - greatly appreciate your comments. I'm leaving unexpectedly this Thursday for Florida, be gone a week. Will be in touch. Ahalani (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Check email. Malke 2010  01:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of TPp
It's all but certain that the result of the AFD will be Keep. It's not a vote but if it were a vote, there is no consensus, which means keep. Any good admin will decide based on the quality of the arguments, not the quantity of votes. Almost all of the delete arguments were based on IDontLikeIt, and not based on valid reasons for deleting. The arguments for keeping answered all of the policy reasons for deleting. So it's probably not worth continuing the debate over there. I won't spend any more time there unless something of substance appears.

When it is officially closed we could spend a few minutes deciding on the format for the article. I think we have three variations. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please pop over to Talk:List of Tea Party protests, 2009 and give your opinion on the four questions - rename?, merge?, etc. - in the middle of the discussion and perhaps comment on anything else that strikes you. I'd like to go ahead and make some changes but I don't want to spend the time and effort without consensus. Thanks. Sbowers3 (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/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) 21:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Posting photos?
Hi Roy,

We met at two NYC Wikipedia conferences. I was wondering if you had any experience posting photos or know a resource other than the online manual, which is daunting and complicated. I'd like to learn how to do the following: - How to name the photos...whether there is a specific protocol to title the photographs before uploading - How to grant copyrights when I am the photographer as well as when another photographer has granted the copyright for free unlimited use. - How to upload photos in appropriate folders in Wikimedia - How to download the pics into an article - How to insert the caption under the pics.

Do you know how to do this or know a good source to learn?

Thanks, Al Lewis Enviromet (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Posting photos
Thanks a lot for your guidance, Roy. Will try to post. Are captions easy to insert? Much appreciated. Enviromet (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, Roy...will do this shortly. waiting for clearances to post photos taken by someone else. See you at an upcoming event. Enviromet (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)
Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

New Tea Party movement source
was just browsing the net the other day and ran across this source that reminded me of our previous discussion: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/05/14/rand_paul_tea_party_obama

It's a Salon article that not only connects the early tea bag campaign to the tea party movement, but mentions many of the same things I tried to mention but were erased by one of the editors there at the time. It also mentions Graham Makohoniuk by name and calls his market ticker entry "the earliest known documentary record of the first national Tea Party protest". I also found it interesting that they tied the Ron Paul stuff as the pretty direct ancestor of the TPm, which I think is true, but was never something I spent much energy on trying to document. Anyway, since we spent so much energy on the issue back then, thought you might find it worth reading. Hope you're well. Cheers. Izauze (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP panel at wikiconference
Just a heads up that I've responded on my talkpage to your question. (I normally don't bother with "talkbacks," but it's been awhile since your post so I wanted to make sure you saw my answer.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Assistance with 2 of 4 photos
Hi Roy. I was finally able to post 2 of the 4 photographs in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_alloys_in_aquaculture. They have to be uploaded in Wikimedia Commons rather than in Wikipedia to be viewed internationally. I was able to get this done with two of the four photos. I have no idea what's holding up the other two photos. In the article, only the captions are visible for these two photos. I thought I did the same procedure for all. Any idea what the issue could be? Thanks. Enviromet (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/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) 16:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4
Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/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) 22:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Jhatka
Hi Fellow editor, I have tried to clear up the lead. See if it reads more clearly. Thanks--Sikh- History 09:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!


This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape ( directions ) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22
You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here !--Pharos (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Spanking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gary Crosby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Spanking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elizabeth Allen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. When you recently edited Martha Hyer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dick Martin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Second edit
Please respond to my comment to your edit to Second at Talk:Second. Thanks. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for United States fiscal cliff
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States fiscal cliff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AMT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 U.S. federal budget
I recently got the article on the 2012 United States federal budget up to GA status, and I'm thinking about fixing it up further to try to get it to FA before the election. I was wondering if you could take a look and leave feedback about what improvements would be needed. Thanks! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Fiscal Cliff: Revenue and spending in lead
I responded to your comments at Talk:United_States_fiscal_cliff on how to improve the United States fiscal cliff article. Thanks.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  23:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1
You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Tour of Consumer Reports' laboratories
On Tuesday January 15 at 3pm Wikipedians are invited to join a tour of laboratories at Consumer Reports in Yonkers. If you would like to attend please RSVP at Meetup/NYC/January 2013. If you have questions feel free to ask on that page or contact me on my talk page or by my office phone at 914.378.2684. Thank you.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   20:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup NYC this Sunday April 14
Hi RoyGoldsmith! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.

Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 17:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement Moderated discussion
A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you are a significant contributor to the article, your involvement in the discussion would be valued and helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fiction, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Third-person, Exposition and First-person (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States federal government shutdown of 2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Social Security (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin page
Hi, thanks for your recent copy edit on March 9 at Bitcoin, I appreciate it. I ve been contributing lately on a daily basis to improve clarity and readability. Please let me ask your expert opinion on the Bitcoin section: do you think its content could go under wallet and mining, where the respective software is already mentioned? I think the page gives readers a hard time because of the many subsections that either keep on repeating or anticipate points later regurgitated. Thank you.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * First, let me say that I don't use bitcoins and have only become aware of them in the last six months. Prior to my reading the Wikipedia acticle, I was only conscious of them as some kind of weird play-money.


 * Second, upon re-reading the first few sections of the article, I still don't understand how a Bitcoin transaction is made. However, if you read the article on Bitcoin network, the average person (like me) can begin to understand what's going on.


 * I'd suggest that you paraphrase the following text, taken directly from the Bitcoin network article, and place it directly underneath the Transaction section heading:


 * The Bitcoin network is a peer-to-peer payment network that operates on a cryptographic protocol. Users send bitcoins, the unit of currency, by broadcasting digitally signed messages to the network using Bitcoin wallet software. Transactions are recorded into a distributed public database known as the block chain.


 * This still doesn't tell me how you make bitcoins originally or how you pass them to somebody else.


 * As a matter of fact, I'd suggest a new, first section that would give newbies like me a leg up so far as what the network is, how do you earn bitcoins and what are they useful for. Don't assume your readers know what a peer-to-peer payment network is (or can look it up by following the wiki-links). This will probably be the first exposure they have concerning cryptographic banking and it'd be nice if you explained it all in one place, without the necessity of chasing down hyperlinks.


 * You could call this first section, say, "An Example" or "General Concepts". Please explain:
 * Why bitcoins are valuable?
 * How are they created, originally? Don't say they are mined through the expenditure of computer time. Explain how that works; what steps I'd have to take in order to make one bitcoin. Be general; you don't have to list every way of "mining bitcoins".
 * How are they transferred to other people?


 * My main point is that Bitcoins is a complex subject and, especially in the first sections, the editors have tried to introduce so much material that it fails due to its own weight. For example:
 * "Approximately every ten minutes a bundle of transactions, called a "block", is added to a public ledger or transaction record called the block chain." Why do we care?
 * "This 25 bitcoins reward maintains the integrity of the Bitcoin system by allowing the computers that confirm transactions to also mint new bitcoins in the process." What happens to new bitcoins, over the 25 given to the miner? Or, if I've got it wrong, how does mining "maintain the integrity of the Bitcoin system"?
 * "Bitcoin payment processing fees are optional..." What is a processing fee, who offers it and why wouldn't every miner want the fees? (I think you are saying that fees for transferring bitcoins are lower than, say, credit cards, and that is one of the reasons why bitcoins are valuable. It still doesn't explain why and how bitcoins can be traded for "real stuff".


 * In my opinion, each one of these deserves a paragraph and that paragraph should be understandable to a layman without any other material or hyperlinks. As they told us in grammar school, a paragraph should stand on its own for its intended reader, without support from other paragraphs. The intended audience for a Wikipedia article is the intelligent layman.


 * In summation, boy, have you've got a lot of work to do. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for your opinion. unfortunately you didnt answer the very specific question i asked. my entries on the talk page Talk:Bitcoin give a clue where I am coming from, so the above is preaching to the choir. are you ok, if i move this exchange to the bitcoin talk page? --Wuerzele (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Fiscal Tightening Infographic.png
Thank you for uploading File:Fiscal Tightening Infographic.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Thursday December 4: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

November 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=636081347 your edit] to Mandamus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * the power to issue them. Fed.R.Civ.P. 81 as amended, December 1, 2014. (b) "The writs of scire facias and mandamus are abolished. Relief

Saturday February 7 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday March 22: Wikipedia Day NYC Celebration and Mini-Conference
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Wikipedia Day open space session
Thanks for your offer of help with a Wiki-Editing for Beginners session. Some of the CUNY folks were thinking of doing a session in this vein as well, and have had a fair amount of experience in this at different venues recently. Do you think we could maybe combine, and have them give more of an overview, and some of us help more with the hands-on stuff?--Pharos (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! I would like to talk with them first, just to get our ducks in order. Can you give me their address, either email or wiki-user? I'll be at Barnard Hall by 9 am and we can finalize our plans then.
 * So far, I've developed ideas for fixing typos and inserting content, both with and without citations. I have enough examples so that everyone can learn by doing. Each lesson follows the See It, Learn It, Do It paradigm: I make a fix on the projected screen. Then they make the same kind of a fix based on what I've just showed them. Then (when they're at home) they find and make the same fixes themselves. I also plan to let the attendees drive the lesson; for example, if the bulk of them are already past fixing simple typos then we'll move on the content insertions.
 * Could you please give me some method of talking with the folks at CUNY before Sunday morning? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It sounds like your method is a bit complementary, in that it is focusing more directly on wikitext skills. Probably the best place to discuss for now would be Wikipedia talk:Meetup/NYC/Wikipedia Day 2015, and we'll notify folks about that.  And also, a bunch of us will likely be there early tomorrow as well.--Pharos (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

April 29: 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.)

June 10: 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.)

July 8: 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.)

Sunday August 2: WikNYC Picnic
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

August 19: 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.)

Saturday, March 5: Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon @ MoMA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

March 16: 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.)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stone circles in the British Isles and Brittany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Stone_circles_in_the_British_Isles_and_Brittany check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Stone_circles_in_the_British_Isles_and_Brittany?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

August 29: 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.)

September 26: 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.)

== Sun October 14: Open House New York Weekend Upload Party @ NYU ITP and Indigenous People's Justice Edit-a-thon @ Interference Archive ==

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

October 24: 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.)

Sunday Oct 28: Wikidata Birthday Party
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

December 19: 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.)

January 13: Wikimedia NYC invites you to Wikipedia Day 2019
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Feb 27 WikiWednesday Salon + Mar 2 MoMA Art+Feminism and beyond
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

== March 20: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC + March 23: Asian Art Archive/New York Public Library ==

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

April 17: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC + April 4 and 5: LaGuardia Community College Translatathon 2019
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Cerutti Mastodon Site Coordinates
Hi Roy, I saw your suggestion for the Cerutti Mastodon site. After further investigation I found it was a bit off - after extensive image recon I have found the site to be, plus or minus 5 meters, at the following grid: 32°39'57.4"N 117°03'11.4"W - I used the image of the bulldozer covering the site from here https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/science/prehistoric-humans-north-america-california-nature-study.html and used Google Maps to identify the homes and various shrubbery in the image - particularly the tall cone shaped conifers in the background of the image, plus the 2 unique full length windows in the upper floor of the home behind the bulldozer. Furthermore, the drawings and descriptions from this site https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20555563.2019.1589663?scroll=top&needAccess=true&fbclid=IwAR3eky-dqVfsbl1K8UozP0HfHSYsYa7ba-L833lMqxfKkvJU48Ss1e-BD7M& gave me a little more insight. Would you be able to correct the WikiMiniAtlas page you used to link the coordinates you posted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.21.209 (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See my reply here. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

May 22: 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.)

June 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (stay tuned for Pride on weekend!)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

November 2019
- MrX 🖋 10:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Fixed your talk page archiving
Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. --rchard2scout (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)