Nefariousski

Operation COOKIE MONSTER

In support of Operation COOKIE MONSTER (OCM) I'm presenting WikiCookies in appreciation for military service to the United States. Happy Independence Day! Ndunruh (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

.

Re:Comment removal

I don't exactly recall doing anything like that, could you show me a diff? I was mainly reverting his blankings of his talk. Connormah (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, silly me, I thought you were referring to his talk page. It was a bit uncivil, so I just thought I'd revert it, so you wouldn't have to see it. I do apologize though, if you wanted it to remain. Connormah (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, I didn't particularly want it on there but just haven't ever had a third party remove someone elses comments before and was unsure if it was standard practice for admins or just you cleaning up the mess he made. I was just curious, thanks for getting back to me.Nefariousski (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning Creation according to Genesis

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

I believe you have exceeded the 3RR limit. Also note that good faith edits, even if POV pushing, are not vandalism.--agr (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reported this at [1]--agr (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wonder when they'll get around to reviewing it...Nefariousski (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

category

Is Westergaard anti-Islam? Anti-Islamist, I can see, but more than that I haven't seen .... but perhaps you have a ref. tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if there was any confusion. The category applied to the page was Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. I interpreted this as not necessarily meaning that Westergaard personally is anti-islam but his strong anti-islamist feelings and the cartoons / public speaking on the issue do fall somewhere in the realm / categorization of anti-islam sentiment considering the enormous backlash, deaths, world wide protests, increased nationalist feelings (on both sides of the fence) he caused and continues to cause. If you don't agree with my thinking on this I'm very much open for discussion and willing to hear your or anyone elses opinions / views. Thanks for the comment Nefariousski (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I guess my thought is as follows. There is IMHO a world of difference between those who are anti-Islamist and those who are anti-Islam. From what I see of his work and his article, he appears to be making a point against those who would cause terrorism, relying on Islam as their justification. Many mainstream Moslems have said this is wrong as well (though they didn't draw cartoons to make their point). I believe including him is overbroad, and would (if you allow that breadth) lead to including for example the Fiqh Council of North America as anti-Islam.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with you and have the same viewpoint personally but let us look at the viewpoint of the Moslem community. Would they consider Westergaard in the sphere of the Category:Anti-Islam tag? Would many non muslims even say that that you can be anti-Islamist without being at least touching the sphere of anti-islam? A quick check on the definition of "Islamist" points to Islamists being Orthodox Muslims. Could one easily speak out against orthodox jews and deeply offend them without at least touching the sphere of Anti-Semetic?

Whilst his intent was "Anti-Islamist" meaning in the strictest meaning of the term "Anti extremist / Terrorist etc..." his actions were near universally viewed as "Anti-Islam" in the Islamic world. So do we categorize him by his intent or by how he is viewed by those toward whom his message was directed? I know on English Wikipedia there is a Systemic Bias towards seeing his actions as Parody and Free Speech which most of us here hold near and dear which tends to tilt our viewpoint on the matter towards his.

I know it's all semantics and if you feel particularly strongly one way or the other I won't be upset if you revert my edit.Nefariousski (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is dangerous to conflate the two. Some Moslems did speak up on his behalf. I also think we have to view it as an intent issue. I'll take you up on your offer and revert. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just want to thank you for the civil discussion. It seems that sort of thing is becoming exceedingly rare. Nefariousski (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)?

Lol

[2] I like you :D -I may find myself referring to dinosaurs as "Jesus horses" even in mundane conversation --King Öomie 21:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't take full credit since I didn't coin the term. [3] feel free to keep checking in on that article's talk page, I have a feeling it's going to keep getting more interesting :) Nefariousski (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had it watchlisted for a little bit. While I admit I enjoy the occasional flame war, I have no intention of swan-diving into a raging volcano of fundies and heathens screaming at each other. Interesting to see all the same names next to the exact same arguments from Creation myth, Atheism, Objections to evolution... --King Öomie 21:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame there's not a wikipedia policy like WP:FUNDAMENTALIST or WP:USERHASEXTREMEAGENDA. Maybe a user box that says "Logic and Reason mean nothing to this user"? Nefariousski (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There's WP:BULLSHIT. Unfortunately WP:BULLSHITARTIST is a redlink. --King Öomie 22:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Stay Tuned. I'll be nominating the article to The Hall of Lame by the end of the week.Nefariousski (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"sources listed in archive on talk page"

Where? See also WT:VG#Slow moving edit war at Niko Bellic and comment if you could. Thanks, –xeno^talk 23:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The brady games game manual for one the ref in Archive is [4]. Nefariousski (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Creation according to Genesis

You've been edit warring on this article, and an admin might take your statement in the report as promising to edit war in the future. Please leave a comment at WP:AN3#User:Nefariousski reported by User:ArnoldReinhold (Result: ) indicating that you will cease reverting the article until such time as a consensus is reached on the Talk page. This means you must give up any role as 'enforcer' of the current version of the article. If you make this concession it should help you avoid a block. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not edited or reverted the article nor do I intend to outside of vandalism or contributions that are not currently under or related to controversial discussion until consensus is reached. Nefariousski (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Bayless Conley

Sure, self-published sources aren't much use for the rest of the article. I was just restoring at least one source to the main "contentious" part of the article (drugs, alcohol and 12yo boys, never a good mix). The guidelines do allow for that; I had no quarrel with your removal of the sources from elsewhere in the article, which of course would need third-party reliable sources. Holly25 (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: perhaps the word "restore" in the edit summary was misleading; I re-inserted the self-published source directly after the contentious claim, without attempting to restore the self-published link as a source for the rest of the article. Holly25 (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Stanford University people

Um, they were already listed under the "Presidents, Vice Presidents, Prime Ministers, and royalty" and "Writers" sections, respectively. OCNative (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just saw that. Sorry, only looked at the diff and your statement and it lead me to think you were removing them because they were placed in the wrong section, not because they were duplicate mentions in the list AND in the wrong section. Nefariousski (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Theremes

Hi, Nefariousski! I appreciate your input concerning this editor and the edit war he engineered, and the advice you gave is certainly correct. This is one of those "extreme" cases, if you will. You know... the kind of editor that removes every warning tag from their talk page? Reinserts the same contested (unsourced, SYNTH, etc.) material repeatedly over the objections of upwards of a dozen or more editors? Gets blocked, then immediately after being reinstated, the first thing he/she does is go right back to the exact same dispute? This is Theremes. I watch the Edit Warring page, and I usually only involve myself if the report is blatantly one way or the other: a) clearly not an edit war, or b) a disruptive editor wreaking havoc on one or more articles. This particular editor's history speaks for itself, and is very probably (IMHO) a sock. Thanks for your input, and happy editing! :> Doc9871 (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. I actually did dig a little deeper into the Diffs and histories after I wrote that comment and found it quite a bit harder to AGF. Maybe I was a little too hasty with my suggestion of a requesting apology as opposed to blocking. Thanks for pointing that out. Nefariousski (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion was in no way hasty or out of line, trust me. That editor is luckily in the minority (meaning the extremely disruptive editors), or else there wouldn't be a WP at all. Thanks for giving your opinion, Nefariousski! :> Doc9871 (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Williams (journalist)

I'd like to see your opinion on this one. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Gladly, I'll look into it right away and comment on the AFD page. Nefariousski (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

My view on how to change BLP policies

Feel free to read and comment with what you Think

• I commented. Sorry, but I support 8 of 9 points. Bearian (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appriciate you taking the time and effort to read and comment. Can you explain why you are ok with self-written/published sources that aren't secondarily verified? I'd be interested in knowing your take. Nefariousski (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha

Wikicops... ha! --Leodmacleod (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Akron politicians

If you haven't seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Akron politicians recently, better check it out. The creator of the list up for deletion seems to believe you not commenting means you have possibly "changed your vote". He has a history of including loads of cruft and trivia into the main Akron, Ohio article and is taking my nomination of the list personally. Thanks for your input. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I added further comment to show that I am still in opposition of the article.Nefariousski (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Kenneth McLaren

Well, I have humored you. I have outlined clear reasons why Kenneth McLaren and Kenneth MacLaren have to be the same person. Sources referring to them under the two names both get their marriage dates, wifes names and first wife's death the same. Both say that Baden-Baden asked for them to be under his command in the Boer War and both say the subject was wounded at the same place. Are you satisfied? While the "fact" tag is on this article, it prejudices the AfD. User:Off2riorob is simply being obstructionist over this. Why does he have the single right to stop the removal of this tag, just because he claims without any real reason that he is not satisfied? I know the Haidoc business is an issue here, but some of us support this article but are glad to see the back of him. This AfD is not just about Haidoc. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I just checked in and read what you wrote and I'm inclined to believe that you are right regarding them being the same person and I thank you for your explanation and for performing due diligence. I have no personal agenda here, I myself was a scout and support scouting to this day. My biggest complaint was one of notability as the article was written and still currently stands. It relies far too much on the "claim to fame" of being close buddies with B-P and as such will repeatedly face accusations regarding WP:N specifically notability not being inherited. I agree with this AfD not being about Haidoc. I personally would prefer to Delete the page and recreate it. In doing so we can focus the biographical article on McLaren himself with seperate sections regarding his early life, personal life, military experience, Boer Wars, Scouting, etc... Which would be one hell of a sight better than trying to work with what currently exists. It would be a lot easier to establish notability with a fresh start on the article and as a bonus would remove the stain of the current controversy. I'm not proposing that the article be deleted and salted. Nefariousski (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, so can you remove the "fact" tag about the name and explain to User:Off2riorob? He might listen to you. He read my explanation and is still not satisfied. It should at least be removed while the AfD is running. If it is kept, we can argue about it over time, but it does prejudice the AfD right now. BTW. I was a Scout too. I have not been for 40 years! I am however interested in Scout history and support the Scouting Project. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nefariousski. You have new messages at Kingoomieiii's talk page.
Message added 18:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

King Öomie 18:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

IP Soapboxing on Talk:Evolution

Hey Gabbe, Saw your comment here and just had a question. I normally remove comments such as that per WP:SOAP, is there some sort of policy about not removing anything from talk pages even if it's just an arbitrary pov rant? Nefariousski (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal is certainly one option, I wouldn't say that it would have been wrong (or against policy or anything) to remove the comment. However, in this particular case I thought it would be more effective to provide a brief explanation to that person why this isn't the venue for their soapboxing, rather than just deleting it wholesale without comment. Maybe I was wrong, what do I know? Gabbe (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing personal

[5]- just removing the cheese from the mousetrap. I don't particularly want to converse with the mouse. --King Öomie 17:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, your page your call and quite frankly I can't blame you, there's not a lot to be gained from trying to have a discussion with a looped recording. Nefariousski (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

Please take a look at the references that have been added to Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. If you can't read Dutch, use http://translate.google.com to get a general idea of what the Dutch-language references are about. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appriciate you taking the time to try and hunt down some sources and improve the article. I'll check it out.Nefariousski (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nefariousski. You have new messages at Templeknight's talk page.
Message added 18:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Osarius ^{That's me!} : _{Naggin' again?} : ^{What did I do?!} 18:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

FAQ

I've added another item to the Genesis creation myth FAQ. If you get a chance to check it over that would be appreciated. I figure we can make some use of the length of the discussion on that page. Cheers, Ben (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Gladly, I'll try and mine some additional points for your addition. Thanks for helping expand the FAQ. I dream of a day when most of the comments on that page can be addressed with "Go read the FAQ". Nefariousski (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure exactly where it would be appropriate or how to do it but I'd like to see a mention of Negative proof in the FAQ to address comments like

"There is a fatal flaw in your reasoning. You say your bias wins because science proves it. However you are wrong. Every scientist who means anything in this world will acknowledge that science does not disprove God. Science nowhere disproves Creation according to Genesis and it doesn't claim to. If this article claims that, then it is sub-par academics. SAE (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC) "

Age of the earth

The comment here... wow. Reading it gave me a nosebleed. --King Öomie 15:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think the IP was actually serious at first... If I wasn't so damn worn out from the whole Genesis creation myth crap I'd ask them to show me said evidence, point out the concept of peer review and how a PhD in divinity or hydraulic engineering doesn't qualify one as a "scientific expert" and then warn him to build an ark before the flood of counterpoints. Some of this stuff is so insane I question whether the editors are true YECers or just well practiced trolls. Listening to some of these people reminds me of the head exploding scene from Scanners. Nefariousski (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalization my userpage. (You sure have a bunch of userboxes!) Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, I submitted the vandal to AIV and they are currently blocked. Nefariousski (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Please note I've started adding information to User:Nefariousski/sandbox/Creation Myth ANI. Help will be appreciated. Ben (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to try and mine the talkpage for diffs that show examples of each of the items listed in your "some problems" section. We should ask King Oomie to give this a look as well. I'm not particularly familiar with how a "topic ban" is submitted (having never been part of a topic ban discussion). From what I gather most topic bans are against particular users (banning said user from editing certain topics), I think it would be preferable to have a topic ban for the article (banning any user from discussing the "creation myth" topic for a period of time) but i haven't seen any precedent for that in the bit of digging around I've done. Do you know of any good examples we could reference? Nefariousski (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. I would try shortening up some of the sections or reduce them to shorter bullet points; right now it's a little bit TL,DR. You have full permission to copy-paste any of my arguments from that talk page; especially at Talk:Genesis_creation_myth#Trying_to_use_policy. You can also at WP:NOT#CENSORED to the list of policies that support "creation myth." Mildly Mad^T_C 19:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

N-ski, just want to let you know I got your message, though because I'm so behind on my watchlist and am spending some time catching up I won't be able to review until either late tonight or tomorrow. (Although I do agree with Mildly Mad above about WP:CENSOR. It is policy.)

This may be too big for AN/I when there is more than one editor editing tendentiously. This may be a job for arbcom. And I am not one who likes to kick disputes to the arbs. I firmly believe in the power of the community to settle things. But since this involves multiple parties, it may be too complex to sort out without the structure of an arbitration. Auntie E. (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I would second that this should go to arbcom. The editing has reached a level of chaos. Deadtotruth (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC

You present you case nicely and make reasonable arguments. Though Philosophically We disagree with you on lot of issues Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC) has asked you to join him for a nice cup of tea and sit down.

---

barbera d'asti

) :) :) You definitely win the balloon. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For admirable persistence at Genesis creation myth. Keep up the good work! --Noleander (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

.

My very first Barnstar! Thanks for the recognition :) Nefariousski (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Thanks, Nef. I've been trying to keep other people's work from being deleted. How do we keep the article protected while contributions are coming in? Things can't be organized if they are deleted every night by Pico.EGMichaels (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily say PiCo is the only contributor to the current instability but I do see your point. Obviously locking down the article is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If it starts to get too out of control I'd suggest that an AN/I get submitted to request the article be placed under 1RR for a set period of time to help enforce the BRD Process. Being that I try not to fly off the handle and throw every little issue to the admins I think it would be a good idea to see if we can get the community of editors that have been working on the article to voluntarily agree to follow 1RR first. I think it's important that a dialogue is initiated that tries to get everyone on board with this first, seeing as how claims of certain outspoken editors trying to take "ownership" and others being accused of supression have been all the rage lately. Nefariousski (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd support anything that would strike a chord of civility on this page. Wikipedia is a big enough place that most of the information we're dealing with belongs somewhere (whether here or in a different article). But with all the deletions there's no way to figure out what should go where.EGMichaels (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine

Fine NickCT (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, I know it's rough working on an article where there's so much tendentious editing and endless debate over a lame issue and I know how frustrating it can be. I would just hate for this molehill to be turned into a mountain. If other editors insist on carrying on with this tiresome discussion I'll be the first one to submit an RFC. Nefariousski (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct Nefariousski. Your point is well made & well taken. NickCT (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Talk:Genesis creation myth

Hey Nef, thanks for the background. And no issue responding on my talk page. Infact I'd prefer it. I find article talk pages so often get cluttered with discussions that are essentially only between two editors, and are unlikely to be of interest to others. I've always wondered if these would be better conducted on user talk pages.

It appears as though a great deal of thought has gone into the "myth" title. It still makes me very uncomfortable though, because my initial strong impression was it raises all sorts of NPOV issues. Reading through the FAQ, I was interested by the line of arguement that goes "Myth is the accepted term in scholarly RSs. Even though myth may imply falsity to the average reader, wikipedia has to follow RS because wikipedia isn't censored to avoid offending the average reader". Not sure who wrote that FAQ, but I find this line of argument a little dubious, because, while I accept that "myth" might be well back by scholarly RS 1) ultimately wikipedia is written for the average reader, and this article covers a topic that would be interesting to the general public 2) I'm sure if we thought hard enough about it we could come up with a title that was compliant both with RS and didn't risk offending the average reader with POV issues.

Regarding consensus, was there ever a clear survey/Rfc similar to the kind I setup here. If not, would you object to me setting one up, with the primary intent of simply getting a measure of consensus? I don't want to reopen old wounds here, and I'll be content with leaving the title as is, but I'd really like to see something that clearly shows a majority of editors support the title.

In summary let me note, that you and I would probably be in complete agreement regarding the veracity of "creation" as presented by Genesis (either symbolicly or literally speaking). However, after having been at the butt end of allot of disputes where I've been outnumbered (or out shouted) by editors who I felt were pushing POVs, I've become hyperconscience to these NPOV issues. I feel that it is incumbent on us to ensure we uphold the basic principle that Wikipedia neither endorse nor refute religous beliefs. NickCT (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

hey Nick, I wrote the FAQ and to give some clarity that point you think is dubious was taken almost word for word from WP:RNPOV. We've already had one RFC, two RMs and two AN/Is on this very point and all have closed in favor of usage of "creation myth" in the article and title. Opening another RfC won't likely result in any further advances because it's current usage is specifically supported by multiple policies and the only real arguement against it's usage is that some people take offense or some people are worried that readers will interpret it's usage the wrong way, both of which are considered invalid arguements by WP:WTA#Myth and Legend, WP:RNPOV and WP:NOT#CENSORED.

I honestly feel for your point of view and the concerns of others but in dealing with wikipedia I follow a pretty strict paradigm of policy adherence since policy represents broad (across all of WP) consensus and as such I tend to fight for what is supported by policy whether my personal beliefs are inline with the policy or not. Nefariousski (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nef, if I may butt in, there are two problems: 1) it isn't just that readers will take the meaning as "false" but that editors were unable to use the term in a way that did NOT mean "false"; and 2) the title is worded in such a way that it limits the passage to this one angle. Although the first problem wouldn't be an issue for a title such as "Genesis creation allegory" the second problem would apply. We can keep "creation myth" in the title with something like "Genesis as creation myth." Instead of trying to win every war, wouldn't it be best to do a win win for everyone and stop the fighting (or at least cut it way way back)?EGMichaels (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The article isn't ABOUT genesis 'as a creation myth'. It's about the creation myth told at the beginning of the book of genesis. There already exists Book of Genesis for general information about the book. --King Öomie 17:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, King, it is about the Genesis creation account as myth (and not allegory or fact). You can't POV something and then claim you are talking about the thing itself. You are merely talking about one potential (and very legitimate and scholarly) aspect.EGMichaels (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time explaining this over and over. Busstop agreed with the neutrality of the definition of creation myth. The article name doesn't interpret genesis "as myth" it just classifies genesis as a religious or supernatural cosmogenical account which it is no matter how someone chooses to interpret. A "creation myth" can be interpreted as allegory, fact, false, story, etc... Genesis 1-2 is a Creation myth just like a star is a giant ball of gas. Nothing in the definition of "Creation myth" passes value or even posits the slightest interpretation. And now it's time for breakdown:

Creation Myth: a religious or supernatural story or explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe (cosmogony), often as a deliberate act by one or more deities

Genesis 1-2: Religious or supernatural story or explanation (Check), describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life and the universe (Check), Deliberate act by one or more dieties (Check)

You'll see there is no categorization or interpretation or bias one way or another. Everything is a plainly stated fact regarding the contents of Genesis 1-2. You can't argue that "Creation myth" is just a categorization of genesis any more than you can argue that "Planet" is just a categorization of earth. ZERO case can be made that genesis is NOT a creation myth (and please don't go jumping into splitting the word myth out again and using it informally) thus it can't be an interpretation or categorization because if it was someone could make an opposing case against said interpretation or categorization. Nefariousski (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Nef. Several things. First, if we are NOT talking about the term "myth" why the heck do you guys keep pointing to the guide on the term "myth"? Also, if we are NOT trying to make a value judgment, why the heck the adamant refusal to use ANY synonym for "myth"? In any case, it isn't the "story" folks who have been using it informally, but the "myth" folks, as I demonstrated with my simple request for the use of the term "myth" in ANY context on ANY subject in which the so-called informal meaning was avoided. Rather than show that they knew what they were talking about, I was accused of being unreasonable and even plastered by Ben with an ANI -- also accusing me of being unreasonable! In any case, I wasn't being unreasonable at all, since I gave two very easily conjured examples myself. The problem isn't the editors or the readers, but the guide itself. With my proposed three words, we should be able to agree that the informal synonym for myth is "false" while the formal is "symbol." NEITHER are literally true. But one may have some symbolic or subjective meaning aside from any lack of objective or literal fact. As you said, you are tired of explaining this over and over. The PROBLEM is not that you can't explain it or that they can't understand it. You aren't clumsy with words and they aren't stupid. The problem was merely that the guide was not sanity checked by this particular problem, and the formal meaning was not worded in a way that excluded the informal. If my three words stick, both sides will get their way, and your life will be a lot easier.EGMichaels (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You keep bringing up "myth" as a standalone term and discussing ambiguity and using it as an example for an interpretation. I keep trying to explain that the current title does no such thing because a creation myth is not (as you're defining it) a myth. Next, even though I'm usually against working in the realm of Negative proof I replied to you regarding formal use of myth and gave examples, please see talk page. Next, we can't use ANY synynom for myth because we never use "MYTH". we use creation myth and there are no other formal terms that are synonyms (that I could find) and informal terms lose accuracy and precision of intent (per UCN), violate multiple sections of WP:RNPOV and aren't supported by academic sources. You insist on splitting "Creation" and "Myth" apart and building your entire case on analyzing the various meanings of "myth". There is no, zero, zilch issue for ambiguity if you leave them together in the proper term which only has one single definition (which is stated multiple times in the article and talk page). The guide exists BECAUSE of this specific problem. The initial debate on the Creation myth is if I remember correctly what initiated the "Myth and Legend" section of WP:WTA nothing you bring up to VPP or the other policy forums is going to be new and unique. The policy is written as such because this exact same debate has gone on in previous discussions on multiple articles. I by no means wish to stifle you from giving it a go but I respect you enough that I would like to see that you look at the dozen or so past initiatives that dealt with this EXACT same issue, realize that consensus has turned out the same way every time and that the current policies are written the way they are in the hopes that we can stop fighting the same fight over and over before you formulate your post so that hopefully you can bring up something new that hasn't been discussed to death with the same result each time. Nefariousski (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully my three words will save you all the headaches you've been having from a poorly worded guide. That's the problem when "consensus" is reached through conflict instead of collaboration. My goal is for all groups to get a break, including you. In any case, you keep saying that "myth" has nothing to do with "creation myth" and then you keep pointing me to the guide on "myth." If it has nothing to do with it, then why keep pointing me there? And why say -- even now -- that the guide was created from this very conflict?EGMichaels (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Now there's a good point. I do think an additional policy / guideline for formal terms not being defined by their component parts would be a good idea. Maybe in addition to your current thoughts on adding to the guide it would be a good idea to create a section in WTA that discusses the value of formal terms and the difference between them and their component parts. With regards to using "myth" as a standalone term you and I are damn near in complete agreement. Nefariousski (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nef. Maybe we can save you all this constant reexplaining yet.EGMichaels (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Rereading WP:WTA#Myth and Legend it would seem that using "myth" in its "formal sense" is specificly supported by long standing policy. Frankly, I'm not sure that's good policy, but its existence make me less desirous to argue the issue we've been discussing. I withdraw my call for another Rfc/survey, though I'd note that the existing Rfc's and RMs appear to be long discussions/debates. Short, concise I support / I reject type surveys are always nice to demonstrate consensus. NickCT (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick -- the jury's still out on the words "symbolic literary structure." If that sticks, that should solve 90% of the problem for the anti-myth folks. Even the most sincere theists can grant symbolic structure in the passage (though not all will, the theists will be divided and challenges to the article will be less intense).EGMichaels (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm..... Frankly, I have no idea what "symbolic literary structure." means. Is this English? EGM, can you point to where the debate over this language is being had. I'd like to weigh in.NickCT (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Right now I'm putting appropriate quotes on the talkpage to the guide. Frankly, I had another dozen citations to add before we go to the village pump (don't ask me, it's all new to me too). Since my mother in law is on the train coming here, and since my wife is ready to give birth at any moment, my time is a bit limited. I'm hoping in a week or so to have all the citations in place, and we can take it to any forum people want to take it. Honestly, I'm hoping it's not that big of a deal.EGMichaels (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Further to my last post; if you google "symbolic literary structure" you get a mere 6 hits (2 of which are from wikipedia!!!). I wonder what kind of perverted mind came up with such obscure jargon? EGM, when you have a forum in which this can be discussed, please let me know. NickCT (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick -- I'm the "perverted mind." I read myth all the time, and as a writer I try to make it. There is a specific literary structure that modern writers are trying to use in order to create myth in their writing. Basically, it's Jungian depth psychology's love child with Hollywood. Jung first identified it, Neumann extrapolated it in his "Great Mother" and "Origins and History of Consciousness." Campbell popularized it in his "Hero with a Thousand Faces" (Lucas used this as the basis for the original Star Wars trilogy). The "Hero's Journey" pattern is embedded even in details from the bios of Moses, Oedipus Rex, Jesus, etc. In any case, this reverse engineering of myth falls right in line with what well known mythologists have been nearly universally saying: myths are symbols. It's like metaphor on steroids... in which the metaphor itself becomes more real than the thing being symbolized. Right now I'm just going through my books on mythology (a couple of shelves) and scanning until I find some definition for myth being given in the book. I'm finding "symbolism" almost universal in those explanations, regardless of which ethnic group is being used for the mythological study.EGMichaels (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies on the "perverted mind" comment. Clearly you have the scholarly background to allows you to create such clever phrases like "symbolic literary structure". However EGM, I think it worth noting that policy pages and such should be written with consideration for mere mortal editors such as I. We have trouble when people use language like yours. I find best practice on Wikipedia is to use the dumbest, least verbose language possible. Always assume your audiences only has a high school diploma. This is partly why I think the whole WP:WTA#Myth and Legend policy is silly. It assumes too much on the part of the reader. The average wikipedia reader is not smart enough to "correctly" interpret the word "myth".

On another note, let's stop cluttering Nef's user talk page. NickCT (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick, I'd rather a full rewrite, showing that "symbol" is a formal synonym for myth, and "false" an informal one. That would be clear enough. I'd be willing to draft it, but not in the current climate. I need one or two folks from each side of this collaborating with it. Until then, my three words are the least intrusive to the present reading.EGMichaels (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh, i don't mind the comments, makes me feel loved ;) I do see what you mean about using common and easy to understand terminology (we even have policies that direct us to do so}. But I would ask you to please note that we also have gone above and beyond required due diligence to define, explain and clarify the term "creation myth" not only on Genesis creation myth but on the other applicable articles as well. Nefariousski (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhhh.. You are loved Nef. Re "above and beyond required due diligence to define, explain and clarify the term "creation myth" not only on Genesis creation myth" This I don't deny. But the title to me seems especially important. I don't think the fact that there is what amounts to a disclaimer/clafication in the article that says "and by the word myth we don't necessarily mean false" improves the situation. Still, I bow to the precident and policy dictated in WP:WTA#Myth and Legend. NickCT (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

NickCT — at WP:WTA#Myth and Legend we also find "Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint." That is found here. While that is not my main argument, it is supportive of my argument. My main argument in a nutshell is that "creation myth" in the title is superfluous; that is not essential material for a title. By the way, it is not offensive. I have not seen anyone complain that it was "offensive." Nefariousski seems to be saying that others are perceiving "creation myth" as being offensive, but I see little evidence of that. Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Bus, you'll see that I didn't really participate much in the initial RM because I initially thought changing the title would be superfluous, but the WP:UCN analysis, the precedent of all the other creation myth article's titles and the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV inherent in words like account and story decided the issue for me. My only objection to your "Genesis 1-2" suggestion aside from a loss of precision and accuracy and the fact that it would be better suited as a section under the book of Genesis article as opposed to a seperate article. There are plenty of "this offends me" comments on the talk page and this debate has gone on multiple times before. What other justification is there to abandon the title? It's supported by policy, it's supported by sources, It's well defined etc... I'll gladly consider any alternative as long as it's presented in a comperable framework of the current title. Show why current title is bad (policy, sources etc...), suggest alternative, show sources that support alt, show policy that supports alt. That way we can get around any issue of opinions, hurt feelings, pov claims etc... Nefariousski (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The present title is bad because it implies there are no other articles on the subject. "Genesis creation allegory" would be just as bad because it would imply THIS article does not exist. "Genesis creation as ancient near eastern myth" would be fine.EGMichaels (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nef, also (now that you asked the question and reminded me), there is ANOTHER problem with "Genesis creation myth": there are myths ABOUT Genesis creation. Lilith is but one example, but I could easily give you more. The first reaction I had when I saw this article was to look for Aggadic material, and I was concerned by the fact that it was talking about Genesis, and not myths based on it. I've let that slide for a while since that isn't what anyone has been arguing about, but it is a way the title is misleading. We need to be clear that it is Genesis ITSELF that is regarded as a creation myth. "Genesis as creation myth" would do just that. It's clear, it's accurate, it's about the article, it follows all of your guidelines, it allows for the existence of other articles on Genesis, and it is clearly NOT about myths BASED ON Genesis.EGMichaels (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Superfluousness. Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hardly, it's not superfluous to make a good case for an alternative when a good case has already been made for the status quo, it's required. Nefariousski (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for throwing in material that is not needed for the title. That material ("creation myth") is gratuitously thrown in. It may suit the sensibilities of the editors that support this wording, but it is not essential to what could be a title for this article. It is out of order to pigeonhole the subject matter of an article unnecessarily. The treatment of Genesis as a "creation myth" has a rightful place in the article. But the article is not solely about that particular characterization of Genesis. Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

We can't very well just call the article Genesis it needs another descriptor and per policy and sources the best one suggested so far has been creation myth. I don't understand how it is any more gratuitous than "Chapters 1 and 2" Nefariousski (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"Chapters one and two" is part of the essential information about the subject of the article. It can be left out, if other language takes its place. But "chapters one and two" is not merely a characterization of the subject matter of the article — it is essential to it. I don't know if you are reading policy carefully. You referred to WP:UCN, which starts out by saying that "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article." Genesis is not always spoken of as a "creation myth," and rightfully so. The instances in which one fails to consider Genesis as a "creation myth" are not only those instances in which the speaker is opposed to thinking of Genesis that way, but also would include those instances in which the characterization of Genesis as a "creation myth" is irrelevant. There are contexts in which the evocation of "creation myth" would not be contemplated. Hence there is no logic to including "creation myth" in the title unless the article were solely about the treatment of Genesis as a "creation myth." But a look at the article in its present state shows little material treating the Genesis that way. Bus stop (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I bow to the precident and policy dictated in WP:WTA#Myth and Legend THIS THIS A THOUSAND TIMES THIS!!! If more editors understood that policy trumps their opinion then maybe we could redirect discussion towards whether we should change the policy instead of having a megs upon megs of length on the Genesis creation myth talk page. Nefariousski (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nef -- the problem isn't you or them, but sloppy wording in the policy that's caused you too much grief.EGMichaels (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you very much for the barnstar! I try my best. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's well deserved. You've shown the ability to be tenacious while still being able to consider opposing viewpoints openly even if you don't agree with them and I particularly liked your take and input on the Cush RFC. Nefariousski (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

if a then not b

Truth table:

A  B
-  -
T  T
T  F
F  T
F  F

"if A then not B" means cross out anything that contradicts that, which in this case is B being true when A is:

A  B
-  -
X  X
T  F
F  T
F  F

and in what remains, in all instances that B is true, A is false, i.e. if B then not A. hence (if A then not B) implies (if B then not A).

i commented here only because i didn't want to distract from your latest comment on the article talk, as i felt it was poignant. :) Kevin Baas^talk 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No no no I get it. I'm not saying that you're logic is wrong, I'm saying that your approach is just begging to have someone come in and using stupid examples or logical fallacies to disprove your logic and then we all have to resort to a long discussion on basic logical statements and so on. Instead of that approach why not just say "Policy and guidelines tell us to use the most common, reliably sourced definitions in the lede" and move on. Policy trumps even the soundest of original research, even if someone synthesizes a new definition that is totally logically valid it's still synth and as such frowned upon. We can't go wrong if we just follow the policy and usage of reliable sources. Nefariousski (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

this is what just edit conflicted with that "..and because i feel the logical debating (which i have played a role in) is getting to be a bit of a distraction from more constructive discussion."  :) Kevin Baas^talk 22:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And I agree wholeheartedly. Nefariousski (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

199.60.104.147

You may want to take a look at Haida chieftain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It's pretty clear that 199.60.104.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same editor back again. —C.Fred (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it's pretty clear, I follow AN/I and SPI pretty closely. Do you feel like posting the block evasion info at AN/I or should I? Nefariousski (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. I've been closely enough involved that I think it's a good thing for the report to come from a less-involved editor. (Conversely, if I weren't so involved, I'd have already blocked him.) —C.Fred (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Shenanigans, tomfoolery and other assorted asshattery have been reported Nefariousski (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Canwest cleanup

Thank you for archiving off the page. It should help things there. —C.Fred (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Halvorsen brian

What gives you the right to remove somebody's picture per WPNOTMYSPACE? That editor has a right to have their picture on their User space as much as anybody else does, and there is nothing there which says that User is a child. Woogee (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The user states that they are a highschool student and considering recent arbcom pedophile / pederasty rulings etc... I think it's best to err on the side of caution. If the user wants to revert my fix and state that they are no longer a minor then TOTALLY fine by me. No harm no foul. WP:CHILD is far more important than myspace in me making this decision. Nefariousski (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You can be in high school and be 18. This is not a brand new newbie editor. Why not discuss it on their Talk page? I have reverted you. I will not edit war, let's see what ANI decides. Woogee (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

[6] - you reverted another User's edits. Woogee (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Shit... Sorry about that. Good catch woogee. Edit conflicts forced me to be a bit hasty with my cut and paste. Nefariousski (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There were a lot of them at one point.  :) Woogee (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

User:PCPP

I see you have started to tangle with this editor. He leaves a trail of destruction wherever he goes, so you might want to buckle up and drink some Extreme Patience juice. He focuses on picking apart the contributions of others, and watering down the parts that aren't too friendly to the Chinese Communist Party. I have started an RfC on him, and another editor, Dilip Rajeev, has started an AE case. We are both branded as anti-CCP and pro-Falun Gong elements though, so it's unclear what impact the measures will have. His consistently destructive behaviour, and the explicit and implicit support he receives for it, has seriously eroded my will to contribute to this project (among other things.) If you dare to wade into this dispute, I suggest doing so carefully, documenting everything. This guy needs to be stopped by force, because he's only going to get craftier and craftier now. Instead of outright blanking, he just blanks some parts and weakens others; instead of saying nothing, he says a few perfunctory words and discredits the other editors intentions; instead of doing zero research, he does a bit. And this is all tacitly condoned. --Asdfg12345 04:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so much for "tangling" with anyone. I adhere to policy and research standards and have a pretty high level of patience (feel free to check out Talk:Genesis creation myth) for dealing with people with extreme views on either side of any issue. If PCPP or any other user edits in a manner that isn't consistent with policy or the reliable sources used in an article that I have watchlisted I do my best to correct said articles. I'm sorry your dealings with one particular user have eroded your will to contribute. Being that I tend to have quite a few controversial articles watchlisted endless debates, edit wars, and burnout of good faith editors are something I see quite a bit of. If I personally see anything from PCPP or any other editors that warrant contribution to an RFC or posting one myself I'll gladly do so. Nefariousski (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggest checking Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, Thought reform in the People's Republic of China, and Mass line. And your note is right. I shouldn't be too much affected. It has been quite hard to get a set of outside eyes on the goings on across these pages. I'm sure a glance at the edit history and talk pages of those articles will be telling. --Asdfg12345 02:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There is an RfC on the editor in question btw. --Asdfg12345 01:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Harun Yahya

What you have written on the article is quite ridiculous. You have no facts, regarding your stupid statements. By swearing it shows you have nothing more intelligent to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Best has123 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Where did I swear? I'm not sure what you're talking about. I didn't "add" anything to the article, I reverted your deletions of reliably sourced material and fixed some of the wording and sentence structure and then wrote a comment on your talk page suggesting you read a few wikipedia policies and guidelines that may help you understand why I did what I did and how you can make constructive contributions in the future Nefariousski (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Your Edit to Fereydun Farokhzad Article

Please don't jump in and edit articles like the one on Fereydoun Farokhzad which concerns topics that you quite obviously have absolutely no knowledge of. If this continues, you will be reported along with the rest of the political vandals.--Mehrshad123 (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My edits consisted of reverting deletion of reliably sourced material. If you feel like reporting me for these actions please feel free to do so. I have no intention of ceasing to revert wholesale deletions of such material by you or any other users on this or any other article. Nefariousski (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It is very clear that you never read any of the "reliably sourced" material. Interesting.--Mehrshad123 (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I did read the material. And I understand the requirements of WP:RS if the information in the sources (that clearly meet the standards of reliability) matches the content of the article there is no reasonable claim for wholesale removal of said material. Nefariousski (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

nevermind, looks like you've been blocked indef. Nefariousski (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Can you please tell me how my edits [7] and [8] were "vandalism" and "unconstructive"? Having no user page and a red user name doesn't automatically make me a vandal. Next time, use your 159 intelligence quotient and actually read my edit. Immakingthisaccounttohidemyipaddress (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how these edits could be construed as vandalism either. As a quick warning though to Immaking, as I'm sure you know the bar for editting policy pages is a little higher than for articles. Sometimes it's best to discuss any change (no matter how minor) before editting. That said, I still can't see what the objection is to these specific edits. NickCT (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No you're both totally right. I was vandal patrolling at Recent Changes and was just moving too fast for my own good. I should have sent you a message on your talk page asking you to self revert and discuss changes to the article on the talk page first. It's standard procedure to do so before editing policy / guideline pages. My apologies for making a hasty "Vandalism" claim. Nefariousski (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nefariousski. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 23:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I dream of horses

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For defending me here I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 01:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Case

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

Proposed deletion of List of exorcists

The article List of exorcists has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The criterion for exorcist stated here includes every priest prior to the Second Vatican Council. This is not a notable criterion for a list. A new criterion should be established or the list should be deleted

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

LA-area Meetup: Saturday, November 19

	National Archives Backstage Pass at the Reagan Library
	You are invited to the first-ever backstage pass tour and Wikipedia editathon hosted by the Reagan Presidential Library, in Simi Valley, on Saturday, November 19th! The Reagan Library, home to a real Air Force One and other treasures from American history, will take Wikipedians on a special tour of the grounds and archives, followed by an editathon; free catered lunch provided. Please sign up! Dominic·t 21:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

still bored?

Noticed your status when I moused over your username on the Fereydoun Farrokhzad page; the same editor that doesn't like sources seems to have reappeared after being blocked. I just weed-whacked some unsourced material from the article that could be considered defamatory but now the article is kinda thin and CordeliaNaiSmith understandably does not want to re-engage.

Or!

If that does not appeal, there there is currently a brawl underway over whether Pakistan has/does provide support to the Taliban. I notice that you seem to have served in Afghanistan, so you may be interested or able to evaluate some of the claims/sources. See Taliban or the Neutral Point of View noticeboard.

Just suggestions; I am in both of these as a member of the peanut gallery, so I don't really have a dog in the fight. Either way, happy new year :)

Elinruby (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Invitation

	Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park
	You are invited to the second Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 23, 2012! Last year's was a blast (see the LA Weekly blog post on it) and we hope we can do better this year. We would love to have you there! —howcheng {chat} 04:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

You're invited! FemTech Edit-a-Thon at Claremont Graduate University

October 26 - FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable - You are invited!

Everyone is invited to the first FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable at Claremont Graduate University on October 26 from 3-6 pm. The event will open with a roundtable discussion about feminism and anti-racist technology projects, followed by an edit-a-thon focusing on feminists & women in science. Experienced Wikipedians will be on hand to support new editors. We hope you can join us! Sign up here - see you there! 00:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

2013 Wikinic

	Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park
	You are invited to the third Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 22, 2013! We would love to see you there! —howcheng {chat} 02:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

Wikipedia Meetup

You are invited to "Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 04:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup

Help build the Wikipedia community in Southern California at "Come Edit Wikipedia!" presented by the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, August 31st, 2013 from 1-5pm. Drop in for some lively editing and conversation! Plus, it's a library, so there are plenty of sources. --Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 02:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

LA edit-a-thons on May 23 and 31

LA meetups: Adrianne Wadewitz memorial edit-a-thons on May 23 and May 31

Dear fellow Wikipedian, There are two LA edit-a-thons in memory of Adrianne Wadewitz, a prolific Wikipedia editor, in the coming weeks. Please join us May 23 at Occidental College and May 31 at the Institute of Cultural Inquiry to combat systemic bias and help further Adrianne's legacy. No experience needed! Please RSVP at the relevant page(s) if you plan to attend. I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC) To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

L.A. events on June 21 and July 6

Upcoming L.A. events: Unforgetting L.A. edit-a-thon (Saturday, June 21, 12-5pm) and Wiknic (Sunday, July 6, ~9:30am-4pm)

File:356 S Mission.jpg Gallery at 356 S. Mission Rd. Get hungry for the Wiknic! Dear fellow Wikipedian, The L.A. Wikipedia community has two exciting events coming up in the next few weeks: an edit-a-thon sponsored by the online magazine East of Borneo, and the fourth annual Los Angeles Wiknic! The East of Borneo event is an edit-a-thon that aims to build a better history of art in Southern California. This next chapter of their Unforgetting L.A. series will take place on Saturday, June 21, 2014 from 12pm to 5pm at 356 S. Mission Rd. (map). Beginners welcome! Please RSVP here if you plan to attend. For more info, see eastofborneo.org/unforgetting. The Wiknic is a part of the nationwide Great American Wiknic. We'll be grilling, getting to know each other better, and building the L.A. Wikipedia community! The event is tentatively planned for Pan-Pacific Park (map) and will be held on Sunday, July 6, 2014 from 9:30am to 4pm or so. Please RSVP and volunteer to bring food or drinks if possible! I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC) To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Unforgetting L.A. edit-a-thon on September 6

Unforgetting L.A. edit-a-thon: Saturday, September 6 from 11am to 4pm

Dear fellow Wikipedian, You are invited to meet up with online magazine East of Borneo for an edit-a-thon to build a better history of art in Southern California. This next event in their Unforgetting L.A. series will take place on Saturday, September 6, 2014 from 11am - 4pm at the Armory Center for the Arts in Pasadena (map). Beginners welcome! Please RSVP here if you plan to attend. For more info, see eastofborneo.org/unforgetting. I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC) To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

L.A. Meetup on September 21

The 20th Los Angeles meetup: Sunday, September 21 from 11am to 4pm

Dear fellow Wikipedian, Join us on Sunday, September 21, from 11am to 4pm at Kramer Studio in Mid-City (map) for a meetup and edit-a-thon! Get to know the Los Angeles Wikipedia community and do some editing (or learn to edit!) in a collaborative environment. Please RSVP and consider becoming a member of the SoCal task force to help us improve articles about everything in the region. I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC) To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

L.A. events on October 7 and 16

Upcoming L.A. events: Wik-Ed Women edit-a-thon (10/7, 6-10pm) and UCR edit-a-thon (10/16, 10am-4pm)

Dear fellow Wikipedian, The Southern California Wikipedia community has two exciting events coming up in the next few weeks: a Wik-Ed Women editing session downtown designed to combat systemic bias, and a Wikipedia Loves Libraries event at UC Riverside! Wik-Ed Women is a new monthly series of informal Wikipedia editing sessions for Los Angeles women-in-the-arts (though all are welcome) to contribute their expertise to Wikipedia, specifically expanding content about women artists. This second session will take place on Tuesday, October 7 from 6pm to 10pm at the Los Angeles Contemporary Archive downtown. Please RSVP here if you plan to attend. The UC Riverside Wikipedia Loves Libraries event is an edit-a-thon targeting articles related to UC Riverside, SoCal, and beyond. Join students and faculty learning how to edit! This event will take place on Thursday, October 16 from 10am to 4pm at UCR's Tomás Rivera Library. Again, RSVPs are requested here. I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC) To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

SoCal edit-a-thons on October 21 and 25

Upcoming SoCal edit-a-thons: UC Riverside (10/21, 10am-3pm) and Unforgetting L.A. (10/25, 9am-5pm)

Dear fellow Wikipedian, The Southern California Wikipedia community has two more events scheduled for the month of October: a water-related edit-a-thon at UC Riverside, and an Unforgetting L.A. event at the Los Angeles Archives Bazaar in conjunction with L.A. as Subject! As part of Wikipedia Loves Libraries and to celebrate Open Access Week, UC Riverside is participating alongside other Western Waters Digital Library members in an edit-a-thon focusing on water issues. Join students and faculty learning how to edit! This event will take place on Tuesday, October 21 from 10am to 3pm at UCR's Orbach Science Library (map). RSVPs are requested here. The Unforgetting L.A. edit-a-thon and training workshop will take place at the 9th annual Los Angeles Archives Bazaar, and is hosted by online magazine East of Borneo in partnership with L.A. as Subject. Join us on Saturday, October 25 from 9am to 5pm at the USC Doheny Memorial Library (map). Beginners welcome! Please RSVP here if you plan to attend. I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC) To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

L.A. event on November 11, and a new Facebook group

Wik-Ed Women editing session (11/11, 6-10pm), and join our new Facebook group!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, The LA Wikipedia community has a new Facebook group! Become a member to keep up to date with all of our upcoming events and to connect with local Wikipedians! In addition, we have one upcoming event: the third Wik-Ed Women editing session will take place on Tuesday, November 11 from 6pm to 10pm at the Los Angeles Contemporary Archive downtown. This series of informal get-togethers is designed to encourage Los Angeles women-in-the-arts (though all are welcome!) to contribute their expertise to Wikipedia, specifically expanding content about women artists. Please RSVP here if you plan to attend. I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC) To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

L.A. event on November 11 CANCELED

Wik-Ed Women editing session CANCELED

Due to health issues affecting one of the organizers, the third Wik-Ed Women editing session (originally scheduled for Tuesday, November 11) has been canceled. We expect the series to pick up again sometime in December. Sorry for the inconvenience, and hope to see you in the near future! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC) To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

L.A. edit-a-thon this Sunday, December 14

L.A. meetup: December 14 edit-a-thon at the California African American Museum

Dear fellow Wikipedian, East of Borneo's "Unforgetting L.A." edit-a-thon series continues this weekend at the California African American Museum! Please join us this Sunday, December 14 from 11am to 4pm. Beginners welcome! You'll learn to create new articles that improve Wikipedia's coverage of African American art in Los Angeles, past and present. Please click here for full event details and to RSVP if you plan to attend. I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

L.A. event on Tuesday, January 20

Wik-Ed Women editing session (1/20, 6-10pm)

Dear fellow Wikipedian, Please join us at an event this coming Tuesday: the third Wik-Ed Women editing session will take place on January 20 from 6pm to 10pm at the Los Angeles Contemporary Archive downtown. This series of informal get-togethers is designed to encourage Los Angeles women-in-the-arts (though all are welcome!) to contribute their expertise to Wikipedia, specifically expanding content about women artists. Please RSVP here if you plan to attend. I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

LA edit-a-thons on February 14, 17, and 21

Redondo Loves Wikipedia (2/14), Wik-Ed Women (2/17), and Unforgetting LA at the Getty (2/21)!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, The LA Wikipedia community has three events in mid-February -- please consider attending! First, we have a Valentine's Day edit-a-thon appropriately named Redondo Loves Wikipedia, which will take place at the Redondo Beach Public Library from 10am to 1pm on Saturday, February 14. Join library staff, the Redondo Beach Historical Society, and others to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of Redondo Beach! Second, we have a Wik-Ed Women editing session on Tuesday, February 17 from 6pm to 10pm at the Los Angeles Contemporary Archive downtown. This series of informal get-togethers is designed to encourage Los Angeles women-in-the-arts (though all are welcome!) to contribute their expertise to Wikipedia, specifically expanding content about women artists. Third, we have an Unforgetting LA event put on by East of Borneo in collaboration with the Getty Research Institute. Come help improve Wikipedia's coverage of LA design and architecture, and have an awesome free day at the museum -- parking will be validated for edit-a-thon participants! If you'd like to use particular books from GRI's great collection, be sure to email before 2/13 (instructions at event page). And be sure to check out our main meetup page, because we already have three SoCal events scheduled for early March! I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

LA edit-a-thons on March 18 (tomorrow!) and 28

Wadewitz memorial edit-a-thon (3/18), Redondo Loves Wikipedia (3/28)

Dear fellow Wikipedian, The LA Wikipedia community has two events in this second half of March -- please consider attending! First, there is a memorial edit-a-thon in honor of the prolific LA Wikipedian Adrianne Wadewitz, which is being held downtown on March 18 (tomorrow!) from noon to 8pm as a part of the American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies' annual conference. Please drop by to contribute your own work or teach other users how to write for Wikipedia. Second, there will be an event at the Redondo Beach Public Library (following up on last month's session), in collaboration with the Redondo Beach Historical Society. Please join us from 10am to noon on Saturday, March 28 at the main branch of the Redondo Beach Public Library! I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

5th Annual Wiknic

5th Annual Wiknic (Saturday, July 11, 2015, ~9:30am-4pm)

Dear fellow Wikipedian, You are cordinally invited to the fifth annual Los Angeles Wiknic! The Wiknic is a part of the nationwide Great American Wiknic. We'll be grilling, getting to know each other better, and building the L.A. Wikipedia community! The event is tentatively planned for Pan-Pacific Park (map) and will be held on Saturday, July 11, 2014 from 9:30am to 4pm or so. Please RSVP and volunteer to bring food or drinks if possible! I hope to see you there! Howcheng (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Wikinic rescheduled

5th Annual Wiknic rescheduled to Saturday, July 25, 2015, ~9:30am-4pm

Due to a conflict with the Redondo Loves Wikipedia edit-a-thon, the fifth annual Los Angeles Wiknic has been rescheduled. As before, the location will be at Pan-Pacific Park (map) and will be held on Saturday, July 25, 2015 from 9:30am to 4pm or so. Please RSVP and volunteer to bring food or drinks if possible! I hope to see you there! —howcheng {chat} - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Heads up

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#How to protect against libel-slander attacks from competitor?Peter Rehse (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the heads up Peter, I left a note there and on his talk page. Nefariousski (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This Thursday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Getty Center

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Getty Center in LA on October 15! (drop-in any time, 10am-4pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wik-Ed Women Session #5

Wik-Ed Women Session #5

Dear fellow Wikipedian, I would like to personally invite you to the March edition of the Wik-Ed Women meetup, which will take place on March 15, from 6-10 in the evening. It will occur at Los Angeles Contemporary Archive, 2245 E Washington Blvd, Los Angeles, California 90021 (downtown LA -- map). The building has a pink top with old signage for American Accessories, Inc. dba Princess Accessories (Photos [PDF]). There is on-site parking in the back, which also has an entrance. If you cannot attend in person, you are more than willing to work remotely, as we appreciate all help that you can provide. Finally, here is a link to the Facebook event, in case you want to invite friends, as we are always looking for new editors to help expand coverage of women on Wikipedia! I hope to see you there! Cosmicphantom (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nefariousski. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

February 18 Wikipedia Day event in DTLA

LA Wikipedia Day Celebration (February 18)

Dear fellow Wikipedian, Please join us at our Wikipedia Day celebration at the Ace Hotel in downtown Los Angeles on Saturday, February 18, 2017 from 11 am to 5 pm! This event will feature lectures, panel discussions, lightning talks, open space discussions and collaboration, and--most importantly--cake! Please RSVP on the event page if you're thinking of joining us. I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Come and join us at the Wiknic

LA Meetup: 6th Wiknic, 7/15 @ Pan Pacific Park

Dear fellow Wikipedian, You are cordially invited to the 6th Los Angeles Wiknic, a part of the nationwide Great American Wiknic. We'll be grilling, getting to know each other better, and building the L.A. Wikipedia community! The event is planned for Pan-Pacific Park and will be held on Saturday, July 15, 2017 from 9:30am to 4pm or so. Please RSVP and volunteer to bring food or drinks if possible! I hope to see you there! Howcheng (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

LA event this Thursday

LA Meetup: September 7 edit-a-thon near DTLA

Dear fellow Wikipedian, You have been invited to a meetup and edit-a-thon at the LA84 Foundation in Jefferson Park (near DTLA) on Thursday, September 7, 2017 from 5:45 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.! This event aims to improve coverage of female Olympians and Paralympians (some of whom will be attending!). There will be a deejay and food/drinks, and kids are welcome. I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC) Join our Facebook group, follow our Twitter account, and like our Facebook page!! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Wikipedia Day LA, March 31

Wikipedia Day LA 2018

Please join us from 10:00 am - 5:00 pm on Saturday, March 31st for Wikipedia Day LA 2018 at the Ace Hotel in downtown Los Angeles. There will be speakers, panel discussions, a presentation on Wikidata, flash sessions, and a discussion about the formation of an LA User Group. There could be dramatic readings of LA-related talk pages, and there will be truly excellent cake. Please RSVP on the event page if you're thinking of joining us. We hope to see you there! JSFarman (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here, and follow us on Twitter . To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Arts Datathon!

LA County Civic Arts Datathon!

Please join us for the LA County Arts Commission Civic Art Wikipedia Edit-a-thon. Beginners are welcome! We'll provide training for new editors. (See the meetup page for more details.) Friday, April 27, 2018, 9:00-5:00 Bob Hope Patriotic Hall, 1816 S. Figueroa St., Los Angeles, CA 90015. We hope to see you there! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here, and follow us on Twitter . To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

7th Annual Los Angeles Wiknic

It's the 7th Annual Los Angeles Wiknic!

Sunday, September 30, 11:00-4:00 PM
Pan Pacific Park, 7600 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90036
Hang out. Consume crowd-sourced BBQ! Bask in the glory of late September in Los Angeles (and the glory
of our new user group, Wikimedians of Los Angeles).
RSVP (and volunteer) here.
We hope to see you there! JSFarman (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Join our Facebook group, or follow us on Twitter!

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Invitation to attend a Southern California Regional mini Unconference

Who: All Wikipedians & Wikimedians

What: Southern California Regional mini Unconference.

When: Sunday 3 March 2019, 2:00PM PST / 1400 until 4:10PM PST / 1610

Where: Philippe's at Chinatown, Los Angeles

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to the limited size of the cafe.

(Delivered: 00:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC) You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list & the Los Angeles mass mailing list.)

Wikipedia Day LA, February 24, 2019

Wikipedia Day LA 2019 Consider the Source

Please join the LA User Group, Wikimedians of Los Angeles, for an afternoon of panels, presentations and conversations on the subject of sources, and cake (locally sourced), in celebration of Wikipedia's 18th birthday. Sunday, February 24, 1:00 PM-5:00 PM The Ace Hotel (DTLA) 929 S Broadway, Los Angeles, CA 90015 For more details or to sign up, see Wikipedia Day LA, or RSVP via Eventbrite. Everyone is welcome! We hope to see you there. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here, and follow us on Twitter . To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Art + Feminism 2019

Art+Feminism 2019 Los Angeles Events!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, You are invited to join Art+Feminism's annual worldwide Wikipedia edit-a-thon and help close Wikipedia's gender gap at one of these Los Angeles–area museums this March! RSVP/Details here. Sunday, March 3: The Institute of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles (DTLA), Noon–5p. Focus: Women+Comedy. Saturday, March 9: Vincent Price Art Museum at East Los Angeles College (Monterey Park), Noon–4p. Focus: Latinx+Non-Binary Artists. Sunday, March 10: Hammer Museum (Westwood), Noon–5p. Focus: Women+Film+Media Sunday, March 17: LACMA (Miracle Mile), Noon–5p. Focus: Women+Design+Craft Sunday, March 31: California African American Museum (Exposition Park/USC), 1–4p. Focus: Women of CAAM. These Los Angeles events are co-hosted by online magazine East of Borneo and include step-by-step Wikipedia instruction for beginners. Bring your laptop or tablet computer and any reference materials you'd like to work from or share. People of all gender expressions and identities are encouraged to attend. I hope to see you there! StaceyEOB (talk)

- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

UC Irvine edit-a-thon on May 17, 2019

UC Irvine edit-a-thon on May 17, 2019

Dear fellow Wikipedian, You are cordially invited to an edit-a-thon this Friday in Orange County, focused on gender equity. The event is a collaboration between UCI and Women in Red. Friday, May 17, 2019 10:00 am – 4:00 pm PDT (UTC-7) Langson Library, Room 228, at University of California, Irvine Points of contact: Logistics: moderator, Prof. Adriana Briscoe Schedule: facilitators, Roger Bamkin & Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight For more details, including the registration link, please see the meetup page. Everyone is welcome! We hope to see you there.

--Rosiestep (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire invitation

270° panorama overlooking La Jolla Shores Beach as seen from the Martin Johnson House, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, during a late August sunset. Photo by Gregg M. Erickson

Meetup-San Diego-September 2K19

Who: All members of the public

What: Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire.

When: Sunday 1 September 2019, 2:00PM PDT / 1400 until 10:00PM PDT / 2200

Where: La Jolla Shores

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, and please add your intended potluck contribution to the list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject San Diego at 18:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC). You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list, and from the Southern California meet-up group by removing your name from the LA meet-ups mailing list.

Happy New Year from Wikimedians of Los Angeles!

Happy New Year from Wikimedians of Los Angeles! We're beginning to plan in-person and virtual events for 2022, and your support is needed as we re-launch the LA User Group. Please get involved! If you have ideas, or if you're interested in helping to lead the group, leave a note at Ideas for 2022 on our talk page. Join our Facebook group here. To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

--JSFarman (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

LA to FA 2022

LA to FA 2022

Dear Nefariousski, You're invited to a zoom call, taking place on February 11, with the goal of improving the article on Los Angeles to Featured article status! I often find it daunting to approach the Big Subjects on my own—so if you, like me, want a time to sit down with fellow dedicated editors and tackle something important and complex, this is the zoom for you! I, unfortunately, have no way to transmit snacks over zoom; but I trust you to exercise good judgement and discretion in selecting snacks of your own. Hope to see you there—if you're interested, add your name here! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC) To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

LA Meetup: February 17, 2024

Edit-a-thon and Wikipedia Day Celebration

Please join Wikimedians of Los Angeles on Saturday, February 17 from 12:00 to 4:00 pm for a Los Angeles and West Hollywood-themed edit-a-thon at the West Hollywood Library. (For the details and to sign up, see Wikipedia:Meetup/Los Angeles/February 2024.) We'll also be celebrating Wikipedia's 23rd birthday/Wikipedia Day. (There will be cake!) We hope to see you there! JSFarman via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here. To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.