User talk:Peter G Werner

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Peter G Werner! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Campus Ambassador needed

Hi! My name is Annie Lin - I'm the Campus Team Coordinator at the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm contacting you because you're listed as a resident of San Francisco, and we're currently looking for a friendly Wikipedian to teach students in a University of San Francisco class how to use/edit Wikipedia. This is a role titled the "Wikipedia Campus Ambassador," and you'll basically be doing in-class presentations about Wikipedia, running Wikipedia labs/workshops, and in general providing face-to-face Wikipedia help for the professor and the students in the class. The time commitment is about 3-5 hours a week (with variations throughout the semester), and for this particular University of San Francisco class, most of the workload will be between March and May.

Please let me know if you're interested!

Thanks. Annie Lin (Campus Team Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not interested. 3-5 hours per week, week in week out, and unpaid is a huge commitment, even if it was on my own campus (Merritt College). Second issue, you're additionally asking me to do this on a campus (USF) I have no connection with whatsoever, and to commit 3-5 hours per week to that. It simply amazes me that Wikimedia Foundation is asking this of people. I'm not sure how many volunteers you're getting this way, but you'd probably get more if you allowed for varying levels of commitment. Also, avoid assigning people to spend time on campuses they have no connection to! Peter G Werner (talk) 08:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Peter G Werner (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Socialist Party of America

Dear Peter,

I reviewed Drucker's book, which is visible at Amazon (with a page limit). I found some page numbers which may be useful to our readers.

1. Harrington and the majority caucuses had opposing viewpoints in nearly every issue of New America. [page 307]
2. McReynolds quit in 1970. [page 305 (McReynolds's SPUSA-Oregon blog states repeatedly that he quite in 1971, but this must be wrong, because several newspaper accounts quote his departure in 1970.)]

I am glad that we both like Drucker's biography of Shachtman, which succeeds in understanding a Shachtman despite Drucker's profound differences, as stated in his preface---an understanding that I find admirable and which I should like to do a better job of achieving!

I mention these pages in the book, in case they disagree with what you had written many years ago. If you have time, and if this interests you still, perhaps you would care to revisit these issues?

I should confess to having quite strong admiration and even affection for Michael Harrington, and I hope that these emotions do not cloud my judgement. It's better to confess such possible biases, now, to put you on your guard.

1. Shachtman and his followers had a strategy was to win a negotiated peace, one which would protect the safety of communists in the South, as noted in 1972 by the NYT. P. 303. Shachtman supported bombing perhaps (p. 305) or perhaps not (p. 303). [I add that the Socialist Party was against bombing by 1966 (as you can see at the convention resolution)]. Drucker says that Harrington won stronger criticism of the Vietnam War in every convention (p. 307)
2. Harrington compromised with Shachtman and the others through 1972 (p. 307)—much I add (as known from Isserman's biography of Harrington) to the irritation of Irving Howe at Dissent and to the New Left. Harrington and the majority negotiated compromise positions from 68-summer 1972 (307)
3. I could not find any mention of "Debs caucus" in the book, although McReynolds was mentioned. Perhaps you could re-check your copy, which may have a useful pencil mark or scrap of paper, if we are lucky.... (I have bad eyes and could easily have missed a mention of the Debs Caucus.)
4. There are some other issues, where I couldn't find a precise statement in Draper to match the history written by you and many other contributors over more than 5 years. However, I think that you can check the history of my revisions and note any changes I've made, and (without undue trouble) please correct any errors I've made (and forgive me for perhaps editing too boldly).

Thanks again for your work on this article, many years ago. I hope that this note brings back pleasant memories, of your editing and of course of the events that interested you in this topic in the first place. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Remove what you wish

Peter,

I should be glad to remove or edit sections, per your request and per common sense, if I may have your permission.

Of course, you have the right to remove all my my postings here, whenever you want, and I consider it generous that you left my complaints here.

I wish and shall now remove my postings, in what I think to be the spirit of your last request. If I have misinterpreted your wishes, then please revert my edits and please accept my apologies.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Socialist Party of America

Hi again Peter!

I have made similar edits to the SPA article's talk page, following repeated suggestions by several persons. Would you please complain if I have removed anything improperly. I believe that now you may wish to do similar editing, because your prose refers to now deleted comments. I trust that you or Demiurge1000 may perform similar clean-ups, and then I may finish my clean-ups. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to strike my contributions to the "NPOV Tags" section, if you strike yours and DU1000's. (I did not want to strike only mine.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I went ahead and blanked the section, as I thought was consistent with a consensus. Please revert me if I am wrong and of course accept my apologies if I was in error.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:NeatStuff02.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:NeatStuff02.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Hi Peter, this is just a note to let you know you were mentioned in a recently opened RfC/U on Kiefer.Wolfowitz. I realise you may not wish to revisit the issues from a few months ago, but equally you may choose to comment there.

Sorry to have notified you rather late; Worm was advised that it was best to notify anyone who was mentioned in any detail in the RfC/U, but we got our wires crossed as to who/when/how that would be done. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited The Nuns, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Demo and Chelsea Hotel (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) 10:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

San Francisco meetup at WMF headquarters

Hi Peter G Werner,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)