User talk:NickCT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Notification per WP:CANVASS[edit]

Regarding the MR, you will, I trust, notify all of the participants in the discussion? You can find the list, including editors who chimed in on the discussion that followed the RM closure, at User:BD2412/sandbox1. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@BD2412: - *grumble* - Yeah.... I got ALL day to shoot out notifications. (sarc mark)
Do I have to go to their talkpages or can I ping them? NickCT (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
With BD2142's list, you can probably set up AWB to append everyone's page with the notice.--v/r - TP 19:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
@TParis: - Ummmm..... If I haven't done AWB before? I can probably figure it out. It might take me an hour or so.
I can't just ping everyone? That would be easy. NickCT (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, I'll do it. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
@BD2412: - Ok thanks. I'll have to familiarize myself with AWB. NickCT (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
You really should - it's a fantastic tool for handling high-volume tasks. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification[edit]

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Oscar Lopez Rivera". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 28 May 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 13:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: HRC move review[edit]

Regarding this edit. I am not going to clutter up the move review with further discussion concerning this topic. I will save further diffs and contradictions for any RFC/U or ArbCom case that may arise. I am not referring to you as an editor directly, although I do believe you are part of that clique. I do not assign motives lightly, but if I see a pattern I do tend to look deeper. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2014

Ok. Well giving you the benefit of the doubt for a second, i'll assume you do have good evidence to believe that some of the folks arguing for a move are doing so purely out of spite. Would you be willing to share that evidence? I'd be interested to hear it.
Glad you brought this to my talk page. We were definitely cluttering the move review page. NickCT (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I would much rather not do more research or provide any sort of 'evidence'. Ever. I don't come to Wikipedia to get into ideological battles, or arguments with other editors. I find for the most part there are very good editors on this project. Everyone has their own opinions, and we have policies to help solve issues that arise from disagreements. Except for certain sectors of the project, where there seems to always be problems, with problematic editors. Where policies are used to bend and manipulate articles/discussions in order to push certain undesirable outcomes. But I won't be producing any sort of 'evidence' unless there is a good reason to. I do not want to get into long drawn out discussions, that turn into battles. Which is why I tend to stay away from ANI and ArbCom unless I find it absolutely necessary. I will say that I found that the IP who started the move request is probably an editor who also !voted there under their username, and has multiple issues concerning women on this project. A long history of constant battles regarding that issue. If you feel my opinions on this are a problem without producing evidence, you are welcome to disregard my comments or even ask for sanctions against me. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
@DD2K: - I'm not a wikilawyer. I don't "ask for sanctions", except in extreme cases, which this is clearly not.
I'll just point out that if you say something like "my opponents have ulterior motives", then you don't offer any proof, it seems a little like you aren't assuming good faith. It will also make people who don't ulterior motives a little upset at being accused.
Agree "certain sectors" of the project are more problematic than others. NickCT (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I do understand that those who do not have ulterior motives would be upset by some of those types of accusations, which is why I do not question the motives of editors lightly, and don't wish to keep engaging in that type of discussion, unless it's absolutely necessary. But I also believe that most unbiased editors can look at certain comments and actions in the request and review and see the obvious. That is not to say that those who cannot see it, or do not agree with me are either biased or have ulterior motives. There are many other reasons one would not, and one of those is the systemic bias of the project. Which doesn't have to be a purposeful action to an underrepresented group, but just the life experience of people. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Dave those are slanderous remarks and you should strike them at the move review. Focus on content not motivation. The IP was likely Kauffner and is now blocked as a sock of same I believe.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a 0% chance I strike my comments. If you feel I have violated some policy, I encourage you to take it to the appropriate venue. Dave Dial (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh come on Obi-Wan Kenobi. We were having a productive discussion. Let's not get all hoitey toitey and ask people to strike things. This is my talkpage. People are free to question motivations here without anyone getting upset. Let's assume that Dave Dial does have some good reason to doubt the motives of some of our fellow editors. You never know. He might be right.
@Dave Dial - If, as you say, there are "obvious" indications that editors seeking to "move" are doing so for reasons other than policy, then it should be really easy for you to point to those indications.
You've already invested a couple paragraphs in asserting that there is a bias. Why not back it up? NickCT (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
(I was assuming that the accusation was leveled at B2C, who has had some... interesting... views about page moves; but I can't see B2C using an IP account to propose a move). bd2412 T 18:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
@BD2412: - re "some... interesting... views" - Ok. And pray tell.... What might those views be, or where can I find them? I thought B2C's rationales were relatively clear and cogent in the context of this HRC discussion. NickCT (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
In the HRC discussion, B2C consistently argued that the evidence of common name was basically a wash, and the only thing that mattered was conciseness. Conciseness matters, but not to the point of ignoring the common name evidence from a wide variety of sources. He has expressed the same view in a number of other move request discussions. bd2412 T 18:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
@BD2412: - I saw Obi-Wan Kenobi make the "wash" comment, but not B2C. Regardless, though I might not agree with the COMMONNAME analysis or the interpretation of policy you've just attributed to B2C, I'm not sure I'd call them "outlandish" or "unreasonable" either. When you said "interesting...", I thought for a second you were going to tell me that B2C had said women didn't deserve 3 names or something comparable. That would have been an "interesting..." viewpoint. NickCT (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
No, I was not saying B2C started the request using an IP. Although I think a certain bias of his shines through in many of his posts on move requests. We all have our biases, but if it becomes so much of a problem that it turns into disruption, then other steps have to be taken. I'm not sure we're there yet, but I do not frequent move requests, move reviews, AfDs or those types of discussions very frequently. I think perhaps 5 or 6 combined? A few more recently. So while being surprised at some comments, and some contradictions in when and when not to emphasize certain policies, a pattern develops. I think that much is pretty obvious without presenting any 'evidence'. Dave Dial (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
@DD2K: - Dave, I love you dude and I'm really happy to hear your opinions, but at the same time, you keep going on about "patterns" and "motives" and "certain comments" without expanding on what those patterns/motives or comments actually are. Honestly, it's beginning to sound a little paranoid. I'd love to discuss with you further, but you're going to have to give me specifics. NickCT (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I was talking about this:"It offends some people that she didn't take her husbands family name right away, and still uses her own family name. That is what is going on here. That's the elephant in the room. We have a group of editors dedicated to remove Rodham from her name just for spite. There is no other reason to dedicate so much time and energy to subtracting 6 characters from a Title of an article." And then ongoing bullshit hand waving conspiracy theories above. It's lame Dave, especially to make scurrilous accusations about secret identities - that are wrong by the way - and of course you can chatter on about it here but leveling such accusations against a vast supermajority of good faith editors who !voted to move this article to what is considered by them to be a more common title - something any obvious research will demonstrate - and ascribing it to spite is offensive. If you want to talk about POV pushing, the thinly veiled feminist rhetoric that suggests the title of this article is somehow the front line of women's rights on Wikipedia is a great demonstration of POV editing - it's incredibly daft and lazy when there are so many other systemic bias issues none of the outraged objectors have even bothered to look at - this title is irrelevant to systemic bias - remember, she ran for president of these United States under this name!! I'll give one example of a sort of systemic bias which is the ghettoization of women in women's categories, something that caused an uproar a year ago, I've done a lot of deghettoize room work to fix it but I've seen only one or two editors alongside helping, most people who expressed outrage a year ago are doing nothing, even though the fix is relatively easy, it's a bit boring - but instead people will spend 10k byes of discussion inventing new ways of interpreting very basic policies like concise and criteria and commonname and defending to their last breath those famous 6 characters. I'm not going to lose sleep if the Rodham stays forever but I get the feeling the oppose side will feel a great moral battle has been lost. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for defending my post on the move review. That is exactly the point I was making, and I'm glad that you get it. - WPGA2345 - 20:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreement to mediation[edit]

Would you be able to signify your agreement (or not) to the Oscar Lopez Rivera mediation on the mediation page here? Sunray (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Molyneux RFC[edit]

At Talk:Stefan Molyneux#Survey, you wrote that you "Glanced at the references". I hope to express the importance that everyone participating look more deeply into the issue (since, if it was solvable "at a a glance" no RfC would be needed). I've compiled a page at User:Netoholic/Molyneux that compiles some citations and quotes about him that could be helpful, allowing you to both be thorough but not take too long in looking them over. If you're not able to (I know it can be complex), then maybe you'll rescind your vote until you get a chance. -- Netoholic @ 05:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Netoholic: - Sorry. I don't want to read through that entire thing. But I'll tell you what; if you can point to just two high quality RS (e.g. major news outlets - BBC, NBC, NYT or mainstream magazine, Time, Economist or major philosophy texts) which directly call Molyneux a "philosopher" in an unqualified manner, in the same sense that the sources below do, I'll happily change my position.
Seem reasonable? NickCT (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I think what you're asking is a tall order. Virtually no living philosophers ever see their names on mainstream media, and if they do, its probably not in a context that makes the unqualified use of the term in the exact way you want. I took a look at probably the most famous living philosopher, Michael Sandel. His references section includes mainstream media sources like you're asking (2 BBC, 1 Japan Times, 1 Guardian, 1 The Times, 1 Economist), and none of the ones I could read make the "unqualified" use of "philosopher Michael Sandel".
  • The Times - (dead link)
  • Japan Times - "Few philosophers are compared to rock stars or TV celebrities, but that's the kind of popularity Michael Sandel enjoys in Japan. The "Justice" course that Sandel teaches at Harvard University, where he is a professor of political philosophy"
  • BBC 4 - "Professor Michael Sandel presents a series of lectures from his Harvard undergraduate course in Political Philosophy"
  • BBC Radio 4 - "His guests include Harvard politics professor Michael Sandel, who gives this year's Reith Lectures on A New Citizenship, addressing the 'prospect for a new politics of the common good'.
  • The Guardian - "This year's Reith Lectures on BBC Radio 4 will be delivered by political philosopher and Harvard University professor, Michael Sandel".
  • The Economist - "Michael Sandel, a Harvard political philosopher"
Now, Sandel is strictly a "political philosopher", but you can see the variation in the sources. Molyneux on the other hand has produced political, ethical, and theistic philosophy - the sources are equally varied in how they describe him. Plus, while he is notable, he's hardly famous so the pool of sources is smaller. I hope you can see why this is a complex issue and can't be solved "at a glance". Context matters, and when sources discuss his published philosophy, it makes sense that he is a "philosopher". -- Netoholic @ 18:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
@Netoholic - I appreciate your position. I think it's important to remember that Wikipedia is about verifiability and not truth. I'm not asking whether Molyneux is or isn't a philosopher. He may well be. He may be a great philosopher. I don't know. I don't care.
The only thing I really care about in the context of this discussion is; "Are there high quality RSs that call Milyneux a philosopher". By your own admission, the answer to that seems to be no.
Now I understand your point that few "living philosophers ever see their names on mainstream media", but my response to that would be that WP should probably be calling few living people "philosophers". NickCT (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the same case could be made a lot of professions that aren't very "sexy" for mainstream media. But we have to work with the context of the sources we have and choose the best words. There is no better in this case than "philosopher", and that agrees with his own self-description... anything else could be considered contentious. -- Netoholic @ 19:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I think there's also the fact that "philosopher" is a sorta nebulous term in the way that other professions are not. It's fairly easy to define what a professional golfer is. It's not easy to define what a "philosopher" is. I think the fact that mainstream media doesn't apply a label to a lot of professions is that for a lot of professions it's hard to apply. WP should probably reflect the RS there and apply those labels sparingly.
re "There is no better in this case than "philosopher"" - But the RfC was presenting a choice between calling him a philosopher or nothing, right? In this case I think nothing is a better choice. Not calling him anything can't be contentious. NickCT (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
No, the RfC is just about whether it should be "philosopher (without qualification)", as opposed to something like "libertarian philosopher"/"libertarian"/"political philosopher" or something else. Check this quote that wasn't on my compiled page before, I found it after you were asking:
Its a fairly straightforward use of the word "philosopher" to describe him, at least. -- Netoholic @ 20:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
re "as opposed to something like "libertarian philosopher"/"libertarian"/"political philosopher"" - The RfC question is misstated then. The RfC question seems to be asking whether we should use the word "philosopher" at all. Reading through the responses, this is how most people seem to have taken the question.
Ok. I see and accept your Times reference. I'll count that as 1 out of 2. One more and I'll support unqualified use of "philosopher". NickCT (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah the RfC was kind of not fully thought-out by the editor that started it (he's been an opposed to the article subject for a long while). Anyway, not sure if it works for you, but Toronto's Globe & Mail used a somewhat sensationalized version in their headline, How a cyberphilosopher convinced followers to cut off family, not sure if that works for you. I also have a published book reference that uses the term plainly as "Being humble has made him one of the most trusted philosophers of our time" (page 26 of link). I've updated the lead line on Stefan Molyneux... all 6 refs there at the top have quotes from the sources if you hover over them. I personally think there's plenty of direct and indirect references to his philosophy career now. Appreciate your time looking into this no matter what decision you come to. I'll always keep looking for better sources. -- Netoholic @ 03:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd call Globe and Mail "high quality" RS, but there they actually are qualifying "philosopher" with "cyber", right? So I'm not sure that supports your point. I'm having difficulty assessing the quality of the book you've pointed to. I think I'm still leaning towards "no" here, but I'll shift my position to neutral given your cogent argument. NickCT (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to take another look. It seems like every RS we find uses qualification to "philosopher" but none uses the same qualification consistently either so if the RfC goes through we're going to have just as hard a time deciding what qualifier to use. For example, The Globe & Mail did a followup article where the same writer (who used "cyberphilosopher" before) now uses "self-described Internet philosopher", so they aren't even consistent on the qualifiers between his own articles. It feels like all the good RS's "dance" around philosopher a lot but none hit that bullseye enough times either. --Netoholic @ 07:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
@Netoholic: - Yeah. Recognize your point there. Again, my sentiment is that "philosopher" is a hard label to apply, so it gets applied inconsistently. It's like calling someone an "artist". To do so, you've got to be able to explain what art is. And when you start trying to explain what art is the conversation can start becoming very..... well.... philosophical. NickCT (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar! Its easy and enjoyable to have civil discussion with someone who wants to look at this from the impartial "verifiability, not truth" angle and has reasonable standards that he states up front and is willing to stick with if I can deliver. Makes that challenge a pleasure to attempt, even a pleasure not to fully surmount. Happy editing! -- Netoholic @ 07:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi again, its me. I found another news source, this one is a local paper, not top-shelf mainstream, but does make use of "philosopher" without qualifiers.

Also I wanted run a thought by you if you don't mind. In my view, a source is either wholly reliable, or it is not - we cannot say a source is reliable for one statement, but not reliable for another. Imagine if we treated RS like this. Is The New York Times reliable for news items related to one topic, but unreliable for stories on other topics? Which? Who decides? That can get really ugly. I get that some sources are more "authoritative", and we like to use the most authoritative reliable source we can find, but we work with what we have. So, basically, if we are using a RS article for some statements (Molyneux is an author - Molyneux hosts a show - Molyneux is a speaker), isn't the same article an equally RS for "Molyneux is a philosopher"? Like you said, we're about verifiability, not truth, so am I right in thinking we shouldn't debate about whether the article is right on that specific point, only establish them as a RS and then cite that they said it? -- Netoholic @ 07:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Netoholic: - re "another news source" - Yeah. That's not a bad source, but again, not hugely convincing. Publications with a national audience are better.
re "we cannot say a source is reliable for one statement, but not reliable for another" - Sure. Absolutely. But I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that there are other statements in the Molyneux article, which are only supported by passing mentions in the Times? Can you point to them?
re "on that specific point" - One isn't trusting any one RS to verify things. If the Economist, the Times and History of Political Philosophy all pointed Molyneux and used the term "philosopher", then you'd be pretty safe in using "philosopher" as an adjective. Not because any one of those sources is the ultimate authority on who is or is not a "philosopher", but because there seems to be agreement among sources that "philosopher" is right.
Again, given that the subject of this BLP isn't a highly notable figure, it's a little tough to verify things by that high bar (i.e. multiple high quality RS). In such cases, I prefer to err on the side of caution, and simply not make statements which aren't easily verified. NickCT (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, some of the same sources that mention "philosopher" are also used for other details in the article (view points, appearances, his show, etc). The problem is that in the votes section of the RfC, several people are saying things like "The cited references are not RS to call him a philosopher". What I don't get is how a source can be uncontroversially reliable for some things, but unreliable for other statements like "philosopher". I don't believe that's a valid vote reason. -- Netoholic @ 01:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
@Netoholic: - re "are also used for other details in the article" - Ok. Highlight the "details" in question you're disputing on the talk page, and we can remove those too. NickCT (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Washington, DC meetups in June[edit]

Greetings!

Wikimedia DC.svg

Wikimedia DC has yet another busy month in June. Whether you're a newcomer to Wikipedia or have years of experience, we're happy to see you come. Here's what's coming up:

  • On Wednesday, June 11 from 7 to 9 PM come to the WikiSalon at the Cove co-working space. Hang out with Wikipedia enthusiasts!
  • Saturday, June 14 is the Frederick County History Edit-a-Thon from 11 AM to 4 PM. Help improve local history on Wikipedia.
  • The following Saturday, June 21, is the June Meetup. Dinner and drinks with Wikipedians!
  • Come on Tuesday, June 24 for the Wikipedia in Your Library edit-a-thon at GWU on local and LGBT history.
  • Last but not least, on Sunday, June 29 we have the Phillips Collection Edit-a-Thon in honor of the Made in America exhibit.

Wikipedia is better with friends, so why not come out to an event?

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

New England Wikimedians summer events![edit]

Upcoming events hosted by New England Wikimedians!

After many months of doubt, nature has finally warmed up and summer is almost here! The New England Wikimedians user group have planned some upcoming events. This includes some unique and interesting events to those who are interested:

Although we also aren't hosting this year's Wikimania, we would like to let you know that Wikimania this year will be occurring in London in August:

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

New England Wikimedians summer events![edit]

Upcoming events hosted by New England Wikimedians!

After many months of doubt, nature has finally warmed up and summer is almost here! The New England Wikimedians user group have planned some upcoming events. This includes some unique and interesting events to those who are interested:

Although we also aren't hosting this year's Wikimania, we would like to let you know that Wikimania this year will be occurring in London in August:

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Oscar Lopez Rivera, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Please comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:People with disabilities[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:People with disabilities. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The Great American Wiknic and other events in July[edit]

Wikinic 2013 washington d.c. 02.JPG

I am pleased to announce our fourth annual picnic, the Great American Wiknic, will take place at Meridian Hill Park in Washington, D.C. on Sunday, July 13 from 1 to 5 PM (rain date: July 20). We will be hanging out by the statue of Dante Alighieri, a statue that was donated to the park in 1921 as a tribute to Italian Americans. Read more about the statue on Wikipedia. If you would like to sign up for the picnic, you can do so here. When signing up, say what you’re going to bring!

July will also feature the second annual Great American Wiknic in Frederick, Maryland. This year’s Frederick picnic will take place on Sunday, July 6 at Baker Park. Sign up here for the Frederick picnic.

What else is going on in July? We have the American Chemical Society Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, July 12, dedicated to notable chemists, and our monthly WikiSalon on Wednesday, July 16.

We hope to see you at our upcoming events!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gertrude Weaver[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gertrude Weaver. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Stevens Edit-a-Thon![edit]

Ftstevens.jpg

Greetings!

Sorry for the last minute update, but our friends at the DC Historical Society have scheduled a Battle of Fort Stevens Edit-a-Thon to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Civil War battle fought in the District. The event will last from noon to 2 PM on Wednesday, July 30. Hope you can make it!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)