This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive Map
Old Archives (pre-bot, up to somewhere in July 2007)
Year 2007
VII	VIII	IX	X
Year 2008
I	II	III		V	VI
VII	VIII	IX	X	XI	XII
Year 2009
I	II	III	IV	V	VI
VII	VIII	IX	X	XI	XII
Year 2010
I	II	III	IV	V	VI
VII	VIII	IX	X	XI	XII
Year 2011
I	II	III	IV	V	VI
VII	VIII	IX	X	XI	XII

Archive for January 2009

Wall of Honor

It is with great pleasure that I present you Cerejota, with this "plaque" upon your induction into the "Wall of Honor". Tony the Marine (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed speedy deletion of Louis Dalton

Hi, I confused as to why you proposed Louis Dalton, Seán McCurtin, Patrick Duffy (Irish politician) for speedy deletion. I assume you are familiar with WP:POLITICIAN. To refresh your memory - "People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges." All the candidates which you nominated were members of the national legislature of Ireland (specifically Dáil Éireann, the lower house of the Oireachtas), so they are quite clearly notable. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with these and other notability guidelines, as it will save you from wasting your time in future. Thanking you! Snappy (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In my time..." - well times change and for the better too! So wikipedia can have articles like this and IS the better for it. As for you vile comment well I guess it takes one to know one. Thanking you! Snappy (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what I wrote that would be considered anyway offensive. You're the one that started with the name calling. Very mature of you. Thanking you! Snappy (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence merely offered sensible advice, because as soon as you added your speedy delete tag to my notable article, it was removed, hence wasting your time. You appear to have misconstrued my meaning. You also admitted that things had changed since your last outing, so you weren't familiar with the updated guidelines. Then you get all huffy when someone asks you to please familiarise yourself with them. Also, although you are familiar enough with WP:IPAT to know the shortcut, it doesn't have stopped you from engaging in personal attacks and name calling on me. Thanking you! Snappy (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your apology and I apologize for thinking you were a dickhead, and I won't offer you any advice in future. Let's leave it for now. Snappy (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israel-Gaza conflict intro

What is the reason for this edit? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=261842879&oldid=261842807

I thought the previous version was clearer and more concise. But what I think is very important that your version does not have any mention of the six-month truce and how it ended. This has been discussed (you can read my argumentation on the talk page) and I thought including the truce (and Hamas' claim that Israel didn't respect its terms) had gained support on the talk page. Offliner (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded in the tlak page of this editor.--Cerejota (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message on my talk page

I have responded to your message on my talk page. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tundra

You're right I should have used a milder warning for tundra, but your encouraging a user to make disruptive edits and me to revert them suggests we both waste our time, so Thanks! but No Thanks! Your ownership issues on the 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict page have got you into fights with what, three or four editors now? Suggest you look at your own tone before pointing fingers. RomaC (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on his talk page.--Cerejota (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza intro

Er, was it really necessary to undo the edits I made to the introduction? One simply removed unnecesssarily controversial words and the other corrected a point of historical fact. What is the problem with them? -- Noung (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo

Heyo Cerejota,
Please review WP:NPA and remember to focus on content rather than fellow editors and how you perceive them.
Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded in talk page of editor.--Cerejota (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review recent comments you've made on the Israeli operation in Gaza article. There are many personal references instead of content based comments. If you review your comments there and the issue is still unclear, let me know and I'll try and find you a diff or two to further clarify this message.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St Pancake

I love your userpage. Thank you for deleting that redirect, I blanked it but didn't know how to delete it. arimareiji (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja template

Hi,

You added the ninja template (I know it probably has a more technical, boring name). Is there any way of it being only visible to wiki editors signed into their accounts, and not general readers?VR _talk 18:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Quote

Thank you :). I'm glad you liked it. --Darwish07 (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Edit ninjas

Template:Edit ninjas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 22:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol, appreciated your "rant"

Just wanted to let you know that I agreed with every word of your "rant" re NonZionist on the naming page. I too feel his purpose at wiki is disruptive (though not intended to be so) and its purpose is not to reach consensus but to push POV. I said as much on his talk page, after looking over just a few of his contribs. Anyway, I did think your rant was right on. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do

I definitely like your style, I do. And funny User page too. Debresser (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currencies of Puerto Rico

Hey, check out this beauty! - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should work it out by steps, we have a DYK hook that is a surebet, but we should probably begin with GAC. FAC is full of people that enjoy opposing for the silliest stuff (ex. "OMG I does not understand this paragraph!") and I still want to add a few images as seasoning. In any case, I will post the revision shortly and pursue the DYK hook, can you handle the GA nom? - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new version is up, I'm currently wrestling my way trough DYK's ranks. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Ninjas

Hi, a screenshot of your template has appeared on the front page of Digg: http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Wikipedia_is_under_attack_from_ninjas — ThreeDee912(^talk/_contribs) 19:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk

HI,

Since you made this edit, please also join the discussion here: Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead#Name_of_the_conflict.VR _talk 04:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

casualties in the lead

I'm not forum shopping. You reverted my edit stating in your edit summary, it was "per discussions". I looked at the discussions and, in fact, a majority of editors did want to include concise casualty counts in the lead. I started a new discussion purely for courtesy. In my count now, in the discussions here and here at least 5 editors RomaC, NonZionist, Fences and Windows, Lapsed Pacifist and Thrylos support inclusion of casualties in the lead. When, I'm added that makes 6. You strongly disagree as do Tundrabuggy and VR but as of now, this is clearly a minority opinion.

Moreover, the last comment by RomaC, on the discussion page, and my current comment there are unanswered, so its not as if the supporters of this viewpoint are avoiding discussion. I suggest you discuss this issue further and garner additional support before reverting me again. best, Jacob2718 (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaza Massacre

Cerejota, as a neutral editor in-here between us, I'm asking you to notice that my 3 replies to Brewcrewer problems with the term Gazza massacre have been unchallenged throughout the whole debate. People are just re-phrasing the arguments without challenging my 3 replies, that's because I think the replies are reasonable, and powerful enough to prove that those 3 "problems" are false logic.

I'm asking you, if those replies are still unchallenged, that we clearly end this debate and leave the term as is. Cause I really believe they completely deny the validity of given 3 "problems". Go re-check the replies in the format "Reply to claim 1", "reply to claim 2", ... and I'm sure you'll be convinced. Especially about "Reply 2" and "reply 2.1". --Darwish07 (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

roof knocking

I reverted your tag placements to the article. I went though the entire article and did not find one word that was unsourced. I understand you're not interested in the article being at wikipedia, but there are ways of getting rid of articles. Please don't place irrelevant tags on the article.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Before you tag my article Jeanne of Angouleme with deletion, why not allow me to finish it? Is it really so necessary to be so gung-ho with speedy deletion tags?--jeanne (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does it look now, Cerejota?--jeanne (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cerejota! Cheers.--jeanne (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what do you think about my opinion?

i wrote to talk:Minerva (Agora ID)--Ilovesabbath (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk

I have responded on my talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobScheurwater (talk • contribs) 10:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the Talk not the User Talk but I copied it there to now —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobScheurwater (talk • contribs) 10:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobScheurwater (talk • contribs) 11:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your repeated tagging of the article

You added a whole bunch of tags to the article for the second time without giving any explanation. I asked you to explain the tags but you ignored my question and replaced the tags. So I'm trying again. Let's start with the first tag: Please point to one part of the article that is unsourced. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded in his talk page: as he posted this I posted a multi-point explanation. This is precisely why we assume good faith, before saying people are ignoring you (besides a 20 minute window is hardly ignoring :D)--Cerejota (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota, you are a fine one to accuse others of "pointyness" as you have me so often lately. Are you following Brewcrewer around and attempting to delete his articles because he has taken a different position from you on an article you have invested much of your time and energy into in recent days? It really looks like you are using wikipedia as a battlefield. I urge you to rethink this tact and get back to productive editing. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation of wikistalking is ludicrous. I am sorry but you leave me no option Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tundrabuggy_uncivil_accusation_of_wikistaliking_is_last_straw..--Cerejota (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up your actions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI notice on my talk page.

I received your COI notice on my talk page about Feminine essence theory of transsexuality (which appears twice, for some reason). It would be helpful to me, however, if you could be more specific about what it is that you feel was inappropriate about the article or my edits. Because I have some real-world expertise in this topic and because this topic is extremely controversial, I am very careful to remain aware of COI and the other relevant policies. In fact, with a look, you can see that the great majority of my edits are on the talk pages rather than actual pages of these topics. I carefully re-read WP:COI before creating Feminine essence theory of transsexuality, and I am having trouble seeing where you think I went wrong.

WP:COI says “Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies.” The article is written well within WP:N, I disclosed my relationship with the person whose work I cited (I did not cite any materials that I published myself), and I alerted the wikiproject in sexology to the page so that any interested editor on the topic could review things such as notability and conformity to other policies. Without a more specific indication, I am having trouble seeing what you found objectionable. (There have been some comments which you might want to read, by other editors, on my talk page, following your notice.)
— James Cantor (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on James talk page.--Cerejota (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota, I think that the problem is the potential for your actions to look less "helpfully informative" and more "punitive and intimidating". I see, for example, that you have not posted the same templates at Andrea James's user page (here, or at on the user page of Lynn Conway's personal friend (here), which suggests POV-based bias on your part. You ignored the distinctly biased edits of User:DarlieB, whose occasional work at The Man Who Would Be Queen suggests a complete inability to differentiate from personal POV and information in reliable sources (see, e.g., endless demands that we prove that The New York Times did 'enough' investigation before writing a feature article about the popular reaction to this book). For that matter, why not template all of the editors that are themselves transwomen with passionate personal opinions on the subject? (BTW, if you were to eliminate all transwomen and all people that have ever met any of the people involved in this scandal, the list of non-COI editors is: me. Note that I do not recommend that you discourage participation this way.)

You also identified no actual instances of James Cantor's editing that does not conform with high-quality WP:Reliable sources (e.g., the published scientific literature), and I suspect that while his edits tend to present current scientific ideas instead of the POV held by various political activists, that you won't actually find any actual COI edits -- unless, of course, you believe that having a sexologist edit articles related to sex is inherently a COI problem, in which case perhaps you should suggest to WP:WikiProject Medicine that physicians should be very careful about editing articles related to medicine.

Finally, considering the polarized atmosphere that around these articles, your actions are likely to leave one 'side' wondering exactly what prompted your decision to template a regular editor, e.g, another meatpuppet effort.

In short, if you actually have actual concerns, I think you could have found a friendlier and less suspicious way of presenting them, and if you don't have actual concerns, I think that dumping templates on his user talk page was an inappropriate choice. For the future, perhaps you will find a few minutes to reflect on WP:DNTTR's advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding on user talk.--Cerejota (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understood my main point: James Cantor's professional connection to the subjects were already well-known to every single editor at the relevant pages. Cantor is open about it, and Dick mentions it in approximately 50% of his talk page messages. So what's the point behind templating a person who has been very public about his connection? Do you think this is actually required, to warn all other editors? (If so, then we need to template all the other people listed above, because their COIs are equally trivial to verify.) Or did you simply assume that Dicklyon's AfD posting represented new information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Cantor

Thanks for the recent edits at The Man Who Would Be Queen. While I agree that James Cantor is not notable and agree about your assessment of his opinion, I would argue that his review of that particular book is notable. See my reasons on Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen. The National Academies even revised his blurb in the wake of complaints that it claimed to represent the views of the American Psychological Association. They added his name and noted where it appeared, but left his quotation because it was so positive. Cantor has been trying to downplay his involvement in this controversy because of the questions raised about his conflicts of interest. I avoid making changes to these articles except to correct errors for potential COI reasons myself, so would you consider discussing this here or there? Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, The National Academies revised its blurb because >I< asked them to. I still have the emails. The rest of Jokestress' beliefs about the motivations of other people are the product of her imagination and mind-reading.
— James Cantor (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Roof knocking. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 21:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|There is no evidence of edit warring: I did 13 consecutives edits, which are 1RR - without any previous history of editing the page, besides requesting an AfD. I did add some tags, with the accompaning talk page comments. I simply do not see edit warring.}}

Then what do you call this, this, and this. They all look like re additions of the same reverted content to me. Tiptoety ^talk 22:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a block is not warranted under the circumstances: there is no previous evidence of bad faith editing, contentious editing, even 3RR. AT most, you could have warned me that you saw it as edit warring.

The diffs clearly show there is no edit warring: two of those diffs were for one user's own reversions (is he edit warring for removing the tags twice? if he isn't, then they can be harldy seen as edit warring on my part!). The other was re-inserting to put an explanation for the tagging, which has generated an interestign discussion, of which I am not able to parttake because I have been blocked. I can hardly construe any of this as edit warring, that implies a malicious intent to disrupt, and rather this is an example of boldness, something we are encouraged to be. I ask you to reverse your block, as it was unwarranted. --Cerejota (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuurthermore, this is the first time in all my time in wikipedia I have seen someone blocked for inserting tags that describe an ongoing discussion (in the AfD and the talk page of the article. If we do not defend the placement of tags that describe actual discussion, what purpose does tagging serve?--Cerejota (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoety, could you please explain how you have determined whether User:Cerejota was edit warring? As far as I can see, he did not violate the 3RR and he was not warned as well. — Aitias // discussion 22:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I described above, Cerejota continually re added content (tags in this case) that were removed. Also, he was warned above by another user and a user need not violate 3RR to be engaged in a edit war. I am willing to unblock on the grounds that there is no further edit warring over the tag. Tiptoety ^talk 22:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will not retag the article myself, but will continue to participate in the editing and talk page as per policy. I honestly have never seen a block over tags before (unless the tags were placed maliciously, by vandals or without relevance - neither three apply in this case), so I didn't see it as warring. You obviously consider them so, so if you want to unblock, rest assured I wont be lame. :D--Cerejota (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am (of course) aware that there is no need to violate the 3RR to be engaged in an edit war — that was the reason for asking you to explain how you had determined whether Cerejota was edit warring. Also, I'd like to say that I was not aware of the warnings above. Thanks for your explanation. — Aitias // discussion 23:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user that "warned" me is involved in the editing dispute (this, this), and had previous accused (incorrectly) of 3RR this and removed it from my talk page as a courtesy as evidenced here and here. This a matter for another time, but I highlited it because I think Tiptoety doesn't have all the elements to judge the situation.

If someone can explain to me why putting appropriate tags is a form of edit warring, I will accept that, but this hasn't happened yet. Otherwise, I don't see why I should consider this block as excessive and uncalled for, even if it remains in full force. --Cerejota (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content does not matter, it is they way you go about adding it. Whether it is a tag, or a a edit war over the removal of a sourced content continually reverting is edit warring. Tiptoety ^talk 00:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

As you have agreed to no longer edit war, I see no reason not to assume good faith and unblock your account.

Request handled by: Tiptoety ^talk 00:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks, but I am still blocked :(. --Cerejota (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try {{autoblock}}. Tiptoety ^talk 01:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #1273928 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Tiptoety ^talk 01:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"GA"

Well, I just wanted to tell you that "Jewish immigration to Puerto Rico" finally made "GA". Thank you for the nom. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! This is one of the best in the series and really deserves it. You are the best! (Of course, I would go to your talk page, but I am blocked!)--Cerejota (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RobScheurwater

HEY!! I requested a letter from South African Web Awards about the WP:NOTABILITY They said they will send it tomorrow at 09h00am at (GMT +2:00). (RobScheurwater (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Arab wiki image

Hi there,

File:Gaza 2008.jpg

Bodies in Gaza during the conflict, December 2008

:

I've no knowledge of wiki copyright stuff for images. It seemed to me if an image is on the arab wiki, it can be used in the english wiki? I'm sure you had a valid reason to delete it, but if u could give me some info on why, i'd really appreciate it.

thanks!

--vvarkey (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If arab wikipedia wants to violate GFDL that is not my problem. We don't.--Cerejota (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

I would like to ask you again, please dial down your nastiness at Talk:Roof knocking. Calling other editors "lame", edit summarizing: "omg what is so hard to understand?", accusing your fellow editor of "obvious hostility", baselessly accusing your fellow editor of wikilawyering, accusing your fellow editor of being dishonest and unproductive, all violate WP:CIVIL.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded in your talk page, but for the record, none of the examples you provide support your views, unless you fail to assume good faith. There is a reason essays are there, so people can read them. As to obvious hostility: this post further supports this view. I do apologize for calling a spade, a spade, because probably I shouldn't. But please, please, I ask you, stop focusing on me. Let others do it, preferably others uninvolved in edit disputes with me. --Cerejota (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a problem with your incivility (as you admit), the proper place to bring it up is at your talk page. It would be wrong to mention this on an article's talk page because it is not really related to the article's content. Contradistinctly, your talk page is not the most ideal forum for article content; the proper place is the article's talk page. I also think there's a misconception on your part regarding the WP:CIVIL requirements. I don't have to prove that I am personally offended. Generally acting in a hostile manner is never conducive to collaboration, which is what we do around here. Also, it doesn't matter whether you have personal animosity towards me or you love me. In either case, the WP:CIVIL standard must be met. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have admitted to no invility. However, you are indeed ignoring my request. Please apologize. --Cerejota (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I have requested mediation: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Cerejota_and_Brewcrewer

I want to establish a dialogue, and this is definitely helped by getting a fresh set of eyes here.--Cerejota (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

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

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Liveinternet article

I've noticed that my article on LiveInternet, the Russian blogging service, was deleted. Originally a tag had been placed upon it because there weren't any references describing its notability. I then edited the article and included the references and as a result, the person who placed the tag removed it. Then you put a new tag on it, and now I find that the article has been deleted without me knowing what happened (the process was apparently going on when I was away from of the computer). Can you please give me more details on this? Uvula! (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded in talk page.--Cerejota (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-ship ballistic missile

I see you've added to this new page, and also tagged it with some queries. I am still working on it, and hope to leave it tidy, if still quite brief.

You added that ASBMs are "fitted with a homing head". Do you have a reference for this? It seems likely, as I suggested in my copy, but I was relying on the description of the DF-21. A reference would be very helpful. Thanks.

FYI, I am also working up the quasiballistic missile article.
Earthlyreason (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I'll take it from here then. cheers Earthlyreason (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom request made.

I have submitted the request we have been discussing on COI/N to ArbCom here.
— James Cantor (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I'm having a little of an argument with another Wikipedian on an article I wrote. In short: a few people have improved the article after I originally wrote it. On of them made a change I disagreed with, and I undid it. He then accused me of trying to "own" the article. So accused I felt I couldn't undo his change any more. One other Wikipedian has expressed his opinion on the subject already, but I would like to hear your opinion too. I would please look up that page and give us your advice? Debresser (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another request

Hi, I notice you're active on the Gaza conflict article at the moment. Me and another wiki are having an argument over the particular use of a word in the Zeitoun incident? discussion, could we have your opinion? Thankyou :D Superpie (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disgusting double standard

The other user instigated my comment with "get out of the f* way", and only I get the warning? Good one Cerejota. You must know karma is a you know what.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on his talk page. Can't win. Oh well.--Cerejota (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Ha!!!

That's all I wanted to say. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, its realibly sourced, aint it? ;)--Cerejota (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reminds me of happy days spent over at uncyclopedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed!--Cerejota (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI notice

FYI, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cerejota about your editing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota, you added a section title on the talk page (with my name highlighted) that made it seem like I changed a tag on the article without discussion. No. Fact is, someone else changed the tag that originally I inserted.
If you are willing to change your (to me) offensive section title to let's say "Proper tag", feel free to remove my new section title. Squash Racket (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a sensible request? Doin it now.--Cerejota (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, assume good faith is still applicable here, along with "let's just try to keep the sarcasm to a minimum." Also, I'm sure you are aware of this, but realize that adding a smiley face when disputing with people doesn't help to calm things down. I really think your last comment at WP:ANI would have been better with a different tone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

user:Dicklyon, user:Jokestress, and user:James Cantor at Conflict of Interest Noticeboard

I have submitted a COI/N notice regarding user:Jokestress, user:Dicklyon, and me here. I am notifying editors who contribute regularly to the related set of trans pages.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed in the mediation you requested for The Man Who Would Be Queen that you did not include user:DarlieB. Although she has not chosen to comment at COI/N or the ArbCom request, she edits the problematic page, and there have been several problems discussed regarding her edits. I believe she should therefore be included (at least, invited) into the mediation.
— James Cantor (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your software development interests?

Cerejota, I've noticed from your user boxes that you're a programmer!. What's your interests in the field? Mine are operating systems and networking stacks programming. you?

Damn politics, editing those I/P articles gave me headaches. --Darwish07 (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Cast Lead

Cerejota, I think the article has taken siginifigant steps backwards since I've been on a short wikibreak (traveling). I'd like some help in putting a sembelance of balance back in the article. Cheers V. Joe (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian fatalities

I trust your judgment, are you sure that this article can't be save by editing? --J.Mundo (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Conduct RfC Vs. Dicklyon

I have taken the action of filing a user conduct RfC against Dicklyon based on his past and recent behavior. If you want to make your POV on this matter known please do. Users are needed to certify that the events as I presented them are factual, and they have to certify that outside help has been sought to address the issue. I have written this to every involved user in the mediation. Since Dick has proven that he will ignore any mediated arrangement when it suits him. The community must impose one on him. The proper venue for that is a user conduct RfC, not mediation. The proposed sanctions banning for editing any of the name space of the articles listed in the mediation, and from the user pages of any user who wishes to not have to deal with his mess any more. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dicklyon. Thankyou and have a nice day :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

It may help to ring in contributions if you put a header at the top of your talk page, with a link, and calling for contributions there. As it is it is hard to notice, and hard to find. Perhaps it's already there, in which case, I'm a bit of a dickhead. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In on the talk page of the relevant article DICKHEAD!!! :P (j/k) ;)--Cerejota (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

gaza massacre again

tundrabuggy and doright continue to remove "Gaza Massacre" from the lead. I do not want to get in an edit war, so I wanted to ask you what would the process be to get this removal without consensus to stop. Nableezy (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered you on my talk page. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a new section on my talk page entitled Editors' comments regarding the Gaza Massacre in the lead" here [1] In it I have listed a few comments by those who have argued against inclusion of such a term in the lead. (at least some of whom actually deleted or changed it in the article) I feel confident that I did not include everyone. For example, I was unable to find a comment on this by user:The Squicks, but I would be very much surprised to find him in your camp on this. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image "Darth Arafat" on talk Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

You might lighten the mood of some and at the same time offend others. I think it would be better to take the image off the talk page, now or at least a little bit later. I leave it up to you now.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Images are not free, they are marked with Al Jazeera's logo. Sorry. Nice try.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Licensing is irrelevant for content, you really has to study copyright law: the copyright holder has released the videos from which the image comes under a free license, no questions about it. You can argue other reasons for non-inclusion, but lack of free license is not one of them. Sorry, but you are wrong. .--Cerejota (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am only me, I do not use any other user accounts nor do I edit by my IP address.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am only one person, who Tomtom is I do not know.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture origin

There was an involved discussion about the photo's credentials here that actually lead to the issue being raised at Jimbo's page. Definitely an interesting issue, whether there should be a sliding scale policy on the verifyability of picture that relate to ongoing events. The video that shows the same child in the hospital was what sealed the deal for me. But then, I suppose you might question that source as well.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

You know, if you remove a thread but don't archive it, you really might want to consider using the summary "Rm thread" rather than "archive".

Please let me know that my efforts have not been in vain, and that you now understand that A7 is for articles which do not even claim notability, and not for articles that do claim notability, but that you think are not notable. Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banderas

Hello Cerejota, in light of recent discoveries, I am proposing a consensus concerning the colors of the flag of Puerto Rico in neutral articles. Please see the project's talk page for further detail. Thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I began noticing it last year. The problem is not only that they push their POV, but that they aren't afraid to create widespread drama by edit-warring. By the way, ever heard of this guy? He has been one hell of a P.I.T.A. recently. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Could you please have a look at this talk page? I would like to know if there is any policy or -more likely- guideline on how to properly deal with 'lists of examples'. I also posted the question in more general termes on a help page. I'll look for your answer here or on the help page. Debresser (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding your opinion. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

summary on photo

You can sometimes be brash an one sided, but you did an amazing job in summarizing very fairly a very complex discussion. That takes guts and a real ability to see through your own position into the other side. I just wish in discussion you used the same ability, because you can be harsh (I have a thick skin for intelligent harshness, not for childish trolling, but others might not). Anyways, I was mighty impressed. Seriously. --Cerejota (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I normally consider your analysis of my edits worthless, I am grateful for your back-handed compliment. That takes guts and real ability to say something positive to someone with whom you disagree and whom you frequently misinterpret. I just wish in discussion you used the same ability, because you can be surprisingly insolent despite the fact that you yourself frequently make questionable comments in the hope that people will take them lightly. Anyways, I was mighty impressed. Seriously. -- tariqabjotu 02:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008-09 Israel–Gaza Foreign involvement

Sorry, let me clarify my wording - I think we're on the same page here. This topic could definitely be presented neutrally if it did warrant its own article, but the intent of this article was bad to begin with, so the article (i.e. its existence) can't be neutral because it's a POV fork. Graymornings_(talk) 09:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background

With all the forking off that has been done, it is difficult to find a page that actually deals comprehensively, if at all, with the historical background of the war. I've dropped a note re Mearsheimer's article on one of the 'background' pages linked to the main article, but aren't sure if this is the place where we can now begin to construct, with scholarly sources, the various in-depth academic and specialist perspectives on the background to the Gaza war. Which is the best page for this? Thanks Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There is a by now fairly comprehensive scholarly documentation on the 2001-2007 siege of Gaza, which was intensified from the time Hamas won the muncipal elections. Tanya Reinhart gives a detailed exposition from a pro-Palestinian position, though she was an Israeli academic. To do this justice would require more than a mere background section in articles denominated 2007-2008 Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Gaza has quite a specific history that cannot be confused with the West Bank, which supplies the major narrative so far. So, as I understand it, the various projects appear to exclude, structurally, anything more than a paragraph for the events 2001-2007, though there is, if I recall, an article on Israel's unilateral disengagement in 2005

As you see, to me most solutions proposed are rather untidy, though I'd be the first to support the conflation of 2008 with 2007. I'll wait and see how things develop, then. Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find your milhist page. This may be of use (eliding the rhetoric) for the moment, and you can shift it there. Better sources will naturally be forthcoming, but the author is a military analyst, even if he posted this on a site that is liable to challenge as not fitting RS criteria.

The GBU-39 guided bomb is perhaps the most egregious case point illustrating how our aid directly helps Israel to wage aggressive war regardless of American interests. After the disastrous Israeli attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006, the Pentagon pushed for and Congress approved the transfer of thousands of precision bombs to replenish Israel's stocks in August and September 2007. The GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb was not included in this gift. But then, more recently, and for no apparent reason, four months before its assault on Gaza, the Pentagon first notified Congress of the GBU-39 transfer in August 2008. Congress was in recess during August, but transfer of GBU-39s to Israel was one of the first items it disposed of in after reconvening in September, in dutiful obedience to the demands of the Israel Lobby and its wholly owned subsidiaries in the Pentagon. These weapons and their delivery racks were then rushed to Israel, and in less that 3 months from the time of Congressional approval, 1000 GBU-39s were cleared aerodynamically for release from Israel's planes and placed in the operational inventory, just in time for Israel's attack on the Gaza Ghetto. The GBU-39 is one of the most modern weapons in the American inventory. Last September, the GBU-39s were trumpeted by the Israeli press as bunker busters of choice for an attack on Iran. But that claim was preposterous and most likely deliberate misinformation, given that we now know the Israelis had been planning the assault on the Gaza Ghetto for at least three months. It was preposterous because GBU-39 has a tiny warhead (only 50lbs encased in a 280 lb bomb). Its small size and (theoretical) high accuracy, however, makes the GBU-39 a far more appropriate as a weapon of choice for assassinating individuals and small groups in densely populated urban areas, like Gaza, than for taking out deeply-buried nuclear components in Iran.' Chuck Spinney, ‘Hosing Obama Israeli Style', Counterpunch 20/01/2009

Rising Eagle: Futuristic Infantry Warfare

Hi. I just noticed that Rising Eagle: Futuristic Infantry Warfare was speedy deleted a few weeks ago. I don't agree that it is a non-notable game, and it is free. Since the afd said that the article was a copyvio, I decided to make a brand new version in my user space. Could you take a look at what I have and tell me what you think? I'll try to get some more sources when I have time (there's already a review in the list). Thanks. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Military SF

Please see here: [2]

Cheers, --Gego (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the list has been redirected to the Military SF article and I started a list with references (although I wouldn't consider some of the books MSF, but whatever...) at eLib, so as to step on nobody's toes. I will copy the finished and agreed upon list afterwards as the basis for the new article... complicated, life at wikipedia. You could add them at elib first, if you want... Military SF Bibliography Cheers, --Gego (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Words to avoid: terrorist / freedom fighter

Could you please place a quick comment here[3]? Thank you. Grey Fox (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the notice that you put on Jbowersox

This may be of interest:

Talk:The_Burke_Group#Jbowersox.2C_please_respond

thanks,

best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of History of union busting

your message on my talk page

I find your analysis of the situation incorrect and your message inappropriate.LedRush (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why?--Cerejota (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued attacks are insulting, condescending, and uncivil. Please don't post on my talk page.LedRush (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? No one reasonable can interpret what I did as uncivil, insulting or condescending. You, however, are being needlessly rude and uncivil, indeed. --Cerejota (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now I am not reasonable? Forgetting your personal attack (unlike me who commented on your edits and attacks), your post on my talk page was clearly insulting, uncivil, condescending, and inflammatory. 1. I used the lowest level template after asking Goldsztajn to stop changing my edits. I thought this was more prudent and friendly than using a higher level seeing as I had already made personal requests to him that were unfruitful. Your accusation that I tried to escalate the matter assumes bad faith and is insulting (and misrepresents the chain of events). 2. Your reading of the policy is incorrect, as it clearly states, "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission."(emphasis in original). You gave me a bad interpretation of the policy and then asked me to apologize someone who treated me so poorly in a public manner.

You were uncivil in making a completely inappropriate warning on my talk page. You were condescending in your explanation of basic Wikipedia policies to a longtime editor who has been using and interpreting the policies correctly. You were insulting in the way you completely ignored the history of the dispute with Goldsztajm and then requested that I apologize to him (despite the fact that I had apologized for using a shortened name, but he still acted uncivilly and never apologized for his actions).

I do not wish to continue this conversation with you at all. The dispute with Goldszrajn was already over for a couple of days, yet you felt the need to revive it. I do not. Don't worry, when we work together on future articles, of course, I will treat you with more civility and respect than you have treated me.LedRush (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen#Mediator

Hello. Please see the above link regarding the mediator for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Weber

I have done some work on an article about David Weber. Somebody just made a major edit to the article, removing links to excerpts and online versions of the books in the list of published works. I was not the one who put those in, by the way. Would you please have a look here and enlighten me (and possibly others as well) with your opinion.

And while you're at it, there is a difference of opinion between myself and an other Wikipedian, whose input I have come to value very much, on the use of the words "popular and enduring character" in the article. That discussion runs through the two preceding sections on that talk page. Perhaps you could say something about that too?

Thanks beforehand. Debresser (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps "enduring" is peacock, but "popular" isn't. We have to be careful not to WP:MORALIZE.--Cerejota (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought the same this morning when I walked back home. Debresser (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the external linking? Debresser (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that that Wikipedian I mentioned before (Marc Kupper) is really getting on my nerves, by undoing my edits claiming that they are not or pourly sourced. Would you tell me if I am right here in my feeling, or perhaps wrong? Debresser (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITN for 2009 Icelandic financial crisis protests

On 27 January, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2009 Icelandic financial crisis protests, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Hi Cerejota, I appreciate you're aware of these restrictions, however, just to confirm: As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.

PhilKnight (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitic incidents related to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict

Hi Cerejota, the article that you recently renamed to the title above has been nominated for deletion by user:yamanam. There aren't many people in the discussion, and I thought you might like to contribute your input. I really don't know what you'll say, but you couldn't possibly lower the level of discussion there. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for copy-paste accident

Untwirl noticed that somehow "cerejoGaza" get into my commit into talk page. It was not my intention. I fixed it and I'm really sorry, it was honest copy-paste accident. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC) np--Cerejota (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota, could you please express you opinion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#No_WP:consensus? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota, I think that events are described in Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph, relevant quote: Gaza medical sources reported civilians killed.. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that Wikipedia states as a fact that "Israeli army said they shot the farmer", quoting in my view in this particular case Hamas source - Gaza emergency chief Mo'aweya Hassanein. Though I have to agree that Xinhua generally is reliable source. Does it make any sense? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Do you agree to make the changes? I don't want edit wars. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Corrie / Saint Pancake

You may be interested in my post here. Thanks, Mike R (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI

I read your mediation statement with interest, and wondered whether you have read WP:COI recently? It seems to carefully avoid the idea that the only conflict of interest is the financial one. In particular, WP:COI names:

close personal/professional relationships (affecting James Cantor, Dick Lyon, and Andrea James on several articles)
activism/campaigning (affecting Andrea James on nearly all of the disputed articles) and
legal conflicts (possibly affecting Andrea James, who filed legal complaints against Michael Bailey).

as COI issues.

Additionally, it appears that part of one of Andrea James's businesses is promoting the activist POV, so even looking at solely financial/professional conflicts, COI is a concern for this editor.

But I'm not at all sure that James Cantor has a financial COI for articles about sexuality. For the organization that employs him, probably. For individuals that he knows well, yes. But for articles on the subject -- probably not. At least, that's how I interpret WP:COI's statement, "However, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject." (BTW, Cantor's research area seems to be pedophilia, not transsexuality.)

To give a less-fraught example: My husband has his CCIE in network security. Don't you think that he's exactly the kind of person that Wikipedia would like to have writing articles about subnetting (one of his favorite topics) -- even though he's paid to work in that field? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Puerto Rico was not a colony of Spain"

I thought you might find this interesting: Talk:Puerto_Rican_Campaign --J.Mundo (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYC Meetup: You're invited!

Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]