User talk:Rhododendrites/2015c

Hey, I noticed you reverted my addition of Tetrapod Zoology to List of blogs. I thought that, having a section on the author's page, this would be "notable enough" for the list. (Note that I am in no way affiliated with Darren Naish or his blog, except as an occasional reader.) Would you mind commenting on your rationale on the list's talk page? 73.223.96.73 (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@73.223.96.73: Thanks for the message. I didn't notice before that you left the same comment at Talk:List of blogs, so I've just responded there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

More information Wednesday June 10, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting ...

Wednesday June 10, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our next evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. This month will also feature on our agenda: recent and upcoming editathons, the organization's Annual Meeting, and Chapter board elections. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday June 10 WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Close

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

Dear Rhododendrites,
Following on from our discussion on 2 March, 2015, I have developed a draft article for Declan Masterson in my user space. My overall approach has been to look at a lot of the information already published online and then doubt everything, in order to force myself to validate what I thought could appear in the article, along with substantiating ref tags.
For example, I have sought to validate statements of his participation to various recordings; in a few cases, his name is absent from the credits published online but since I don't own these recordings, I can't assess whether he was really absent from the recordings themselves, or whether the online credits are incomplete. In those cases, I'd prefer to remove any mention of these recordings from the article, and let another editor add them later on, based on the evidence s/he may have from the recordings' sleeve notes (assuming that the article will ever be published, of course).
I still need to write a bit of prose for some of the sections which are currently empty, but it wouldn't take me very long because there is so little available. For example, I found very few interviews, other than those published in three editions of Folk Roots, of which I have the originals and for which I have already prepared ref tags in the current draft, ready to be appended to the prose I'll be writing.
One of these Folk Roots interviews states that he has performed with John Denver, but I found no other evidence to substantiate that statement; Denver did tour in Ireland but, as far as I am able to ascertain, Masterson's name was never mentioned in association with any of those tours, nor does he seem to have participated in any of Denver's recordings. Therefore, the only ref tags I will have for this 'fact' is its mention in Folk Roots, which I find rather tenuous (even though it complies with WP:THIRDPARTY). Also, and most frustratingly, I could not find his date of birth!
In any case, please would you kindly have a quick look at the draft article in its current state, and then let me know if you think it is worth pursuing the effort of expanding and polishing the existing, draft prose? If you end up concluding that it's a lost cause, then please don't spend too much time on this.
Thank you very much, in advance, for your helpful assistance.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 13:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Pdebee: I think it's great you created this. I just took a quick look and will mention a few things that jump out. I can go into more detail or even help out directly later if you want.

1. It looks like you did a good job of keeping the tone neutral. From what I can tell, this doesn't read like a promotional piece -- which is easy to slip into when working on an article about a musician you like.
2. There are a few different ways to show that a musician is notable. "Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject" applies to any subject, but there's also a more specific set of criteria for bands/musicians. It's not an alternative to finding good sources, but rules of thumb that if someone meets one of these, sources will likely exist so it probably shouldn't be deleted. It's still a gray area, but it looks like there's a good case for #6 on that list: he may have "been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles".
3. His discography shouldn't dominate the page. In such cases it tends to be best to limit the list to major recordings. For example you mention he's played with certain other musicians in the prose, so you probably don't need to list out the various songs he contributed to. In some cases -- especially when many of an artist's recordings are independently notable such that they have their own Wikipedia articles -- we create separate discographies. When it's appropriate to do so is another gray area, but you'd certainly want to establish Masterson's notability first and then wait a while before creating a separate article like that.
4. Some of the references are kind of problematic. User-generated content like imdb and commercial sites like Barnes and Noble are not typically sources we want. But they're also symptoms of a broader concern: What we want are sources that talk about various aspects of him or his career, not those which simply verify a credit or something's existence. That doesn't mean you should get rid of them -- they can still be useful if reliable -- but the article should rely primarily on articles, interviews, reviews, etc. If an album is mentioned in a review, there's no need to also cite e.g. allmusic to verify the article exists -- we trust that secondary source.
5. One final thing to keep in mind, although I don't think it's too big of an issue at this point, is the idea of "weight": on Wikipedia, aspects of a subject should be covered in proportion to the coverage of those aspects in the body of available literature about the subject. It most often comes up when, say, someone wants to create a big "criticism" section based on a single negative review when there are 100 positive reviews. But it also applies broadly to just how we cover subjects to make sure we're not promoting/detracting inappropriately.

I hope this helps. Let me know if I'm not being clear about any of it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up: It looks like I misunderstood. I did not see before that you actually have quite a lot of experience on Wikipedia. I apologize if I'm over-explained things you already know. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Dear friend;

Thank you so much for taking the time to review the draft and also for providing such a thorough list of considerations to keep in mind; I am very grateful!

Before I respond to some of your helpful points and suggestions, thank you also for your closing 'Follow-up' immediately above; it's very considerate of you and I appreciate your sensitivity. However, the extent of my experience as a Wiki editor is primarily as a member of the Typo Team, and also mainly in seeking to improve the very wide network of articles relating to Andy Irvine, his many partnerships and his recordings. The fact remains, though, that I have never created an article from scratch about anything other than albums, so this is my first attempt at creating one for a real person and, therefore, all your comments are immensely useful to this 'newbie'.

The real challenge I have with the draft article at hand, is the paucity of interviews that deliver the about content that you so cogently mentioned in your point 4. above. In my opinion, this aspect will greatly limit the value of the Masterson article, because so little information is actually available about him for anyone to wikify. OK, the lead makes him sound interesting: he played with some luminaries, he recorded five solo albums, his collaboration discography is impressive, and he was part of the Riverdance band. But that's about it.

I will therefore begin the next phase of edits by working on the easy aspects of your feedback: streamlining the discography by removing albums over which there is uncertainty, and also cleaning up the comments I added alongside most of the albums (like which instrument he played on what recording). I will also review the ref tags and see if some of them are adding much value; if not, I'll probably delete them (and we could always re-instate them later on, if necessary).

Then, I will have a go at finalizing the prose in the sections that are currently empty.

After that, please may I approach you again to review the resulting draft? I would greatly value your advice at that point, on whether to proceed with publication or not. In the former case, it should have become easier to assess what's missing. In the latter case, I won't mind too much because I will have learned a lot from this exercise anyway, even if our encyclopaedia ends up without an article on Declan Masterson.

So, very many thanks for volunteering to remain available for advice; I will contact you again within the next few weeks, as I'll need a bit of time to work on the above changes.

Until then, please know that I find it immensely helpful to be able to submit this draft to someone as knowledgeable about the wiki—and as kind and helpful!—as you.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 17:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Pdebee: Glad I could help. Pardon this brief reply, but if you leave another message I'd be happy to look at the article again in the future. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Will do. Thanks a lot!

With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 12:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me: what is the problem with my entry ? Is it miss-placed? I could put it up under the "Positions" since this is the latest and it's not fully addressed. I am new to this.

It's factual and the links are good.

Thank you and regards, Philip Psw808 (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. While I don't know that I would disagree with the gist of what you added on the level of principle, it's not appropriate content for Wikipedia. I've responded at the article talk page in case others involved with the page want to weigh in: Talk:National Association of Scholars/Archive 1#Removed funding content. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Since you commented on the recent FDR infobox linking, there is a broader based RfC going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC concerning the infobox linking of all political offices. Please comment if it is of interest to you. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Thanks for the heads up. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it's like I forgot the draftspace isn't only for AFC submissions. Thanks for reminding me (I've added that tag to a few other drafts as well, with the intention of leading newbies to use the AFC process). >_> — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jeraphine Gryphon: No worries. I have no problem with erring on the side of me quickly reverting rather than a newbie getting lost. Thanks for helping. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

RE: to this. No, I do not perform mass removals of refs to RTTV, but only removed refs in four specific cases where such referencing was inappropriate in my opinion. Yes, many Russian state-controlled TV channels, such as this one, are very different right now from "Western" news channels. In essence, what they do is not journalism, but pure propaganda. However, if you you disagree with my specific edits, please explain your reasons for disagreement on talk pages on the corresponding articles, rather than on my talk page. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Having spotted this on My very best wishes' talk page, I'd like to elaborate on the subject. This isn't his own POV, but has been discussed thoroughly, and regularly, at the WP:RSN. If you type "Russia Today" (results here) or "RT" (results here) into the search field, you'll find extensive, protracted discussions since recent events in Ukraine began. While there has been no absolute consensus, RT is deemed to be WP:BIASED and only used for statements by officials or, if used in any other context, is done so using inline attribution with regards to articles surrounding Ukrainian events. News orgs such as ITAR-TASS and RIA Novosti (which have now been amalgamated into "Sputnik") were always considered yellow press.

Ultimately, it's a matter of context and caution as RT is a state controlled outlet. Naturally, op-ed pieces from Western sources are also parsed and attributed where necessary. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes and Iryna Harpy: Interesting. I've known there are plenty of people who think RT is biased, but I didn't know there were so many discussions reaching a [more-or-less] consensus on the matter (looking through RSN now). I can't say I've had occasion to watch anything on the network myself -- I'd just likely leave a message for anyone I noticed had a series of edits removing a particular high-profile source dealing with contentious issues. I've restored the edit I undid at Media bias in the United States (and presumed you intended to remove the whole ref in the first case). Thanks for the explanations. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Glad to have been of some assistance, Rhododendrites. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know for sure what's going wrong here, but the way catwatch works is to send the Wikimedia servers requests for each of the categories individually, at the same time (and then adds the categories to the watchlist when the reply comes back). My guess is that the servers I'm contacting dislike having that many requests arriving in that short a timespan, and drop some of them. --ais523 05:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ais523: Ah. Ok. Thanks for explaining. I'll trim the list :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

If the topic sounds too controversial or unencyclopedic to you, just nominate the page for AFD. I'd appreciate having my username removed from the talkpage. I have zero interest in "conspiracies." Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: I'm a little confused. You objected to/reverted the edit I made. Going to the talk page is the next logical step to discuss the matter. If you've decided you'd rather not get involved -- which is something I can sympathize with as I don't often tread into these rather unpleasant areas myself -- then would you mind just self-reverting? I'd have no problem just removing the talk page section accordingly. Or is it that you feel like I've misrepresented you in some way? If so, please know I wasn't trying to make it seem as though you're part of a conspiracy or something -- I just copied verbatim the two versions and your edit summary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you please remove my username from the talkpage and say 'an editor' instead? I don't want to attract weirdos. (This is why I responded here, not on the article talkpage btw.) I do think the page is problematic for two reasons: 1) What is the definition of 'white'? We are all mixed. 2) While Caucasians (sic) are becoming a minority (for example, in the US), the definition of 'genocide' entails mass murders, which are not happening (I don't believe abortion is 'mass murders.') But I still think it is a hypothesis--a false hypothesis in my opinion--but not a polemical term. My sense is that the topic is too controversial for Wikipedia and perhaps you could nominate it for AFD.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Engaging on the talk page is part of the collaborative process. I don't mean to be rude, but if you don't want to use an article's talk page and/or attract the "weirdos" that may be watching it, you probably shouldn't edit the article. You're also welcome to nominate it for deletion if that's the way you want to go, but I'm not -- at least at this point -- prepared to do so. As long as you're engaging in a content dispute and thus requiring that a matter be discussed, that needs to happen at the article talk page. Again, if you self-revert it stops being a dispute that you have initiated and thus I wouldn't have any objection to removing your name -- but at this point someone else has responded to the talk page thread so I can't just delete the thread as I otherwise would have. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I stopped reading at "I don't mean to be rude."Zigzig20s (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: I'm finding this all very unusual for an editor with as much experience as you have. I see that you went ahead and edited my comments to remove your name despite this thread. That's not something covered by WP:TPO. Saying "user x reverted me, here are the two versions, here's why I made the change to begin with" is not "naming and shaming" -- and I don't think there's anything you need to be ashamed of. Again, though, if you don't want to be involved with the article, just revert yourself. But it is not ok to engage in an article-level content dispute by reverting, then to refuse to discuss the matter on the talk page, then to insist your name not be mentioned on the talk page, then to edit someone else's comment to remove your name. Please revert yourself on one or the other. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Please leave me alone. Don't tar and feather me. Don't name and shame me. Think of someone else. I have zero interest in talking to you at this point.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Someone else has modified the article; as there's nothing for you to self-rv anymore, I'm content to leave the talk page reference to "an editor". Consider the matter dropped. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I created an archive page. Internet Forums should talk should now begin with the Deletion log. For some reason I can't delete the text from the main talk page that thatI copied to into archive. Can you help? Talk:List of Internet forums/Archive 1 72.190.103.213 (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@72.190.103.213: I just started auto-archiving on the page. It takes a few hours to a couple days usually for the bot to get around to doing the first archiving, but it tends to be much neater when a bot does it. Mind holding off? Basically if you just add this code to a talk page...:

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | age=2160 | archiveprefix=Talk:List of Internet forums/Archive | numberstart=1 | maxarchsize=75000 | header={{Automatic archive navigator}} | minkeepthreads=5 | minarchthreads=1 | format= %%i }}

...then as long as there's a {{talk header}}, it will archive and create links to the archives automatically. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up -- because the talk page threads were still there, when the bot comes around it'll create a second copy of everything on the archive page. I went ahead and just blanked the archive. Let's just wait for the bot. Thanks for trying to clean things up, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I watch and learn. Thanks.72.190.103.213 (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please revert your destructive change on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_web_server_software&action=history of 2015-02-03!

Who are you, that you simply destroy other people's hours of work?

Where are your constructive contributions?

If you think, that something is not done the right way, then improve it by _preserving_ the original contribution.

What you are doing, is school teacher's habit and discourages future contributions to Wikipedia. Be proud of the result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.146.229.12 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 4 June 2015‎

@195.146.229.12: So it looks like the edit you're talking about is this one.

I'm not so sure there's anything I can tell you that will assuage your frustration, but bear with me.

At the heart of the issue is a common rule for lists on Wikipedia: with rare exception, Wikipedia doesn't seek to have exhaustive lists (comparisons being a type of list). A list of software, for example, is not a list of all software of that type but rather a list of software notable enough to have its own stand-alone Wikipedia article. So when you (or someone else) added the items I removed (OpenBSD httpd and publicfile), it's not that I think you formatted it incorrectly, that I don't value OpenBSD or publicfile, or that I'm arbitrarily deciding what should or shouldn't belong. It's simply that there do not exist Wikipedia articles for either of those.

This sort of thing is a common source of frustration, unfortunately, but one very difficult to communicate in advance. Wikipedia has very particular rules about these sorts of things. If I had to refer to one such page of rules in particular, I'd say it's WP:NOT, or "What Wikipedia is not". The rules for lists aren't specified there (I'm happy to link you to them if you're interested), but the spirit behind the rules is summarized by statements at WP:NOT like "Wikipedia is not a software directory", "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", and "Wikipedia is not a place for promotion". (That's not to say I think you were trying to promote anything, by the way.)

I hope that this has not dissuaded you from future participation. In fact consider this an offer of help if you want it -- help either with Wikipedia policies or with writing an article for one of the pieces of software you wanted to add to the comparison. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't spend my time to write to /dev/null. Nobody else will do it. If Wikipedia is not considering this fact, it has to do without a lot of potential authors. Your argument is simply technically implementable: make the policy transparent and make it impossible to create a table entry without an existing article page[, which for my taste were a questionable policy], before people spend their and other's effort. Not everybody is willing to become an author, well-educated in all Wikipedia policies. I have something to say in some areas. I'm willing to share it. But I'm not willing to make Wikipedia become my full-time hobby. Others are free to build on top of what previous authors said. If some Wikipedia policy inventors think, that some kind of constructive content is not mature enough for some purposes, then build the infrastructure for development and production branches, so that you don't have to throw away constructive intermediate contributions. For me, my personal ratio of contributions, destroyed afterwards, is between 70 and 80%. I have now learned, that Wikipedia is not [yet] my platform. Farewell... — comment added by 195.146.229.12

@195.146.229.12: I don't think it can be made impossible to add a relinked entry to a list. It's not until a page is saved (or previewed) that we can see what link is/is not a redlink. I suppose the only way to do that in such a way that would save the time of people like yourself would be to create some sort of wizard for each list that begins with inputting the name of the addition and generating an error if it does not exist as an article. Technically possible, but for a hundred thousand (or however many) lists, I think it would be a disaster. One thing people do at some lists is to use html comments liberally inside the list to inform people of the inclusion criteria. There are also "edit notices", which are little blocks of text that appear above the editor. We could implement one of those at comparison of web server software, but it wouldn't make it impossible. More visible, though... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the coffee milk page. I was having a hard time figuring out what was wrong with the ref's for that part. Didn't mean to remove it. :-) LaesaMajestas (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@LaesaMajestas: No worries. Thanks for working to improve a relatively neglected page :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I want to really apologize. I downloaded it unknowingly and never have made that mistake before because I was trying to take certain notes and I clicked , the wrong button. it won't happen again I'm very sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmac2222 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dmac2222: Don't worry about it. Mistakes like that are easily fixed on Wikipedia. If you have questions about editing or other aspects of the site, feel free to ask here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 07:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You may want to reply to a question I asked at Talk:Onion routing#Why exclude Cyberbot II? You did a very impressive rewriting of that article.—Finell 04:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Finell: Thanks very much. I've responded on the talk page. Short answer: It looks like the issue was resolved, so I removed the tag. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The page has many sources ranging from CBS News to the Dayton Business Journal. This individual is an established person in Dayton. No reason it should be flagged for removal under the notable people guidlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Explorer90 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Explorer90: It looks like you removed the AfD template from the page and a bot restored it. The template is there to show readers/editors that there is a discussion taking place concerning whether the page should be deleted -- the template does not itself serve to delete anything. If you feel Zaremba passes the requirements presented at WP:BIO, I would encourage you to make the case at the deletion discussion page here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Zaremba. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Rhododendrites,

I noticed that you'd reverted a recent edition I made to Wikipedia's article on Antifeminism, with the comment "Reverted 1 edit by JudahH (talk): When people dispute an addition to the article, take it to the talk page until consensus emerges. don't WP:EDITWAR.". I also noticed that you'd used an automatic tool to perform the edit, so perhaps you didn't take context fully into account, but I wanted to let you know that, while there had been some back and forth editing on that page, none of my edits were simply reversions that ignored the opinions of other editors. Each time I re-added something, I modified it in an attempt to address the concerns that other editors raised on the talk page, and I continued to engage with them on the talk page. In the particular case of the edit you noticed, I reverted the part of the change that Binksternet had not objected to, and specifically refrained from re-adding the part that he had until he had a chance to address my concerns about that paragraph. This is not "edit warring".

Respectfully yours, JudahH (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@JudahH: Hmm. You're right that I missed some of the context so may have been too quick to revert. I'm about to start work in a few minutes and don't have time to read what I missed at the moment, so I've simply restored your work and will defer to those more engaged in the discussion than I am. Thanks for your message. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

More information Wednesday July 8, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC ...

Wednesday July 8, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. This month will also feature on a review of past and upcoming editathons, including Black Lunch Table Editathon @ MoMA on July 13. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday July 8 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Close

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