User talk:Walwal20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citations needed

It's a bit of work to find and add references, but more rewarding and productive than just removing stuff or asking others to do it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

That's so true, I could not agree more! It's also a bit of work to check the edit log and see who made verifiable edits and who didn't. Kind regards, Walwal20 (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

New article

The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar

A new editor on the right path
Your article Mackey-Glass equations is reviewed. Hopefully one of many. - hako9 (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh thanks a lot! That is really motivating. Walwal20 talkcontribs 21:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your editing encouragement! I just learned how to send a kitten.

News to Me 123 (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

News to Me 123 Hahaha, I like kittens. Thanks for that :P Walwal20 talkcontribs 19:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Probability distribution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plasma. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ  Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you very much, DPL bot. Will fix it Walwal20 talkcontribs 10:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Some comments

Hi Walwal20,

If I may, some varied unsolicited comments:

  • In the absence of any urgency and without having exhausted other options (like discussion on my talk-page) first, it was entirely predictable that an ANI thread would be a mess (not draw admin attention, etc.).
  • The ANI discussion is particularly annoying to me because it doesn't seem like you believe that I am substantively in the wrong. (If you thought, for example, that Miaumee's edits were significantly positive on average, then it would be an entirely different question, and running off to ANI would be more understandable.)
  • Those things said, I bear no animosity or personal ill will towards you, and I will be happy to work constructively with you should our paths cross in the future. (And the same is true with respect to Miaumee!)
  • Thank you for looking over the edit on Variance. (As I said on my talk page, I really do not mind being reverted if there is a substantive basis for doing so.)
  • Finally, about source quality: in my view, Mathworld is a mediocre source, but it is still better than no source at all. (This is to distinguish from Mathvault, which I do not think meets the basic criteria at WP:RS.) The only place where it's really problematic is that it seems to make up nonstandard names for things; but I don't think that was relevant to the current brouhaha.

All the best, JBL (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear JayBeeEll,
Unsolicited, but absolutely welcome. Thanks a lot for the message.
I cannot say that, in this particular incident, I did things in the right order, with the right timings or in the correct places. I did the best I could within my limited knowledge, and just hope I won't regret this later. For now I'm just glad that an admin volunteered to look into the incident, and hopefully will deal with things in a friendly and much more effective way.
I arrived at the situation about an hour after the revert at Variance had been performed, whose edit summary led me to Miaumee's talk page. What I saw was Miaumee being targeted with many unkind words (+ a block threat) from an editor with over 20 times more edits (aka experience) than her. I intervened as quickly as I saw it, mostly to alleviate the pressure on her; at least, I'd feel pressured if I were her in that situation.
Although I initially felt that things could be solved by other means of dispute resolution, after further investigating the situation I concluded that bringing it up in the AMI would be the best option. For one thing, the autocratic massive edits were unforgivable from my point of view. Also, the object of discussion (bad references + bad grammar) were not very concrete things to discuss; it is something that we can discuss eternally, without convincing each other of who is right, thus adding to the difficulty of handling the situation without involving more parties. On top of that, if it were the case of reverting your mass reverts, it would be better the sooner it was dealt with. Reverting your reverts after someone edited the page would be quite a pain due to conflicts. Finally, I alone did not feel capable to properly deal with the incident, given all the mentioned aspects.
Bringing it to the AMI was to have the incident, mainly the reverts and discussion on Miaumee's talk page, recorded in the noticeboard. To my limited knowledge, one of the purposes of the noticeboard is for recording these kinds of incidents, I guess for admins to consult later when necessary. Besides that, I also did it in hope that someone more experienced would take over... though it was much more productive to contact an admin directly.
Based on the above, I don't think you should be annoyed that I mostly agreed with your points, as Miaumee's edit quality played a minor role in bringing to the AMI. I also think she has a lot of potential, and if we teach rather than scold her, she might become a positive asset to Wikipedia.
Thanks for not bearing grudges at me. I'm not sure if I would be able to do the same if I were in your shoes, but I do hope so. I believe Miaumee won't bear ill-will towards you either, after the dispute is dealt with by the admin. You appear to be a very capable editor; I can only hope that I'm not too far behind you. It would be an honor to ever work with you if the opportunity arises.
Thanks again for the message.
Kind regards, Walwal20 talkcontribs 08:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your response (as well as at my page). I hope you are correct about Miaumee. Happy editing, & see you around, JBL (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Mz7 (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Walwal20 talkcontribs 07:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mamunul Haque, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bengali.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Melbourne City Wrestling

You certainly appear to be more up to the minute with templates than certainly I am given what you did with the notability template I wanted to stay during the debate on the talk page. Your replacement for the generic template the IP used was even better, and in fact that whole issue does in fact go to why I have an issue with the notability of this promotion so the IP did some good as well. But you - I must thank you for that and it strengthens the case for an AfD should nothing be done to improve the article as indicated. I'll give it time of course as the fresh templates are new. Thanks again. Addicted4517 (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Addicted4517, thanks for the message. I'm always glad to help with tagging articles with the most suitable template for each particular problem. As for the AfD, it probably strengthens the cause from a political standpoint, but from a technical standpoint there is little impact, since Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Best, Walwal20 talkcontribs 11:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
If you look at the talk page you'll see that there are no suitable sources available as I have made it clear what is wrong with the ones that are used at present. The lack of suitable sources goes directly to why the content outside of the titles is so bare so I disagree that the issue is in effect "political" (as you put it). FWIW. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Numbers of citations

I see from comments above that you have some acquaintance with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but there still appear to be serious gaps in you knowledge. For example, at Jeffery D. Long you removed a deletion proposal tag, saying in your edit summary "The number of citations indicate notability". Wikipedia's notability guidelines do not remotely or even vaguely depend on the number of citations. It is perfectly possible (and unfortunately common) for articles to be stuffed full of large numbers of citations none of which is of any use whatever in establishing notability. JBW (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi JBW, thanks for the message. Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion (per WP:PROD). My research on the subject indicates that there is room to argue for a keep, so it doesn't seem uncontroversial to me. I deprodded so that it receives due WP:CONSENSUS on an AfD, and did it with the best of intentions. Best regards, Walwal20 talkcontribs 16:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, all that is fine, and I have no quarrel with any of it, but you said that the reason was "The number of citations", which is a different matter. JBW (talk)

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics: Difference between revisions

On 03:03, 13 October 2020, you referenced me in this edit. I saw that proposed edit and I know that the book referenced was not relevant, but it wasn't me that accepted it. The edit history shows that it was User:Johand199 that accepted it. Do you agree? If I am wrong and somehow I am responsible then please accept my apologies. — John (Johnnie Bob (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC))

  • Hey Johnnie Bob, thanks for the message. I got a little lost with your message haha, let me see if I understood it. My edit summary there reads (Reverted 1 pending edit by 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:F534:605C:597F:941E to revision 983197778 by Johnnie Bob: That book has nothing to do with the requested articles. If I am wrong, please edit again AND use an edit summary to explain the addition.). Is your concern related to your name appearing in the edit summary? If so, you shouldn't worry. It is just stating that the article was reverted to the version right after your edit. Notice that I only reverted the edit by user 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:F534:605C:597F:941E (this is an IP address, for users that are no logged in).
    In short, there is nothing wrong with your edit or your conduct over there. You do not need to review the edits of other users, as that is the job of pending changes reviewers like me (although you are invited to join us ). Let me know if I helped clarify the situation. Best, Walwal20 talkcontribs 04:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ok. Sorry, haha ... I understand now, thanks for the explanation. — John (Johnnie Bob (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC))

Formal warning

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Hartley Jackson, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. The same applies to The Mighty Don't Kneel. Facebook, Wordpress and Twitter are not reliable sources. Also under WP:BLP the source must be totally independent of the subject. Addicted4517 (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not taking warnings from you. Best, Walwal20 talkcontribs 07:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm really disappointed to see this, after I warned you in no uncertain terms at AN/EW. Furthermore, your recent comments (I will continue to do what I think is right per the Wikipedia policies. The trouble of being blocked is nothing in comparison to the trouble of later blaming myself for allowing legitimate, sourced content to be easily removed by a single person. ) show a concerning WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. I hope you will use this enforced break to think about how to better handle a situation like this in the future.
I will note that I have no opinion on the content dispute here. If the page had been protected at your revision and it was Addicted who was acting in the way you are, I would treat them exactly the same. My concern is that you are continuing to edit war after admin intervention, to try to reintroduce an edit that has not gained consensus. You've also made no attempt to try to gain consensus since the page was protected, but rather insisted that there has been one all along and that everyone else is wrong. You went so far as to draft an RfC at User:Walwal20/RfC Hartley Jackson even before it was suggested at AN/EW, so you clearly know formal consensus would help here—why have you chosen to continue the edit war rather than moving the RfC to be active?
When the block expires, I would strongly suggest you activate the RfC and not touch the mainspace of Hartley Jackson. Continuance of the edit war will result in escalating blocks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi GorillaWarfare. Thanks for the messages and feedback. I have posted my appeal. If it is not replied before the blocking expired, I at least hope it answers the questions you raised above. Kindly, Walwal20 talkcontribs 23:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Your posts attempting to gain outside input all appear to predate the AN/EW report. I was one of two people who told you at AN/EW that you should attempt to gather more input on the editing dispute. Nothing changed as far as the status of consensus between the time the page was full-protected due to the edit war and when the protection expired, and it was your decision to continue the edit war rather than discuss, even once explicitly warned, that I blocked you for.
As for your accusation that I am expecting unanimous consensus, that is absurd and I've said no such thing. But I am expecting a discussion where people who've objected to the inclusion of the statement can be involved. Picking people at random and soliciting their input on their user talk pages, where the person who has expressed concerns about your edit isn't aware and can't contribute, is not consensus-building. Posts to the WikiProjects are reasonable, but should at least be linked from the article talk page. You've already written a whole RfC, and I ask again, why did you decide to resume the edit war rather than activate the RfC you'd created? We could've avoided this whole mess, and if there is indeed a consensus that is so clear as you believe it to be, that would've quickly become apparent and the edit could've been made.
As for the actual unblock request, I'll leave that to another admin to review. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare, thanks for the messages. If I published an RfC, it would basically be placed again in the Wikiproject talk pages. If I received little input in the first time, I would likely receive no input in future times. That's why I decided not to publish it, and I probably won't, as I disagree with you on the consensus part. Also, I'm not trying to get anyone's sympathy. Please, WP:assume good faith here in my talk page. I bothered a huge load of people during this process, and I want to thank them regardless of whether they supported my position or not. Walwal20 talkcontribs 23:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
RfCs are listed widely, including at WP:RFC/A, and generally get a decent amount of engagement as a result. If you indeed received no input, that's a bridge that could be crossed later, but not publishing the RfC guarantees you won't get input. When the two uninvolved parties who weighed in at AN/EW urged you to gather consensus, and you're continuing to insist that consensus has been achieved and refuse to do so, I am concerned about what is going to happen if this block is lifted or when it expires.
I have no idea what your sympathy and AGF comments are about. I haven't accused you of seeking sympathy or made any bad-faith assumptions about you, and I'm confused as to why you're suggesting I have. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare why are you making it exceedingly hard to add a content to the article? I have done a whole ton of work here, why isn't Addicted also required to pull some other faces here to support him? If something is "predating" here, a word used by yourself, I would rather say that it is your behavior and way of thinking that might be predating content creation around here. And I seriously hope you don't accuse me of personal attacks here, since I'm using the same wording as you. It also bothers me that you're blatantly saying so much without even looking into the content problem, as per your comments "Surely there are sources besides Facebook pages and blogs that could be used?" (wtf, really?) and "I will note that I have no opinion on the content dispute here.". Walwal20 talkcontribs 00:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
You may wish to look up what predate means. I have looked into the dispute; I think it's pretty clear that I was stating that I have no opinion on whether or not the statement about TMDK ought to be added to the article. I think we're at diminishing returns arguing back and forth here, though I will leave this page on my watchlist should a reviewing administrator have any question for me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
cross icon
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Walwal20 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log) • SI)


Request reason:

The block was performed with the reasoning: ‎"Edit warring -- continuance of edit war after express warning at "

The warning issued was: "Addicted4517 Feel free to notify me directly if it happens again. Walwal20 consider this a warning: achieve consensus FIRST, then make the agreed-upon edit."

Here I intend to argue the following:

  1. Attempts to listen to the other party and improve our edits has been made
  2. Attempts to seek attention from the community has been made
  3. Some form of consensus has been achieved that was positive to my side, and I have received no feedback supporting the other party

and with this intend to conclude that the blocking was either undue, or should have been made to both parties involved.

Here goes nothing:

1) The first time I listened to Addicted's feedback was in September 28 here, where I recognize his arguments. From there on, I took some time to investigate for more sources. In October 7 I edited again and added the sources I found (here. So yes, I did try to listen to the other party, thus following WP:CONSENSUS. The whole discussion can be checked at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hartley_Jackson_(3rd_nomination), [] and Talk:Hartley_Jackson.

2) With the continued opposition from Addicted, I sought attention from the whole community. I posted the issue in Wikiproject Sports (see here) and Wikiproject Professional Wrestling (see here). I have also personally messaged (the same message posted in the wikiprojects) multiple people that are listed as members of Wikiproject Profesional Wrestling (see and many others).

3) The list of feedback received so far, excluding supportive remarks from my party (Walwal20 and Jammo85) and the opposition remarks from Addicted, was:

  • DrewieStewie: Hey there Walwal20! I believe those sources not only prove that Hartley is a member of TMDK, but are reliable to cite as well. Hope this helps!
  • Ravenswing: Vice magazine is a perfectly good source, and that article looks sound to me. Good work. Ravenswing 14:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • SeosiWrestling: On 2 May 2015, TMDK announced on their official Facebook page that Hartley Jackson joined their group.[1] Furthermore, I've found a review of a Zero1 New Year’s Dream Series 2017 from 411Mania, that listed Jackson pasrt of the TMDK.[2] On 1 August, the Australian wrestling promotion Australian Wrestling Allstars announced their card for AWA Champions League, E02, as Jackson listed part of TMDK as well.[3]
  • HHH Pedrigree: Well' that's a hard one. I never watched TMDK and I don't know their career. However, reading several sources, looks like he was part of the stable. Here is an article from Vice where he is part of TMDK.
  • *Treker: Example text

Therefore, I see myself as the one, in this whole dispute, that most tried to achieve consensus.
When I asked for community consensus, I was absolutely open to opposition from anyone, and would have immediately halted my actions if any opposition had been found.
But I did not received negative feedback, and with the current state of the discussion, I believe WP:CONSENSUS would rule that the articles would stay in my version until we find the WP:CONSENSUS that GorillaWarfare requires (i.e., unanimity).

Disclaimer: I'm not a professional wrestling fan, and had not edited any article related to this subject until this dispute. I only entered this field to protect what I felt was an undue sequence of reverts to the contributions made by Jammo85. With all honesty, I hate seeing seminaked men pretending to fight and exchanging body fluids for no reason. Still, I judge Wikipedia content neutrally, and do not let my personal preferences cloud my judgement on this matter, or at least I work very hard to achieve this.

Walwal20 talkcontribs 23:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The context is irrelevant. A quick glance at the edit history shows the obvious edit warring; you'll need to address that and that alone in any future unblock request. All edit warriors are certain they are correct and justified; you have to stop anyway. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Random remarks, please don't read or I might be accused of (insert here)

Allow me to ping the people to whom I requested advice. Idk if they are interested in the outcome, but I guess they can ignore this ping if they are not interested: GeneralNotability, Ritchie333, Lightburst Scottywong.
I also would like to sincerely... I cannot express this enough, I really mean sincerely. From the bottom of my heart. I sincerely thank DrewieStewie, Ravenswing, SeosiWrestling, HHH Pedrigree and *Treker for sacrificing some of your time to dedicate it to looking into the problem I brought up to them. You were the few from dozens and dozens of people that saw the issue but ignored it because they had other things to do (which is absolutely understandable). I might not be able to return the favour directly to you, but I'll make sure to give attention to the next users that request my assistance, so that we create a positive cycle of helping one another.
I almost forgot, but I would also like to thank Jammo85, even though I was the one kinda doing the favor here :P Jammo85 created his account recently, and initially made contributions that were not quite encyclopedic. But he has improved a gigantic bunch since this whole dispute started. I would like to commend him for his efforts in learning how to edit on Wikipedia, and in reading and learning about the Wikipedia policies. Please, do not be discouraged from contributing to Wikipedia articles, even though I recognize that it is really discouraging that a single person can completely jeopardize the Wikipedia system. Walwal20 talkcontribs 23:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey there! I am sorry to hear that you have been blocked. Fortunately, it is only 24 hours as is standard for a first offense of edit warring. Regardless of if this request is granted or denied, I am sure you'll return to editing in no time. Just please, refrain from edit warring. I recommend getting that RfC started once your block is up or lifted; the community is more than happy to provide a word. I have already deemed the sources reliable in my book. People might disagree, but that's how I feel. I think you have a bright future in Wikipedia, this situation just got crazy. You are fine though. :) DrewieStewie (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, here's my answer: if you got blocked for putting in a fact that was reliably sourced, ping me and I'll put it in. If your opposition is bucking and screaming with a rock-solid source in hand, this has ceased to be a matter of ensuring the article's accurate, and more by way of "OMG to let him put that in means I SURRENDER!!!!!!" Ravenswing 00:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have learned so much from you! I would have definitely left Wikipedia and never come back if it was not for your support and guidance. Instead of deleting, being spiteful and rude like one member (I wonder how many he has chased off from editing by the way?), you were compassionate, helpful and supportive. I was able to understand what changes I needed to make with my writing and editing for articles. And to help in a topic that was not of interest you, but you recognized and went above and beyond to keep the integrity of Wikipedia editing because you realized something was wrong needs to be commended. Thank you for the support. You are a legend. Jammo85 (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Stick around. I was sorry to see that you caught a block. I hope you stick around and keep making positive contributions to the project. Lightburst (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Unit root test

Problematic User

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

Unsolicited advice

Wikipedia usage conventions

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

Merry Merry!

January 2021

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

Sherdog.com RfC Closure Has Had No Effect on Wikipedia Because of a Small but Organized Gang of Editors

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

June 8: NYBG Environment of The Bronx - Editing Wikipedia for Beginners

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

NYC Wiknic, June 26

June 22: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC

Sun June 26: Bronx Wiki-Picnic

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

Thu July 14: Astoria Beer Garden Wiki-Picnic

July 27: WikiWednesday Salon NYC (+Aug in-person for Wikimania)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

Fri/Sat/Sun Aug 12-14 with Saturday flagship Wiki World's Fair at Queens Museum

Aug 24: WikiWednesday Salon NYC (+Sep annual meeting)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

Sep 28: Wikimedia NYC Annual Election/Members Meeting (+October 2 picnic)

Sun Oct 2: WikiNYC Post-Election Wiki-Picnic

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

Sat Oct 29: Wikidata Day in NYC

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

Sat Nov 12: WikiConference North America in NYC

Nov 30: WikiWednesday Salon in Brooklyn + online

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

Dec 28: WikiWed Salon (+ Wikipedia Day on Jan 15)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

Sun Jan 15: Wikipedia Day returns to NYC!

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

Feb 15: WikiWednesday Salon in Brooklyn

Mar 8: WikiWednesday Salon by Grand Central

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

Apr 12 WikiWednesday + Earth Week (Apr 15-23)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

Sat: Earth Day Edit-a-thon + Sun: Wiki-Picnic

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

May 17: WikiWednesday Salon + Queering Wikipedia

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

June 21: WikiWednesday Salon back in Manhattan!

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

July 19 WikiWednesday + New York Botanical Garden Edit-a-thon (July 29)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

WikiWednesday (Aug 23) and Governors Island Wiki-Picnic (Sun Aug 27)

Sunday: NYC Wiki-Picnic @ Gov Island

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

Sep 20: Wikimedia NYC Annual Election Meeting

Sun Oct 1: NYC Hispanic/Latinx Heritage Month 2023

Wiki.NYC Pavilion for Open House New York (Oct 21–22) and Wikidata Day (Oct 29)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

Nov 15: WikiWednesday Salon + Wikimedia NYC Executive Director job

Wed Dec 6: Hacking Night + job listing

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

Thu Jan 4: Hacking Night + Wikipedia Day soon

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

Thu Feb 8 NYC Hacking Night + Feb 21 WikiWednesday

Tue March 5: Wiki Gala NYC

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

WikiNYC: 3/14 Hacking Night + 3/16 Queens Name Explorer

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

WikiWednesday (April 10) and City Tech Library LGBTQIA edit-a-thon (April 11)

Thu April 25: WikiNYC Hacking Night

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

May 8: WikiWednesday Salon with new Executive Director

June 2: Hacking Sunday (+preview of June 8 Wiknic)

Sat June 8: Governors Island Wiknic

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

June 26: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC

MfD nomination of User:Walwal20/RfC Hartley Jackson

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

The World Destubathon

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI