This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jamesofur. 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.
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, we will also host a Newcomer's Wiki Workshop for those getting started on the encyclopedia project!
We will also include a look at our annual plan and budget ideas, and welcome input from community members on the sorts of projects the chapter should support through both volunteer and budgetary efforts.
We welcome 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/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery!
7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles gallery, 137 West 14th Street
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! (One talk this month will be on use of Wikipedia press passes for photographers.) Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Bonus events, RSVP now for our upcoming editathons:
You are invited to join us at New York University for Wikipedia Day NYC 2016, a Wikipedia celebration and mini-conference as part of Wikipedia 15, the project's global 15th birthday festivities. In addition to the party, the event will be a participatory unconference, with plenary panels, lightning talks, and of course open space sessions.
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.
@Curro2: You are correct, it was a lot of content but honestly I expect to do a bit more (mostly cutting back on the sources for the intro) and think it was the right thing to do. That article was written, almost 100%, by a string of sock puppets that were found today (if you look at the history and all of the major contributors you will see them all blocked as sock puppets). After reading through the articles and many of the sources it's become clear that while he may be notable the article is just written too much like a coat rack and trying to weed through the old text (since it's almost ALL written by people who appear to have a COI or at least a very strong bias) is going to be too difficult. Because of that I've come to the conclusion that it's probably best to gut it (and possibly put it up for AfD so that more eyes other then myself/the one checkuser and the sockmaster can go on it around notability but haven't decided if that's needed) and if he's notable and re can rebuild the article from scratch. Are you ok with me undoing your revert? James of UR (talk) 08:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
