Q Science

In case you need the names of more of the islands in the area, the map in the upper right corner of the Lohachara Island article is an old map with a lot of detail. Click on the map to see the image page. Click on the map on the image page for a larger map (it may take some time to download). The Image page has a link to the original map, which I think was an even larger file of the same region. (SEWilco 08:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC))Reply

Thanks - I have added the reference and an enlarged image to the bottom of the page Q Science 10:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

In your email you mentioned the links pointing to the wrong urls - I'm working on that

You mentioned the word "thier" ... thanks - there were lots of errors.

"Undid revision 242011032 by Sephiroth storm several sections had been made unreadable, many claims were made, or changed, without any references"

How were the sections made unreadable? IMO, the changes were made as part of an improvement of the article, most of the changes were style of writing changes, so the article was more Encyclopedic, taking out words like "They", making better sentences than "but do not actually do so" and "but it has never been shown to do such things". My changes to the "Methods of Infection" section were to make it more NPOV, and to make it more Encyclopedic, listing of every broweser was not nessesary. As for my "unreferenced additions" to other sections, I moved a couple of sections around to put them in the correct location in reference to the article. Please feel free to comment on my talk page. Sephiroth storm (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

• You do not have correct facts: These "facts" have been in the article for some time and were ill referenced. Half of the data was not listed in the references.

• At the time the article was written, neither McAfee nor Symantec could detect or remove it. Unless you have personally tested it against ALL the WinFixer versions, you should not make a claim that they can now.

I used reliable sources that said they could remove at least one WinFixer application, and I said that they MAY remove the infection. It would be unfair to Wikipedia users to not list the programs simply because they cannot remove every variant of the software. Don't forget, many malware programs change all the time, and AV vendors do not immediatly have a fix. my data was based on information in the references that said that they could remove the infection.

• By the way, WinFixer is extortion, not scareware or a rogue program. It makes someone's computer unusable until you pay them to remove it.

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. If you believe it is extortion, then sue, otherwise call it what every referenced page called it, the same thing that security researchers call it, and what the original author of the article called it, A Rouge Security application. I welcome suggestions on further fixes to the article, and if you have an interest in these programs, feel free to join WikiProject Malware and/or WikiProject Computing/Computer and Information Security task force Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is nice to see your attempting to sway WMC with reason... I wish you luck it has not worked for anyone else... he has a very long history of being just barely within the letter of wikipedia policy to escape being called out but not the spirit... if you want to know more click on my name then "send user email" and I will get back you privately with some very interesting facts in this matter.--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

It won't let me unless I first give it an email address - maybe later.

I found this on your page

Venus ... is a run away-greenhouse effect and Mars appears to have become a global freezer, despite the fact both of them have roughly the same amount of CO2 the earth does.

Do the math - Venus has about 170,000 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere as the Earth. That is not a typo, it is 170 thousand times as much CO2. Also, the sun does NOT heat the surface. Therefore, there is no way that Venus represents "a run away-greenhouse effect". I saw your discussion on this with WMC, but decided it was better to respond here. Q Science (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for that splendid link to Spencer's presentation. I'm staying out of the Wikipedia stuff on warming, and sticking to simple things, like fisheries. I think WCC and his acolytes have shepherded themselves into such a consolidated position that they have little room to breathe. Perhaps they are resting on their laurels – a job well done. But I doubt the job has really started. In a former life I was deeply committed to physics and mathematical modelling. It is easy to fall in love with elegance and seeming rigour. I went to school with another boy who became a distinguished international lawyer, and, briefly, prime minister of our country. He is profoundly in love with the eloquence and conceptual beauty of international law, but seems disconnected from what actually happens on the ground. Likewise, relying on results from mathematical models applied to systems as complex as global warming seems a little naive. I don't have a view on warming – it's too complicated and I'm too old. But I am an interested observer, and it's okay if WCC wants to patronise. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Pls comment here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Runaway_climate_change Please can you get back to me on my talk page about any 'problems' you may have had with other editors in this field?Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

This [1] came and went without me even noticing. I think it was correctly removed; its nothing to do with improving the GW article. If you care to, you can discuss it on my talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was pretty upset when I saw what you wrote in the blog, it is a completely different persona from what I've seen here. I would have ignored it if I had simply stumbled onto it, but you linked to it from wikipedia. I considered deleting your link, but I didn't think that that would be appropriate without explaining why. So, I wrote the post instead. I still think that ts was wrong to delete only the one section and not both.

By the way, I have heard Dr. Spencer talk and he makes a lot of sense. He may be wrong, but "wacko" is over the top. Q Science (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is in response to this edit [2] of yours.

While new data does ideally lead to new theories and new debates, we don't expect new data (from, say, new methods to measure microgravity differences) to lead to radically altering the way we think the effect of gravity works on the surface of the earth, and we don't expect new satellites to change the basic observation that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have increased the temperature of the earth and the prediction that they will continue to do so.

The temperature of the atmosphere has been measured by balloons for over 50 years. If those measurements are correct, then the global warming models are wrong. One paper based on satellite data says that all those measurements are wrong and that the GW models are correct. So, yes I expect the new data to be very important. Q Science (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also, Wikipedia is not the place to discuss whether global warming is real or not: we must leave that to reliable sources, and simply report what the reliable sources say, in direct proportion to what they say (if 10% of reliable sources were skeptical about anthropogenic climate change, we'd need to spend 10% of the article discussing that part of the issue, but they don't, so we shouldn't). We all need to try to avoid discussing the issue on the talk page, and we need to stick instead to improving the article.

Then join me and criticize those that claim "the debate is over" or "the science is done". Q Science (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

FYI, your link included some misleading statements: see [3] on the ACORN statement. - Enuja (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

As for the reference, I checked several and found no agreement on anything. Therefore I picked one with a low dollar value for NASA so I wouldn't be criticized for exaggerating. Personally, I think that if the entire stimulus package went to NASA then the entire world (not just the US economy) would be better off. Also, thanks for the ACORN link. I had been wondering about those claims. Q Science (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you create any templates that are erroneous and nobody else has edited them, just tag them with {{db-author}}. You don't need to take them to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I didn't know Q Science (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Q Science, thank you for putting your position so clearly. I have taken time off a/ to look at what you wrote in detail, b/ to write down what I know in a logical way and c/ to avoid having it wiped out, even though one can find it somewhere else! So here it is : - 1/Stefan-Boltzmann law There is a subsection “Temperature of the Earth” and it gives 279K as the temperature in the article it says “The above derivation is a rough approximation only, as it assumes the Earth is a perfect blackbody. The same equilibrium planetary temperature would result if the planet's emissivity and absorptivity were reduced by some constant fraction at all wavelengths, since the incoming and outgoing powers would still match at the same temperature (this equilibrium temperature would no longer fit the definition of effective temperature).” It has been established since Kirchhoff’s paper of 1862 that an isolated body in a radiation field reaches a temperature that is independent of its coefficients of absorption and emission, depending only on the distance from the source. It is also independent of the reflectivity and transmissivity of the body and its colour. Few peope see it this way but it is correct. There are various ways of showing this, one argument goes this way, if it wasn’t true the body would progressively cool to the CMB 2.75K or heat to the Sun’s temperature. To explain just how this “Kirchoff’s law” works, I go into considerable detail below.

In short the equilibrium temperature is independent of albedo and wavelength effects. Damorbel (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

That is not correct. Albedo is very important. Stand in the Sun, then put a mirror between you and the sun. That is albedo, it is just a fancy word for reflection. Q Science (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

"just a fancy word" Quite right, but the key point is the difference between "Absorption and Emission" and "Reflection/Scattering"; note that absorption etc. is the exchange of light energy with molecules by means of electric dipole, the molecules heat up/cool down according to the energy exchange. When light is reflected it is redirected, nothing heats up, nothing cools down. Don't forget, it is the same dipoles that do the absorption as do the emission, that is why the two coefficients are equal, true for gases liquids and solids. As you point out albedo is a fancy word for reflection, but because it takes so many forms this isn't exactly clear. When looking at something like the Earth with gas water and solids it is not easy to resolve what is reflecting and what is absorbing/emitting; I have said before that light is trapped in material with a refractive index >1, see Light extraction in LEDs, this should explain why water (70% of the Earth's surface) can never be 100% efficient radiator i.e. a black body. Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation cuts through the detail and states the A & E are equal. This isn't obvious because both reflection and A & E have wavelength dependence; you can read why in the link I gave to Kirchoff's 1860 paper where he refers to an "arbitrary" body.--Damorbel (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Let me take it step by step. A single molecule with an electric dipole moment, like CO2, interacts with radiation at all wavelengths, it is the electric dipole moment that experiences electromagnetic force due to the electromagnetic field of the radiation. This interaction is very similar to the working of a small electric motor or generator with a permanent magnet. Damorbel (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

On the first pass, this does not matter. Q Science (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

First pass? Sorry, don't understand.--Damorbel (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

If the molecule temperature is 0K any incident radiation will start it vibrating at its natural resonant frequencies. At these frequencies it absorbs radiation with greater efficiency, most of them are in the IR. If the molecule is above 0K, it will be vibrating already because of thermal energy, the vibration also accelerates the electric dipole moment, the requirement for generating an electromagnetic field, i.e. it radiates. It radiates preferentially at the resonant frequency, even if it didn't resonate it would still radiate because of the thermal energy accelerations. The radiation is a way of transferring energy and, in the absence of another source of energy the molecule will lose thermal energy and cool down. In most cases the source of radiation is matter with a temperature that is higher, lower or equal to the molecular temperature. Damorbel (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

If there is another source of energy, let us say infrared radiation from a distant object, just one of three things can happen; if the field from the source has a higher amplitude than the field produced by the molecule, the molecule will absorb energy from the incident field and its temperature will increase. The spectral line characteristics of energy absorption in this way are called Fraunhofer lines. If the molecular field if greater than the incident field the molecule will lose energy in proportion to the difference in field amplitudes and its temperature will fall. If the molecular field and the incident field are the same the molecule neither gains nor loses energy, its temperature remains the same. You will notice that the absorption and emission depend on the frequency (wavelength) of the radiation but not the ratio, the ratio is independent of frequency. If the frequency is at a peak, both absorption and emission are easy and equal, but off peak the ratio remains just the same - unity. Damorbel (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

If the emission and absorption lines are at different frequencies, then no energy is transferred. If the source field has a continuous blackbody spectrum (distribution), and the molecule only absorbs at specific frequencies, then there are issues. There is also an issue when the molecule absorbs at one frequency (because of the temperature of the source) and emits at another (because of its own temperature). It is not clear to me what the *ratio* is referring to.

In the case of the Earth/Sun system, the frequencies of absorption and emission are very different. Q Science (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I suggest the incoming radiation is absorbed because it interacts with the dipole in the H2O and CO2 whether it is resonating at the natural frequency or not. The same applies to emission, surely the molecular vibrational resonances (for that is what the spectral lines are) give the highest intensity but the total energy is not changed by the resonance, it merely distributes it differently in the spectrum.--Damorbel (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

That seems logical. But it is slightly off. The molecules absorb those frequencies that are available and emit based on their temperature. Thus absorbing shortwave light produces heat. Then they emit longwave IR photons according to their temperature. They specifically do not always emit the same frequencies that they absorb. If they did, they would not get warmer. Q Science (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think I am repeating myself, but for my own benefit! The Sun's radiation comes from a "hot" source which peaks in the visible. Some of this is absorbed which has the effect of heating the absorbing material. Because the "heated material" is far from the Sun, it doesn't get very warm, but that doesn't stop it radiating, however because it doesn't get very warm only the IR region is excited enough to emit. This "excitation" is sufficient to emit all the energy absorbed at shorter, visible, wavelengths.Damorbel (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good, we agree on that. Q Science (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

In the Earth's atmosphere gases do not have a high density, although they do not behave like isolated molecules either. An isolated molecule has a very narrow resonant line, like the Fraunhofer lines. The thermal collision processes in a more dense gas blunt the sharp peak and broaden the line from the thermal energy exchange. However gases at atmospheric pressure do not behave like black bodies, yes polar gases absorb and emit but each in its own portion of the spectrum (it really doesn't matter if the spectra overlap).

Since gases cannot emit with intensity greater than a black body at a given frequency (the excess radiation would be re-absorbed - think of the thermal emission conditions above), the limitation imposed by the spectral characteristics means that the emissivity of a gas could never be that of a black body. This is the basic interaction where absorption and emission are involved. Damorbel (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

It isn't clear to me that gases can not emit with a greater intensity than a blackbody. I have been searching the literature for specifics on this but have not found anything. In electronics, many properties change at resonance, the most important being reactance (complex resistance, sort of). By analogy, I am not convinced that enough experiments have been run with gases. Q Science (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The next, and very important, is the interaction with matter by reflection/scattering. For our purposes they can be treated together because they both have two very important characteristics, 1/they work independently of temperature of both the energy source and the matter doing the reflection/scattering; 2/they involve absolutely no energy exchange with the matter doing the reflection/scattering; 3/scattering by small particles results in light being reflected in various ways of which Lambertian reflectance is the most commonly considered. Damorbel (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I believe that both 1 and 2 are incorrect for gases. Only certain ranges of frequencies are scattered, and the available frequencies depend on the temperature of the source. Rayleigh scattering is not Lambertian since it polarizes the light. Q Science (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am not exactly sure about scattering in gases except to know that absorption/emission only happens with gases having a dipole moment that can couple energy in and out of the electromagnetic field. Gases without this, O2, N2 still scatter (reflect?) as does CO2, but not very much.--Damorbel (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

All matter (including gases) reflect/scatter radiation, largely dependent on their refractive index (RI), other mechanisms are not excluded. RI is quite dependent on density so the effect seen with gases is usually just with long path lengths and small angles (see mirage). What follows is usually seen in connection with solids but it applies to gases in proportion. Because we can use rays to illustrate what is happening the description using Fresnel equations is the easiest. If you go to the link you will see that rays incident on a surface are partially transmitted and partially reflected according to strict laws. These laws are completely symmetrical; we are familiar with the light source in the low-density material (outside the lens), we also know that light, once inside the high-density part, can suffer total internal reflection. If the source of radiation is inside the high density material some of its radiant energy is trapped, this effect is well known, it occurs in swimming pools where underwater light does not escape, it has important consequences for light emitting diodes in that it tends to reduce their efficiency (Light extraction in LEDs).

Remember that the "refractive index" is not actually a constant, but is a complex function (has an imaginary part) of wavelength, temperature, polarization, and other variables. Q Science (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

No contest, scattering is wavelength dependent for particle size near the wavelength of light.--Damorbel (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

This optical effect traps thermal radiation and for this reason, no solid material can match the radiative efficiency of a black body. Damorbel (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

One of the considerations with IR is that the wavelenght is longer than the thickness of a single layer of atoms. Q Science (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The absorption/emission characteristics of liquids and solids are dependent on electric charge bound to molecules, just like gases. If the material is transparent radiation is neither absorbed nor emitted. Not all matter that does not absorb are transparent; if the matter has a granular characteristic with small particles having many air/solid interfaces the material is opaque because scattering from the small particles dominates the optical processes. NaCl can illustrate the action of electric charge in a solid. NaCl is transparent over a broad spectrum, much broader than glass, because the simple molecules are symmetrical and charge neutral. However, if you immerse a NaCl crystal of in Na vapour, the metal diffuses into the crystal and it takes on a deep blue colour.

Like gases, the absorption and emission ratio is the same for all frequencies, even though the absolute value varies through the spectrum. Damorbel (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Some colour effects in solids are due to factors other than absorption etc., these are optical effects with dimensions at optical wavelength or greater, interference and diffraction gratings come to mind. These effects are similar to the Fresnel effects mentioned previously; they also work independently of the absorption/emission process. Although they do not influence the ratio of absorption to emission, which remains unity, the spectral effects change the magnitude of absorption/emission. Damorbel (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Now we can look at the equilibrium condition. It is clear from above why absorption and emission coefficients ratio is independent of wavelength thus the temperature of a body having a shape symmetrical with respect to a radiation field is defined by the intensity (a flat shape, edge on to the Sun does not meet this condition, it will get very cold!).

Not true, see above. Also not clear. Q Science (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Take an extreme non-equilibrium condition; a body, heated by the Sun, suddenly loses its input radiation by an eclipse, for example; what happens? It will cool down. How fast? If you did not know the emissivity you would not be able to find out, even though it had been in radiative equilibrium before and you knew its temperature, all you knew was that it emissivity and absorptivity ratio was one. The body can have any emissivity, if it is radiating into deep space it will cool down and maybe we can estimate its emissivity from the the rate of cooling. You can change the emissivity in the infrared only by enclosing the body in a multi layer membrane that reflects infrared only, it will work like a thermos flask, the body heat will be retained for a long time. Alternatively you can coat it with carbon black; the sunlit temperature will be the same but when the eclipse starts it will cool very rapidly.

Yes, a thermos flask has a mirror, but more importantly there is a vacuum that stops conduction and convection. Q Science (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think that is the point I am making, the Earth is in a vacuum. Here you can find the original text of Kirchhoff's law of thermal thermal radiation in his paper "On the Relation Between the Emissive and the Absorptive Power of Bodies for Heat and Light". I would like to explain why this text is convincing, I think we discussed it before, I'm not sure I made myself clear at the time but it is now part of an edit war which is rather a shame. Kirchhoff based his theory using a model with absorption and emission coefficients; when a fully working model of atomic and molecular behaviour became available the way light energy is absorbed and emitted by interacting with charge (as I describe here) greatly simplified matters, the developement of quantum mechanics enabled the understanding to go a great deal further. To go further you should read Max Planck's Nobel Prize lectureand his book, The Theory of Heat Radiation (Google preview available here). Lacking knowledge of atomic/molecular structure, Planck proposes an emission structure (for a black body) made of "Ideal Linear Oscillators" (p135); he also justifies the unity ratio for absorption/emission on thermodynamic grounds (p22 ff). Planck did not have Eintein's discovery to hand, it was his work that prompted it! The "black body assumption" so common in discussions of the GHE can only be made without knowledge of the important work of in this field Kirchhoff, Planck and Einstein. --Damorbel (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

You really can't expect to defend a position using papers written in the 1700's and 1800's. However, I like the mirror experiment because it provides a way to move heat from a cold body to a hot body. It seems like an easy way to build a perpetual motion machine. The Kirchhoff paper (1866) is also interesting. Apparently, some carbonates glow at lower temperatures than predicted by the blackbody equations. He also says that gases are poor blackbody emitters. Unfortunately, I did not find what you wanted me to see, please give a page number and I will try again. Q Science (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

It would be odd indeed to be relying on Kirchhoff's work for modern understanding. The whole point of refering to his work is to show that, like Newton, he established some physics that has stood the test of time. Surely the thread that links his work to Quantum mechanics (via Planck) shows this. What neither Planck [4] nor Kirchhoff had the Bohr model when doing their research. I have remarked elsewhere that it is the acceleration of charges that governs the absorption and emission of electromagnetic radiation (this explanation is not at all bad).

I don't want to go into Kirchoff's work in detail, surely you grasp the principle of the heating and cooling of molecules with a dipole through vibration? The problem that seems to be that this process is not related to reflection, something else I have mentioned before.--Damorbel (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The other situation is when there is a source of heat in the body, this is a little more complicated but basically this heat will be lost according to the emissivity and that will determine its temperature.

The ultimate consideration is a body with a surface that conducts electricity. Such a body absorbs and emits very little, conductors have a large number of free electrons, not part of a dipole so the do not impart motion to molecules. It is the free charges that do the reflection.

Hope this helps. I am sure there are imperfections, please be tolerant, I am looking forward to comments.--Damorbel (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are rambling a lot. Much of this (not just the last section) has little or no connection to the greenhouse effect. You need to separate your thoughts into sun, surface, atmosphere, and then try to understand the interactions. You might find this animation helpful. Q Science (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not sure about "rambling on". These thoughts are not about the GHE but the Earth absorbing the Sun's radiation and emitting heat to deep space. According to Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation the Earth's equilibrium temperature is about 279K independent of the albedo. He has a lot of science on his side, not from the AGW arguments, just thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. The important consideration behind Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation is that the changing of electromagnetic energy (light/IR) into heat and the reverse is a process completely different from reflection (physics).

Can you please provide a reference that supports "independent of the albedo"? It does not make sense to me. At equilibrium, watts in equals watts out and reflection (albedo) reduces watts in. Q Science (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

If the ratio of absorptivity to emissivity is one, as established by Kirchhoff, Planck & co., then the the amount of light reflected (the albedo) does not affect the equilibrium temperature. --Damorbel (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

If that was true, then it would not matter how far away a star is since the ratio would still be one. Q Science (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Don't think so! The intensity drops just the same with distance, that is the only thing that determines temperature (of rotating spheres, i.e. some planets). You have to put in this last condition, unless we have a perfect conductor of heat.--Damorbel (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree the GHE also involves radiation, but radiation plays almost no part in regulating heat distribution in the troposphere, convection dominates. I freely acknowledge that the Earth is cooled by radiation from the so called GHGs, you can see that on the full disk pictures from weather satellites [5]. This is the radiation at 6.2 microns from water vapour, interestingly no surface details can be seen.

In the morning, the surface is typically cooler than the local atmosphere. When there is fog, dew, frost, and the like, the heat of condensation replaces some of the heat that is lost by radiation. Before the temperature gets that low (and in the deserts, a small part of the planet), greenhouse gases return some heat to the surface. Heat distribution is provided by wind and ocean currents. Q Science (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are probably correct. The equilibrium temperature of the planet only applies to a static situation. It is only because the Earth is turning that makes the average temperature "real". Whenever a temperature between two objects is in disequilibrium, e.g. dawn, radiation may well play a role.--Damorbel (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you don't want this stuff on your talk page would you be so kind as to put it on mine --Damorbel (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

This will be great if it works. Thanks for figuring it out. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note. I think it is working now :) This was a lot harder than I ever expected. The wikipedia method of renaming pages has serious problems. Q Science (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nothing in WP:WEASEL justifies removing a reliable source; it is a style guideline. If you're going to delete relevant info from a reliable source, then you need to provide a more satisfactory justification. Given the extensive objections on the talk page, and the fact that an edit-warrior was just blocked for similar actions, it might be worth discussing the issue further before continuing to revert. Honest edit summaries are also desirable; please don't claim that you are "removing unsourced information" when you are in fact deleting well-sourced information. MastCell ^Talk 19:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Re-read Weasel.

• Who says that?
• How many people think that?

There is no way that the ABC quote should be used. It is completely unsourced.

• ABC News showed Singer's most recent report on global warming to climate scientists from NASA, from Stanford University and from Princeton. They dismissed it as "fabricated nonsense."

Worded another way

• ABC News reports that an unspecified number of climate scientists from at least one of three institutions stated that ...

What am I missing? Q Science (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

A lot. You're applying an internal Wikipedia style guideline to an external reliable source. ABC News makes clear who says that: climate scientists at a variety of top-notch scholarly institutions. We reflect what is in reliable sources. What you're doing seems so transparent to me that I can't totally believe that you're as oblivious as you're acting. In any case, I think it's probably worth waiting for some additional outside input to help resolve the issue; I can't express my objections to your proposed edit any more clearly than I already have. MastCell ^Talk 20:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

"Both Polargeo and Atmoz have bent over backwards to be civil to this troll." I'd like to see some examples of that. --Ronz (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have given all the examples that you need on SA's report. Rather than firing off "I'd like to see some examples of that." In your usual superior way I suggest you actually spend the minute or two that it would take you to find them in the talk page. However, I'm sure that is expecting too much as you came in to the talkpage with your illconceived deletion essay (showing a complete lack of knowledge of what had gone on previously) and then reverted me when my initial reaction was 'what a load of tosh!' Your superiority attitude stinks. Polargeo (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Given Polargeo's behavior, demonstrated above and elsewhere, I'd like to see what Q Science thinks is evidence of of the contrary. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

In this case Q science has shown the ability to judge based on his/her own morals and ability and does not simply cite policy and guidelines in some superior fashion to defend his/her own weaknesses. Polargeo (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The case is that I'm asking for clarification in the form of evidence. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

You gave me an attack warning on my talkpage here which was based on my comment here. This is giving me an automated warning such as you would give a newbie for a comment which does not violate Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F except at the most marginal extreme as interpreted by you. I can give plenty of evidence that it is a valid criticism. You also reverted out my comment here even though it contained plenty of valid criticism of your direct argument. It appears that you are hiding behind policy to defend your own actions. Any criticism of your own actions is instantly reverted as incivility. I am so sorry that this is on Q Science’s talkpage but because you revert anything on your own talkpage, wikipedia, or article talkpages that criticises your actions directly I have no choice. Polargeo (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's appropriate to post the private emails, or links to the private emails on-wiki. Under no circumstances will the emails be suitable for use in the article unless a reliable source has commented on them. I've removed your talk page posting, per this reasoning. Hipocrite (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do not agree that the emails are "private". When I work on government projects and use government computers, it is made VERY clear that my emails are NOT private. However, if you object to posting the exact quote, then please just summarize the tone and leave the rest of my post. I think that Trenberth has demonstrated that he is just as much a skeptic as Lindzen and the information should be included in the article. Q Science (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I note your attempt to add discussion of the emails. While they are obviously "out there" in the public domain you will never be allowed to reference the directly because of WP:COPYVIO which is taken quite seriously. So unless and until they are republished in a secondary source, which is unlikely for the Singer related ones I am afraid, we should avoid them IMHO. So while I agree with what you added I don't feel right restoring it at this time based on the sources you were citing. Sorry.

Now, as for Singer's views on the subject you may find this conversation interesting, [6]. I want to replace the World Magazine quote with the one I mentioned on the talk page because this is very clearly written by Singer himself and thus is clearly usable on his BLP. On his BLP it could even have been his own WP:SPS since he is the subject in question. --GoRight (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I actually had other references, but wanted to use the primary source in order to make sure that everything was in context. As for copyright violation, I quoted 5 words out of tens of thousands. "Fair use" applies. All I did was to help explain why Singer's quotes belong in that section. At any rate, Ronz can no longer claim that you are the only one that wants the quotes. Q Science (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that it applies to the cite you referenced since that is not a traditional media source. If there were a site publishing stolen credit card numbers, for example, you could not claim fair use to copy a few here. Right? Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind including that bit for context I just think that we'd loose the argument. Keep pressing if you want. --GoRight (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Divergence problem, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

Please keep in mind that the Biographies of living persons policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including talkpages. Additionally, please try to keep in mind that this is a collaborative project, and accusing your fellow editors of malfeasance is not productive. Please pursue dispute resolution if you have a problem with another editor, but maintain civility on talkpages.

• key IPCC scientists were trying to hide it [the divergence problem].
• In light of climategate (which you also will not allow to be mentioned here), the divergence indicates the strong possibility of fraud.
• The fact that the key scientists tried (unsuccessfully) to hide the data should also be of interest.
• won't allow even the hint that the science could be other than presented by the IPCC.

- 2/0 (cont.) 06:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, I see the inquisition is in full swing. I guess that even discussing facts is now off limits. Did you even read the post I made? (By the way, I am not the anon who keeps re-adding that paragraph.) As for my comments, I am sorry if they offended anyone, but it is widely reported that climategate revealed that key IPCC contributors tried to hide data. I don't have proof that that is true, but it is widely reported in many reliable sources. It is also reported that several scientists have called for investigations of fraud. However, if we are not allowed to even discuss these issues on the talk pages, then I guess that means that only one point of view will be tolerated. Q Science (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I came here just now to discuss your recent comment at User talk:Ludwigs2. This is what I was going to say:

Just a reminder: No personal attacks. If you have evidence of problematic behavior, use dispute resolution.

And now I come here to find you importing falsehoods from the gutter press. Please remember that this is not a blog site or forum where you can discuss whatever subject enters your head. We're here to report the facts from reliable sources, and to do so without backbiting and personal attacks. --TS 19:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I considered those to be general observations, not personal attacks. If you think I have misunderstood something, please be specific and we can discuss it. As for "falsehoods from the gutter press", please be specific, what falsehoods? Q Science (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I came to this page to warn you, and I found that you had already been warned by an uninvolved administrator over a week ago. I didn't come to engage in debate. Clean up your act. --TS 23:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure you didn't mean it to, but interspersing your comments within a complex comment of mine has made mine all but incomprehensible and broken the numbering of the list. I wrote this for lots of people to read and discuss. Please refactor your contributions to the end of the discussion. --Nigelj (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I apologize, I never meant to change the numbering (and did not notice it). However, I really prefer my comments to be inserted where they are. Is there another way to fix this without moving the text? That is what I would prefer. If not, you have my permission to move my comments, and my sincere apology. Meantime, I am going to try and find another solution. If I fail, then I will move the text myself. Q Science (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Problem fixed. It was simple, replace :: with #: Q Science (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would draw your attention to WP:TPOC, where is is pointed out that altering other peoples edits are only appropriate in certain situations, and that your actions did not fall under that criteria. If you have an issue with the tone or content of an edit, address them - politely - to the account who made them. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I know the rules (mostly), but that language is normally not tolerated. Since at least 2 of the involved editors are administrators, I thought a simple nudge would suffice, I really didn't want to escalate this, but now, I see I will have to. Q Science (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is wrong [7] and you are perfectly well aware that it is wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, I clarified my reasoning in my next post (at 21:09). Basically, either "there must be a way to clear a person" or "an accusation proves guilt". Either you "Assume Good Faith" or you don't. If checkuser has no value to clear someone, then perhaps it should no longer be used. On the other hand, I am curious to know what you think would have been an appropriate comment. Perhaps you can convince me to strike the current comment. Q Science (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

for this. That's a better location. I simply pointed it at the same place as weather presenter, which I gather is a near equivalent term in a minor, non-standard English. -Atmoz (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for telling me, I was a little concerned you wouldn't agree. Q Science (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

In your edit of Sakuma–Hattori equation on July 26, 2010, as I found an addition of the link [8] as a reference, it doesn't seem it is not related to the context. The link should be like a translate tool for me. Can I remove that link from the article? ayucat (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I used that link as the source for the definition of the phrase "silver point"

the silver point, the melting point of silver 962°C used as a calibration point in some temperature scales

I agree that this is a poor reference and would be happy if you can find a better one. However, it is the best that I could find. BTW, I do not understand why you want it removed. Q Science (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just want you to know I responded to you at my talk page. I also have a lot of lurkers and asked if any of them would check out your concerns. Hope I helped to clarify what I was trying to say. Have a good night, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I think I have traced back the origin of all that strange statements in Black body in the 3rd reference of the article. I can read only its abstract, but its author (probably the same C., who inserted it) has written a lot of other papers, all on a pseudo-scientific (or an alternative-science) journal, Progress in Physics, in which he criticizes the accepted view about B.B. radiation, citing only his own papers on the same journal (except the IEEE Transaction paper, which I have no idea on how did he succeed in having published). Here is an example. I did not read it with much diligence, but understand that one of his points is that the backgroud microwave radiation derives from oceans, not from Universe (reference: himself), and this shows that a 300°K body can behave like a 3°K body, and hence that those two old guys, Kirchoff and Planck, could not understand so much (do you remember this statement?).
I hope you have been amused by all this matter, as I was in carrying out the investigation into it.
I will try, having time, to reorder the section. And also to find an elegant manner to delete that reference (which, however is fron an authoritative journal). --GianniG46 (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Very funny. Thanks Q Science (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I saw your reply to my comment on Mark's SPI thread before it got archived and thought I would reply here. Checkuser is never used to connect IP users with accounts. Having watched SPI for a while, the main justification for this policy seems to be a privacy issue. If an IP is conclusively associated with an account one can find out the geographic location or employer of the user, putting them at a greater risk of outing or off-wiki harassment. Checkuser is used to show if multiple accounts edit from the same IP, without the need for the checkusers to reveal what that IP actually was. Hope that helps. Cheers, Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 19:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that makes sense. However, since Mark claimed that he was not the IP in his response to the investigation, it seems logical that to find him guilty without using checkuser is unfair. I questioned this since one of the admins simply deleted the response rather than make it public. To be clear, he was accused and found guilty while he was off line. When he discovered what happened, his comments were deleted. Q Science (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I saw his response and was considering posting it to the SPI, but got distracted by meatwork. I think if he had avoided posting this [9] also things wouldn't have gotten quite so out of hand. It looks like he's been cleared now.[10] Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 21:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the mailing list.

You can remove your name from future notifications of Washington DC Meetups by editing this page: Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.
BrownBot (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C.

• Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
• Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
• Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
• Details & RSVP: Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.

Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

THE FORMULA IS WRONG!!! I EDITED IT YESTERDAY AND IT WASNT ACCEPTED! BUT IM RIGHT I REEDIT IT AGAIN.

Explaination: If its cold delta18O is positive. if its cold theres less 18O in the sample. Therefore the formula must be (16O/18O)/(16O/18O)SMOW - 1. I saw that the wrong formula is also in the other wikipedia article about 18O. I edit it there as well. a right source (german) would be http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauerstoff (chapter "Indirekte Temperaturmessung") --Thilo Kübler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.117.202.122 (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The formula was correct before you changed it. See also Isotope analysis. For a full definition, see Isotopes and the delta notation. See also Fractionation and temperature: why do δ18O and δD reflect temperature?. Q Science (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I regret but the your sources must be wrong. lets make a logic chain. (tell me if smth is not correct plx) 1. warmer than SMOW: deltaO18 negative 2. warmer: fractionation less i.e. more O18 in gas phase i.e O16/O18 decreases i.e. O16/O18 / O16/O18SMOW < 1 i.e. (O16/O18 / O16/O18SMOW) -1 = negative q.e.d.

As I told the german wikipedia pages also cites my version. i regret the right formula is delta18O = ((16O/18O) / (16O/18O)SMOW) - 1. As I have learnt it in my environmental physics course. --Thilo Kübler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.12.25.91 (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The minus one is confusing, so let's get rid of it. Replacing the ratio with x

delta-u = x / x(SMOW) - 1 = x / x(SMOW) - x(SMOW)/x(SMOW) = [ x - x(SMOW) ] / x(SMOW)

which I think makes more sense. Now, delta-18O is always negative because, at all temperatures, the heavy water evaporates slower than the light water. Thus x(SMOW) > x. Since the air always has a lower ratio of heavy to light water with respect to the source water,

(18O/16O)SMOW > (18O/16O)Air

from which it follows that

(16O/18O)SMOW < (16O/18O)Air

which yields the wrong sign. When it rains, the first shower has the most 18O. This is because as rain falls through a dry layer of air, the light water will tend to evaporate faster than the heavier water causing the remaining moisture in the air to be much lighter than what was originally evaporated. As the air mass moves farther from the source, there may be additional storms. Thus, mountain rivers tend to have less 18O than the ocean. Q Science (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

thanks for the quick reply. your argumentation is plausible too. the part with rayleigh fractionation is well as well. but there is one point: at 100°C (18O/16O)SMOW = (18O/16O)Air (everything is in gase phase). From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-O-18 last chapter i have: "increase of 0.22‰ is equivalent to a 1 °C (33.80 °F) cooling." which would mean that xAir gets bigger than xSMOW and delta-u would become positive at 99°C. maybe "your" negative values of delta-u are only negative because they are in relation to the first air (before rayleigh fractionation)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.12.60.192 (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

That should have read

equivalent to a 1 °C (1.8 °F) cooling

(I fixed it.) Actually, the boiling point of heavy water is slightly higher than light water. That is why the ratio is a temperature proxy. Unfortunately, the referenced article is behind a pay wall and, therefore, I can not verify if the statement is correct. Q Science (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi again! i revisited the page and have still a problem: my argumentation started in the very beginning with the assumation "delta18O gets more positive when it gets colder". you say its always negative. and thats exactly the point. if my assuming is correct the ratio must be inverted, if yours is correct everything is fine. why i write now follows: the article tells "increase of 0.22%o is equivalent to 1°C cooling" that would mean that at 100°C (everything is in gas phase) delta18O is zero and at 99°C its 0.22%o. positive!!! a second hint that delta18O is positive is in the diagrams in the article. if you make them larger you can see that the numbers at the delta18O axis are positive... what do you say??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.104.133.202 (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

You made an edit a few months ago to this sentence:

measurements at a series of different depths can be effectively "inverted" (a mathematical formula to solve a matrix equation) to become a series of temperature values back in time.

I still don't understand... do you mean that if the temperature at some depth inside the earth is found to be, say, 300 degrees, that this tells us something about the surface temperature thousands or millions of years in the past? Or what? Please update the article, if you have more to add. Thanks. 129.219.155.89 (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that is the theory. Proxy (climate)#Boreholes provides a detailed explanation. Q Science (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks; I reworded the paragraph. Please correct if you don't agree. 129.219.155.89 (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Much better. Thanks. Q Science (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello Q Science,

The additions I had made to this page were to stress the fact that the greenhouse effect is largely due to visible light passing through the atmosphere (unlike UV and IR) to become absorbed and re-radiated by the surface in the form of IR. Would it be possible to correct this point? Niluop (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a source that agrees with that? My understanding is that over 50% of the energy from the Sun is near IR and that most of that passes through the atmosphere without being absorbed. Another 10% to 20% is UV and most of that is absorbed in the atmosphere. As a result, the visible wavelengths are only about 30% of the total. Unfortunately, except for the fact that over half the solar energy is actually IR, I don't have solid references to support the other percentages. Q Science (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, here are some. I'm not sure if the total percentages matter as much as those which pass through the atmosphere without being absorbed, but here is what I'm getting for percentage values: IR 50%, Visible 43%, 7 UV% with reference [11] (starts about halfway down). This will also describe what I mentioned above. Here is an additional which will describe this similar concept that I was referring to. [12] Niluop (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Both of your references are excellent. However, I am not sure why the first one is different than what I compute using a program I wrote. (Since I wrote it, I am not sure the results are correct. In addition, my program incorrectly assumes that the Sun is a blackbody emitter instead of using the measured spectra.)

341.3 W/m2 total TOA/4

173.8 W/m2 50.9% longer than 700 nm

125.0 W/m2 36.6% 700 nm to 400 nm

041.7 W/m2 12.2% less than 400 nm

Notice that I used the same ranges as ucar. When the surface albedo is considered, more visible light is reflected than IR and, as a result, the percentages change. Assuming a visible albedo of 30%, only 87 W/m2 (25.6% of TOA/4) of the visible light adds heat to the surface. (The IR albedo is different and never provided. Since the total albedo is about 30%, the visible portion is significantly larger.)

At any rate, both sets of numbers contradict your statement that

energy from the Sun in the form of predominantly visible light

which is the part objected to. From everything I have read, and based on my own calculations, it appears that over 60% of the solar energy that heats the Earth's surface is actually in the near infrared (short IR).

Your last statement about

This trapping of long-wavelength thermal radiation leads to a higher equilibrium temperature than if the atmosphere were absent.

agrees with the theory presented in the IPCC documents. I also object to that (there actually are other theories on how the Greenhouse effect works) but do not have an acceptable reference to support deleting it. Q Science (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

There are couple of points here to consider. The relative distribution of radiation over frequency is not my focal point. Much of the IR from the sun is absorbed and re-radiated by the atmosphere. For this fraction, the surface albedo of the earth does not come into play. The phrase you are quoting above about predominant UV light is missing the qualifier of 'energy received' by the earth. It wasn't meant explain the sun's raw energy output. The difference in albedo of the surface for IR versus UV is not as important since the percentage of IR that actually reaches the surface since it is attenuated by the atmosphere. The original point was only making the case that UV passes through the atmosphere readily, unlike IR. I'd be interested in seeing some of the references you have in opposition to IR heat being trapped. We should probably add them to article as references if we can locate them. Niluop (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

1. At WikiXDC in January, User:Harej proposed that DC submit a bid to host Wikimania 2012. A bid and organizing committee is being formed and seeks additional volunteers to help. Please look at our bid page and sign up if you want to help out. You can also signup for the bid team's email list.
2. To support the Wikimania bid, more events like WikiXDC, and outreach activities like collaborations with the Smithsonian (ongoing) and National Archives, there also has been discussion of forming Wikimedia DC, as an official Wikimedia chapter. You can express interest and contribute to chapter discussions on the Wikimedia DC Meta-Wiki pages.
3. To discuss all this and meet up with special guest, Dutch Wikipedian User:Kim Bruning, there will be a meetup, Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 16 this Tuesday at 7pm, at Capitol City Brewery, Metro Center. There will be a pre-meetup Wikimania team meeting at 6pm at the same location.

Apologies for the short notice for this meetup, but let's discuss when, where & what for DC Meetup #17. Also, if you haven't yet, please join wikimedia-dc mailing list to stay informed. Cheers, User:Aude (talk)

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

The next DC Wikimedia meetup is scheduled for Saturday, May 7, 3:30-5:30 pm at the Tenleytown Library (adjacent to the Tenleytown Metro Station, Red Line), followed by dinner & socializing at some nearby place.

This is the first official meeting of our proposed Wikimedia DC chapter, with discussion of bylaws and next steps. Other agenda items include, update everyone on our successful Wikimania bid and next steps in the planning process, discuss upcoming activities that we want to do over the summer and fall, and more.

Please RSVP here and see a list of additional tentatively planned meetups & activities for late May & June on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC page.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

The first ever WikiProject National Archives newsletter has been published. Please read on to find out what we're up to and how to help out! There are many opportunities for getting more involved. Dominic·t 21:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC), on behalf of User:AudeReply

I think you mistook who wrote that comment - i certainly do not agree that being bold is out of line - see also my explanation there. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was referring to this edit where you said.

Reverted to revision 460926286 by Merlinme: rv. You were bold - you got reverted - now discuss!.

I don't see how I was mis-quoting you. Q Science (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

The comment about "out of line" wasn't mine, and i quite frankly have trouble seeing how i in any way or form should've "suggested that Colonel Warden is out of line", that is unless you believe that stating that someone is being bold, in the BRD cycle, is out of line. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I guess the question is "Who was being bold?" I assumed that Merlinme's deletes were bold since the exact text had not been agreed to yet. Apparently, you think Colonel Warden was being bold when he reverted the changes. I simply assumed that it was a revert. At any rate, that is why I interpreted your "Edit Summary" as an attack. Even though we obviously disagree on this, it is now obvious that you did not intend it to be an attack. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Q Science (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, In response to your comment I left you a question here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Are you deliberately misreading things here[21], because you don't like me (or something)?

• I did not advocate/lead/whatever any deletion of material then.
• Nor did i defend or in other ways comment on the deletion then.

What i did do at that time, was ask for a balanced approach, by adding material about the mainstream position. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yet it was your post that lead to the deletion of material two days later. Perhaps that was simply an unintended consequence. Granted, you did suggest adding more instead of deleting everything, but once the material was deleted you never objected. You never even suggested that the material was useful or tried to convince other editors to leave it there. Instead, when some editor tried to restore the material, your action was to completely support the deletion.

I know your edit summary claims that you were simply deleting material restored by a sockpuppet ("our friend"), but since you never argued to restore the material, I reject your claim that you did not "defend or in other ways comment on the deletion then".

By the way, based on years of experience, I have learned that once Scibaby restores something anybody else who restores the same thing will be permanently banned from wikipedia. As a result, I won't even restore the material now because that will cause bad things to happen to me.

And now, you are arguing that for a person to be listed on one page they must have supporting text on their bio. Yet you were editing the main page and talk page of an atmospheric physicist and never complained about deleting that type of information.

I am sorry that you think I am "deliberately misreading things", but this is really the way I see it. Perhaps this is the reason that there is so much contention in Global Warming articles, people really do see the same facts differently. And, in this case, perhaps we are both correct, seeing two sides of the same penny and neither comprehending what the other sees. That said, I agree that my post on the other page does not agree with what I have said above and I have tried to fix it. (Deleting it might be better, except that the editors there need to know that the data used to be on Garth Paltridge's page.)

By the way, I don't agree that every skeptic page has to include all the information about the IPCC position to be NPOV. (This was the argument used to delete all climate change information from Garth Paltridge's bio.) In these cases, NPOV simply means that we must not present the skeptic's view as being the mainstream view. In my opinion, simply using the word "skeptic" satisfies that requirement. In order to help the readers, I think it would be useful to also include a link to another Wikipedia page that explains what the mainstream position is, but I don't feel it is required by NPOV or any other guideline. Q Science (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for at least taking a look at this. I have few comments to the above:

• I had and have no interest in the sceptic presented, and thus only described my views at the time on the content, leaving it up to the editors who did have an interest to deal with the problem as i saw it. Which is why i haven't edited the page before or after.

I had (and still have) no interest either. However, his mention in the RFC caused me to investigate, and I did not like what I saw. Q Science (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

You may not like it... but consensus was for it. On both sides i might remark. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

• With regards to NPOV - you may agree or not, but our policy is very clear, i quote (underlining mine):

  In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. Wikipedia:Fringe theories and the NPOV FAQs provide additional guidance.

I have read the deleted material. I think is clearly meets that requirement. I am not sure what else is needed to make it WP:NPOV. Basically, how would a reader be confused by what was written? Q Science (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I can't see why i should comment on an old content issue, that was decided by a consensus of pro and contra editors at the time. You were making allegations against me leading/driving/whatever the content out of the article - which quite simply is not true. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Our policy on dealing with sockpuppets is simple: They must be reverted. If any other editor wants to restore the content, then it is up to that editor to take responsibility for the content. And yes, if the content is significantly problematic, then that may involve serious consequences.
• I can't recall a single instance of an editor being blocked for restoring scibaby content alone (as opposed to conduct as a whole). I'd be grateful for any examples.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

based on years of experience, I have learned that once Scibaby restores something anybody else who restores the same thing will be permanently banned from wikipedia - you're making that up William M. Connolley (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I didn't make the following up.

"Restoring edits from banned users is meatpuppetry. Meatpuppetry is prohibited. Users who act as meatpuppets for banned users may be blocked"[22]

I am surprised you don't remember it. Q Science (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

"May"!="Must". And your assertion was that people have been banned specifically for restoring scibaby content. The question is: "Who?" You are refering btw. to a rejected finding of fact, that didn't make it to the final outcome[23] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC), on behalf of User:AudeReply

Sarah (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

This[24] is 100% original research. I'm interested in how you think that coming to conclusions that are explicitly contradictory to a scientific papers conclusion ( 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is Ok? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is exactly what is in the paper. No exaggeration or interpretation. The abstract clearly disagrees with the body of the document. Did you actually read it? Q Science (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Do quote the paper where it states what you conclude. You can't - because you've cherry-picked some figures from the paper, without considering the statistical/analytical implications, and derive a different conclusion than the paper - one which even directly contradicts the stated conclusions of the paper. This is the very base definition of WP:OR/WP:SYN. You interpret completely, since nowhere in the paper does it say anything even remotely comparable to what you derive. And Yes, i did read the paper. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ok, here are some quotes. This is what I added

In 2010, Anderegg, et al performed a literature review and determined that 472 (34%) of 1,372 climate researchers disagree with the IPCC position. However, when limiting their list to only the top 200 climate researchers (based on the number of papers published), 97% agreed with the IPCC.

From Supporting Information

We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers and classified each researcher as either convinced by the evidence (CE) for anthropogenic climate change or unconvinced by the evidence (UE) for ACC.

Concerning those "unconvinced by the evidence (UE) for ACC"

After removing duplicate names across these lists, we had a total of 472 names.

This value appears in the paper proper as

We compiled UE names comprehensively from 12 of the most prominent statements criticizing the IPCC conclusions (n = 472; SI Materials and Methods).

I simply presented their data as a percentage - 472/1,372 = 34.3%

As for the second part of my addition, from the paper

We ranked researchers based on the total number of climate publications authored.

The UE group comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200

As you can see, I have used only data provided by Anderegg, et al and used it in a way that is neither synthesis nor OR. Therefore, I guess I am not really sure what you are asking about. By the way, in PNAS, Lawrence Bodenstein points out that arguing that someone with 900 papers knows more than someone with only 100 is nothing but

the logical fallacy of an ad hominem argument

Q Science (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

You've come to a novel conclusion, that isn't in the reference given... that is the very definition of WP:SYN. Btw. you are aware that the paper because it needed sceptical scientists specifically added lists of sceptical scientists to their initial number? So the 472 are not randomly selected - they are in fact the exact opposite, what you are describing is not the percentage of sceptics - but the total number of sceptics on specific lists (petitions), compared to the number of assessment report authors. Anderegg et al. did not determine that there were 472 sceptics amongst some group, they chose 472 sceptics to compare with 900 non-sceptics. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it is a bad paper. I have said so several times. None of the scientists were randomly selected in either group. I have simply restated what is in the paper. For that to be WP:SYN, I would have to combine multiple sources and come to a conclusion not present in either, which I did not do. Q Science (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I will still call it SYN even if it technically might only be OR. You take the data given, and combine it with items in the paper - and come to a conclusion that is neither inherent in the data nor stated in the paper. In fact you managed to misunderstand the paper completely [which seems to be your reason for stating that it is a bad paper - i don't agree - in fact i have no views on that.]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think it is a bad paper because it makes no effort to estimate how many legitimate climate scientists were not included in either set of lists, and because the abstract is intentionally misleading. As for conclusions, I have only stated exactly what is in the paper. Q Science (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have been banned from any discussion of climate change

-)

But only for 48 hours. And there was no requirement for you to delete anything you placed on my page before the temporary timeout was implemented. Q Science (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Backstage at the Smithsonian Libraries is part of Wikipedia Loves Libraries 2012, the second annual continent-wide campaign to bring Wikipedia and libraries together with on-site events. Running this fall through October and November, libraries (and archives) will open their doors to help build a lasting relationship with their local Wikipedian community.

Organized by Wikimedia DC, this event will take place on October 12, 2012, and will include new editor training, a "backstage pass" tour of the National Museum of Natural History, and an edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend!

Kirill ^[talk] 18:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

You left me a note on my User sandbox page for the Tim Ball bio, way back last January. Shows how unfamiliar I am with WP that I hadn't flagged up the page and failed to note your kind and detailed note until now. Suffice it to say, I feel completely disheartened with Wikipedia in the Climate Science area, where I am tied up in WP Newspeak which drained my energy beyond its continuing to be usable. This has driven me back to my own project, Climatewiki.org.uk where contributors have to be signed in by me. It's still in alpha stage but if you feel like contributing that would be really nice. Email me there if you are interested. Lucy Skywalker (talk) 09:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

December 10 is Ada Lovelace's birthday! Not only was she the world's first computer programmer, but also the world's first female open source developer! Come celebrate with Wikimedia District of Columbia at Busboys & Poets for an informal get together!

The Washington, DC event will be held on Monday, December 10, 2012 at Busboys & Poets on 5th St NW & K St NW near Mt Vernon Square. The area is easily accessible by the Red Line Chinatown stop and the Yellow Line and Green Line Mt Vernon Square stop, as well as by WMATA buses.

Kirill ^[talk] 14:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please join Wikimedia DC and four other local media nonprofits—the National Press Club's Young Members Committee, 100Reporters, IRE and the Fund for Investigative Journalism—in winding down another year with a night of well-mannered frivolity.

The festivities will take place on Friday evening from 6:30 PM to 9:00 PM in the Zenger Room on the 13th Floor of the National Press Club, located on 529 14th Street NW, near Metro Center. There will be meat and vegetarian appetizers as well as a cash bar with specially reduced drink prices all night long. In addition, we will be exhibiting the finalists of the Wiki Loves Monuments photo contest at the event.

Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 04:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please join Wikimedia DC for Happy Hour at the Capitol City Brewery at Metro Center on Thursday, February 28 at 6 p.m. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 34. Hope to see you there! Harej (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Q Science, since you are interested in meetups in DC, I'd like to invite you to attend the Cato Institute's "Wikipedia and Legislative Data" events on March 14. (There's also an all day workshop on March 15; let me know if you are interested, we may be able to add more people.)

There will be an introduction to Wikipedia and open edit-a-thon in the afternoon, and a Sunshine Week Reception in the evening. I hope you can make it!

• Please sign up here
• Announcement on Cato's blog
• Background from Cato sponsor Jim Harper's perspective
• Background from Wikipedian Pete Forsyth's perspective

Hope to see you there! -Pete (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Guapo's at Tenleytown-AU on Saturday, March 9 at 5 PM All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 35. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 13:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

In honor of Women's History Month, the Smithsonian and the National Museum of Women in the Arts are teaming up to organize a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29, 2013 from 10:00am - 5:00pm. The event is focused on encouraging women editors while improving Wikipedia entries about women artists and art world figures. This event is free of charge, but participation is limited to 20 volunteers, so RSVP today! Sarasays (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, April 13 at 5:30 PM All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 36. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 19:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The "All Things GW" editathon on Saturday, April 20, 2013 from 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. is a rare chance to go behind the scenes in the University Archives of the GW Libraries and use their unique resources to research and update Wikipedia pages related to The George Washington University and the Foggy Bottom neighborhood. Did you miss our last D.C. history editathon? This is your is your chance to come edit with wiki-friends using different great collection! The event includes a behind-the-scenes tour of the University Archives and a show-and-tell of some of its most interesting treasures, snacks, and the editathon.

Participation is limited to 30 volunteers, so RSVP today! Dominic·t 07:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for two exciting events this weekend:

On the evening of Friday, April 19, we're hosting our first-ever WikiSalon at our K Street office. The WikiSalon will be a twice-monthly informal meetup and collaborative editing event to help build the community of Wikimedia enthusiasts here in DC; please join us for its inaugural session. Light refreshments will be provided.

On Saturday, April 20, we've partnered with the George Washington University to host the All Things GW Edit-a-Thon at the Teamsters Labor History Research Center. Please join us for behind-the-scenes tours of the University Archives and help edit articles about GWU history.

We look forward to seeing you at one or both of these events! Kirill ^[talk] 20:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, May 11 at 5:30 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 23:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of May 24 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 18:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Join us at the NLM next week, either in person or online, to learn about NLM resources, hear some great speakers, and do some editing!

On Tuesday, 28 May there will be a community Wikipedia meeting at the United States National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland - with a second on Thursday, 30 May for those who can't make it on Tuesday. You can participate either in-person, or via an online webinar. If you attend in person, USB sticks (but not external drives) are ok to use.

Please go to the event page to get more information, including a detailed program schedule.

If you are interested in participating, please register by sending an email to pmhmeet@gmail.com. Please indicate if you are coming in person or if you will be joining us via the webinar. After registering, you will receive additional information about how to get to our campus (if coming in-person) and details about how to join the webinar. Klortho (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Thursday, June 6 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 11:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry for the last-minute notice, but on Saturday, June 8, from 3 to 6 PM, Wikimedia DC and the Cato Institute are hosting a Legislative Data Meetup. We will discuss the work done so far by WikiProject U.S. Federal Government Legislative Data to put data from Congress onto Wikipedia, as well as what more needs to be done. If you have ideas you'd like to contribute, or if you're just curious and feel like meeting up with other Wikipedians, you are welcome to come! Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.

I hope to see you there!

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for D.C.-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Harej (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, June 15 at 5:30 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 19:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Boilerplate message generously borrowed from Wikimedia NYC. To unsubscribe from future DC area event notifications, remove your name from this list.

Harej (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, July 13 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, August 24 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 03:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Wednesday, August 24 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 11:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Are you free on Saturday, September 14? If so, please join Wikimedia DC and local Wikipedians for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages are welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please visit the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 18:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 5 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 14:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 26 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 05:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for a special WikiSalon at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library's Digital Commons Center. We will gather at 3 PM on Sunday, October 13, 2013 to discuss an important topic: what can Wikipedia and the DC area do to help each other? We hope to hear your thoughts and suggestions; if you have an idea you would like to pursue, please let us know and we will help!

Following the WikiSalon, we will be having dinner at a nearby restaurant, Ella's Wood Fired Pizza.

If you're interested in attending, please sign up at the event page. We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 01:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey!

You are invited to two upcoming events in DC:

• Meetup at Capitol City Brewery on Saturday, January 25 at 6 PM. Please join us for dinner, drinks, socializing, and discussing Wikimedia DC activities and events. All are welcome! RSVP on the linked page or through Meetup.
• Art and Feminism Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, February 1 from Noon – 5 PM. Join us as we improve articles on notable women in history! All are welcome, regardless of age or level of editing experience. RSVP on the linked page or through Meetup.

I hope to see you there!

(Note: If you do not wish to receive talk page messages for DC meetups, you are welcome to remove your username from this page.)

Harej (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello there!

Our February WikiSalon is coming up on Sunday, February 23. Join us at our gathering of Wikipedia enthusiasts at the Kogod Courtyard of the National Portrait Gallery with an optional dinner after. As usual, all are welcome. Care to join us?

Also, if you are available, there is an American Art Edit-a-thon being held at the Smithsonian American Art Museum with Professor Andrew Lih's COMM-535 class at American University on Tuesday, February 11 from 2 to 5 PM. Please RSVP on the linked page if you are interested.

If you have any ideas or preferences for meetups, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/DC.

Thank you, and hope to see you at our upcoming events! Harej (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

— Harej (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Come one and come all. To a presentation at the Laurel Historical Society about how you can help verify, validate, and edit the information that is on the front line of local history.

• Show the Internet who is the better editor.
• Be the creator of culture that you know you are.
• Spread the knowledge of noteworthy people who no one but you cares about.
• Lead the charge to a better Wikipedia --- eventually.

Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

See you at the Laurel Pool Room, 9th and Main Street, Laurel, MD on Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 7:00 PM EST. See http://www.meetup.com/Wikimedia-DC/events/205494212/ for more information. Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

The WikiSalon is a special meetup usually held during the first and third full weeks of every month, from 7 PM to 9 PM. It's an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss Wikimedia wikis and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own.

If you're coming by Metro, the closest station is Dupont Circle (on the Red Line). If you're driving, a lot of parking opens up downtown after 6:30 PM, so finding a parking space (even a free one) should be easy. Once you've found the building, go to Cove on the second floor. We will be in the conference room.

When: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 at 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM

Where: The Cove, Dupont Circle, 1730 Connecticut Avenue NW, 2nd floor, 20009, DC

For more information, see http://www.meetup.com/Wikimedia-DC/events/205500822/

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia DC's Upcoming meetups

• Thursday, September 11: “Wikipedia and YOUR History: Taking Control of the Internet, One Article at a Time!”

  A presentation at the Laurel Historical Society about how you can help verify, validate, and edit the information that is on the front line of local history. Laurel Pool Room, 9th and Main Street in Laurel, MD. 7 PM.

• Wednesday, September 17: WikiSalon

  Come for the pizza, stay for the conversation. 7 PM – 9 PM

• Saturday, September 20: September Meetup

  Get dinner and drinks with fellow Wikipedians! 6 PM

• Sunday, September 21: Laurel History Edit-a-Thon

  Local history for Wikipedia! 10:15 AM – 4 PM

• Saturday, September 27 – Sunday, September 28: Please RSVP for the Open Government WikiHack at Eventbrite by clicking on the link. The National Archives and Records Administration and Wikimedia DC are teaming up to come up with solutions that help integrate government data into Wikipedia. 10:30 AM – 5 PM each day

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 02:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 03:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 18:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. 02:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

To remove yourself from this mailing list, remove your name from this list. 22:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply