See the revised article. - Nunh-huh 02:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds plausible that Isaac Asimov coined "millihelen", but where is the evidence/documentation? Even finding an early use in his writing would be a good start. The earliest use in Google Books is 1970 (possibly; full text is not available); one book mentions Denis Norden as having coined it, but that book was published in 2003 and gives no source.... --Macrakis 04:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my knowledge of the personalities of the two of them, I would say it is much more the sort of thing I would expect from Denis Norden, but of course that is not a reliable source. I vaguely seem to remember hearing Denis Norden use the word on the radio in the 1960s or just possibly late 1950s, but obviously even if I were 100% certain, that would not prove that he was the first to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mindless and needlessly deleted the entire article on the author, Jonathan Raban, without any proper explanation. Please can you explain the rationale for your actions? Ivankinsman 11:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no recollection of making the edit you described to me. I have looked at "my contributions" and the only edit I made was a small grammar update edit by changing "has been" to "was". Furthermore, by looking through the history of the page, if I compare the edits you made on May 5th, the change you claim I made was your own doing. --CmaccompH89 23:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology. I'm glad that the issue was resolved easily. Cheers. --CmaccompH89 15:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...for your message on my talk page. Yes I have a few user boxes, but nowhere near as many as some folks do! As for the graphic on the punctuation box (the code for which, by the way is {{User british quotes}}), I guess it depends whether the quoted text is a question. Not quite sure though why the Olivia Judson article would lead you to my user page... – ukexpat (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK I see now. To be honest I don't even remember reverting that vandalism, I was patrolling recent changes with WP:Huggle and didn't pay attention to the article names. – ukexpat (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello-

I noticed belatedly that you'd commented on this, and I wanted to bring your attention back to it, since you appear to know more about abstract algebra than me. At the talk page for Example of a commutative non-associative magma, I commented on my problem with what's there. What do you think? To me it looks bogus, in which case, I'll get rid of its reference in the RPS article. Thanks! Cretog8 (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed your comment at the talk page of limit of a function concerning the difficulty of the definition. I think your point is well taken. Believe it or not, there is a radically simple solution to the problem; see non-standard calculus. Katzmik (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment at my talk page: there is a common misconception that non-standard analysis is based on a different system of axioms as compared to ordinary analysis. This is not the case. Namely, NSA is based on ZFC, just as ordinary standard analysis does (as opposed to the constructivist approach). To help understand NSA, some authors have developed systems of axioms for it. However, this took place after NSA was constructed within ZFC. I suggest you read the lead paragraph, recently added by Charles Matthews, at Criticism of non-standard analysis. Katzmik (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? "Believe it or not"??? I've known about non-standard analysis for 40 years, and I would definitely 'not say it uses the same axioms as standard analysis. You really think the only issue is whether both kinds of analysis are based on ZFC ? When two mathematical systems differ (i.e., are not identical), it is precisely because there is *some* difference in the axiom systems. This includes the case where a definition of a given "concept" -- or, more accurately, *term* -- is different. (Like "real numbers" or "limit".)

The standard real numbers have no element that's > 0 but < every rational number. The standard definition of "limit" is -- well, I'm sure I don't need to repeat it here -- but you do know it's different from the definition of "limit" in non-standard analysis.Daqu (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daqu: I removed your question from Katzmik and copied it to User talk:Katzmik, as I believe is the appropriate ettiquette. Also I gave an explanation and evidence to confirm that what Katzmik said is in fact a standard convention (although not defining the inf/sup of the empty set is also a standard convention). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plclark (talk • contribs) 22:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These Pupusa look just like stuffed Parantha, just that these pupusa are made from corn, rather than wheat flour. Any thoughts???? EyeMD ^T|C 15:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fleshed out your characterization of color space in terms of a cone over a simplex at Color vision#Mathematics_of_color_perception, hopefully correctly, please check. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your question at my talk page. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. I realise that neither side was deliberately trying to be combative and the purpose of my comment was to try to encourage those who were opposing a revision to seriously consider it. When I made my first comment, the proposition was based on personal incredulity. However, it later emerged that the statement wasnt unambiguously supported by the expert sources, and as such a revision might be needed. I'm sure that even Dominus would agree that if it turns out not in fact to be accurate, it should be changed. K-22-22 (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have rewritten the lead to try and take your criticisms on board. Any better now? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK but now I'm really, really curious; for me the show is such fluffy fun show I don't give much thought to subtext. I'm usually too busy trying to spot the pineapples and 80s references. Please tell? Feel free to email me through the toolbox interface if you're really that concerned about broadcasting your theory. Millahnna (mouse)talk 01:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I should like to explain why I am reverting your recent edit to the Regular polytope article. The term "polychoron" has come into widening use as the four-dimensional analogue of a polygon or polyhedron. I have just linked to its article on this wiki, you may also find such on Mathworld. The term is too embedded in these sites and in the literature elsewhere to ignore.

I do not know who has deemed that only two mathematicians may name these particular objects of study, but perhaps they mean that only Conway may name specific regular examples (Coxeter being deceased)? Either way, named they have been, with the name now in common usage (Google search returns "About 31,000 results - not bad for a relatively new term in a realtively obscure arena), and as a general encyclopedia Wikipedia should acknowledge this.

Should you wish to launch a campaign against usage of the term on Wikipedia, please discuss it with the page maintainers first.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the term, definitely used in the realm of regular and uniform 4-polytopes, but regular google can't be a positive source for inclusion, only a lack of matches as a sign for exclusion. The matches might be 90% copied from Wikipedia, and some are crazy, like an Amazon book [1] - I've seen these before. People take a bunch of topics from wikipedia, and edit them into a book. I mean like they'll add dozens of these books per day! Tom Ruen (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. 45 matches on Google scholar[2], like [3], 5. The regular polychora. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support it all you want; there is nothing to discuss. "Polychoron" is a coinage by *one* person that does not occur *even once* in a peer-reviewed journal, based on the extremely extensive professional database known as MathSciNet. Not even *once* in even *one* paper.

As a professional mathematician, I don't feel any need to get permission from a bunch of people with various backgrounds, many of whom think it's the coolest thing in the world to insert new coinages into Wikipedia -- leading to hundreds of other websites copying these instances of the non-existent term, leading to the illusion that it is a standard term.

It is not the function of Wikipedia to serve as a venue for people to promulgate their coinages by taking advantage of this phenomenon. And it is of great importance to not capitulate to such people and their agendas.

The function of Wikipedia is to disseminate knowledge. If someone pretends that a term of their own coinage is a correct term for a certain meaning, that is making up knowledge -- another form of lying. Wikipedia is not intended to include lies.

So, User:Steelpillow, I strongly urge you to revert your reversion unless and until you have solid evidence that "polychoron" is standard terminology. (I do not expect this to occur anytime soon.)

Finally, I quote the first paragraph from the Wikipedia page on Verifiability:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."Daqu (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The paper that User:Tomruen cites as an example is a paper that someone posted to a website, a paper that has not, apparently, been peer-reviewed. To support its usage of "polychoron" it cites -- you want to guess? -- Wikipedia. Circular reasoning, Tom.Daqu (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HI Daqu, thank you for replying. I have some sympathy for your passions in seeking to maintain standards. The only point I will make here is that for consistency, if I revert my edit then we should cleanse Wikipedia wholesale of the term, and also of polypeton, polyteron and such which have even less claim to respectability. That clearly goes beyond the remit of a narrow discussion such as this one is at present. Therefore I prefer to maintain consistency, which at least for now means leaving the article returned to its original state (However if you choose to reinstate your own edit, I feel that I have made my point and I will not declare war just for the sake of it). I repeat my suggestion that you post to Talk:Polychoron, where this issue saw some discussion in the past. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, at list of regular polytopes you removed "polychoron" but left "polyteron", which seems inconsistent. If you decide to remove "polychoron" again, I suggest you also remove the even less respectable names for the higher-dimensional polytopes. Double sharp (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My primary defense for the term polychoron is from Norman Johnson (mathematician) who suggested George Olshevsky's invented term polychorema be shorted to polychora, and this terminology among others is actively being used in the subject of enumerating the convex and star uniform polytopes, the n-dimensional analogies to the regular, semiregular, and uniform star polyhedra. Johnson is the originator of the names of the uniform star polyhedra, given in Magnus Wenninger's book on Polyhedron models, published in 1974.

Johnson worked with Coxeter on his 1966 Dissertation on The Theory of Uniform Polytopes and Honeycombs. His new book uniform polytopes, has been long delayed, but referenced by Branko Grünbaum as a manuscript, credited as the first complete enumeration of the 25 convex uniform honeycombs. Mathworld also apparent had manuscript access to draft copies for using his new terminology for classifying the uniform polyhedra. [4] I sent a message to Johnson yesterday and he replied today saying (in part):

My "Uniform Polytopes" is still not close to publication. However, I have taken out some of the introductory material and expanded it into a separate book called "Geometries and Transformations." The manuscript is being considered for publication by Springer and so far has been well received. I do use the term "polychoron" in this book. I also have a short paper pending acceptance that could provide another credible reference.

So hopefully that will move forward sooner as a definitive reference.

I've tried to keep the articles on uniform polytopes and honeycombs as free as possible from direct dependence upon specific naming system, or given variations as I've seen used. The original source I saw was Olshevsky's listing of the convex uniform polychora, and Johnson confirmed to me that definitions of the terminology and its correspondence to uniform truncations eeach ringed Coxeter-Dynkin diagram.

So my intepreration would be that in the subject of uniform polytopes Norman Johnson is definitive source for terminology, continuing Coxeter's work on the subject Coxeter started. In other research areas on convex and regular polytope, papers and books, this terminology may be completely unused and unnecessary, perhaps for not being as dimension-specific. But regular polytopes are a SUBSET of uniform polytopes so I see no fault in including dimension terminology as it is used in different contexts, and I can judge it is unfair and confusing to readers to not be inclusive. I accept if an article is talking about a specific area of polytopes that exclusively says 4-polytopes, that it is confusing to not say that in such sections. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to delete the term 'polychoron/polychora' from wikipedia.

• Firstly, your claim that it is never used in peer-reviewed literature is incorrect. See, for example, http://www.springerlink.com/content/35234167470g2158/ or http://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/2/3/1423/
• Secondly, "appearance in peer-reviewed literature" is not the criterion Wikipedia uses to decide terminology. Polychoron may be only sparsely used by professional (publishing) mathematicians, but it is widely used by the general public. That should be enough reason to leave the word 'polychoron' in places where it is found.

Personally, I don't use the term in my articles. That doesn't mean it should be expunged. mike40033 (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your recent note. I too have math qualifications. I could try to "pull rank" and point out that my qualifications are actually in a field related to polytopes, but there's no point. No mathematical qualifications qualifies one as a sole arbiter terminology to be used in Wikipedia.

Now, you have argued that polychora should not be used. You have given reasons that are invalid ("it's not found in a refereed publication") which you are now trying to change ("it's not in a refereed publication by a senior mathematician, cited in MathSciNet"). However, you find, regularly, that other Wikipedians disagree with your decisions about the use of the word polychora.

I would suggest, this being the case, that whenever you want to "correct" this "error", you

• start a discussion and maybe a vote on an article's 'talk' page
• make sure some other editors actually participate in the discussion
• finally, abide by the majority decision.

Is that unreasonable?

PS - please note that almost every modern word we use was, once, a coinage by a single person. mike40033 (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you probably should change your edit summary "(only H.S.M. Coxeter and J.H. Conway have earned naming rights for regular polytopes)" the next time you attempt to remove "polychoron". Can we have a stellated great dodecahedron and a dtaC? Double sharp (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on the talk page. I made one change that i hope helps, but I'm still not sure what to do about the rest of it. I'll think about it though. You(of course)are welcome to make changes too. regards, Rich Peterson76.218.104.120 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Compact space, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Open and Closed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Antoine's necklace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Continuum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Möbius strip, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyperbolic plane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously haven't studied the theory of divergent series. There is a book on the subject. With a particular definition, the claim you removed is true, suprisingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.201.218 (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Different definitions usually make the same divergent series add up to different sums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.201.218 (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the Wikipedia article Divergent series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.201.218 (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Please sign your comments.] In mathematics we say what we mean and don't redefine notation to mean whatever we want it to mean, à la Humpty Dumpty. To say "1+2+3+... = -1/12" means that the limit of the series 1+2+3+... first of all exists (i.e., is convergent) and second of all is equal to -1/12. I know several ways to calculate the -1/12 from 1+2+3+... - so you need not be concerned about my mathematical knowledge. But it is simply false that 1+2+3+... approaches a limit. And hence it doesn't "equal" -1/12. False statements have no place in an encyclopedia.Daqu (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to -gry may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• word. The only -gry words playable in Scrabble are aggry, ahungry, angry, hungry and puggry.</ref>]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Surface, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Long line (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Wiknic/2014 to continue the discussion. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daqu. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

			You are invited to the Feminist+Queer Art Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, to be held on Saturday, September 13, 2014 from noon–4pm at the Independent Publishing Resource Center (IPRC), located at 1001 SE Division (97202). Prior Wikipedia editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords. Female editors are particularly encouraged to attend, but all are welcome. Hope to see you there! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Oregon-related events and projects by removing your name from this list. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Screw axis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Recall that he original rigid motion f on '''R'''³ is given by f('''v''') = (rot('''v''') + '''v'''_'''⊥'''.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daqu,

Your recent edit (for the purpose of clarification) at Projective space has confused me. I was quite happy with the statement as it was, but I realize that I am a bit too close to the subject and might be overlooking something. Can you tell me what about the statement you felt needed clarification? Thanks. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I see now why you added the clarification. I'm going to make a minor edit and change the word order to avoid what jarred me about your edit. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi Daqu, would You , at least agree with the current version "A confidence interval does not predict that the true value of the parameter has a particular probability of being in the confidence interval given the data actually obtained. Intervals with this property, called credible intervals, exist only in the paradigm of Bayesian statistics, as they require postulation of a prior distribution for the parameter of interest." ? Would you suggest a better formulation? Based on which citable, peer-reviewed source?HJJHolm (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Could you please explain your reasons for this edit? Quite puzzling; see Talk:Boris Tsirelson#Without explaining his reasons. Maybe you confuse me with someone else? Or maybe you blame me in editing also as an anonymous IP? Or maybe your account is hijacked, and that strange edit is not made by you? I really has no sensible conjecture, what happens. Any example of my rogue edit, please? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Daqu: Please do not add jokes to articles (diff). That particularly must not be done on WP:BLP articles. Any issue regarding an edit should be raised on the talk page of the article concerned. After that, follow WP:DR. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Mehmet Oz. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list.

Please edit the Don Lemon article to revert the deletion of the DART award information. Your edit was reverted by an ip with no other edits than the Don Lemon article. I think the evidence for COI is good. 2601:400:8000:8384:4592:EDC7:C93F:7FA9 (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in Oregon's upcoming Art+Feminism events, which will be held in Portland and Eugene on Saturday, March 5, 2016. Please see the following links for additional information, or to sign up:

• Portland: Yale Union (800 SE 10th Avenue), 12:00–5:00pm
• Eugene: Architecture and Allied Arts (A&AA) Library (200 Lawrence Hall, University of Oregon), 12:00–5:00pm

About Art+Feminism: Art+Feminism is pleased to announce its third annual Wikipedia edit-a-thon, an all-day event designed to generate coverage of women and the arts on Wikipedia and encourage female editorship. Last year, over 1,500 participants at more than 75 events around the world participated in the second annual campaign, resulting in the creation of nearly 400 new pages and significant improvements to 500 articles on Wikipedia. For more information, see Art+Feminism.

You received this message because you have attended a Wikipedia meetup in Oregon or contributed to WikiProject Oregon. To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grand Tour (data visualisation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dense. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daqu. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to the upcoming Art+Feminism edit-athon, which will be held at the Portland Institute for Contemporary Art (415 Southwest 10th Avenue #300, Portland 97205) on Saturday, March 18, 2017 from 10:00am – 5:00pm. For more information, visit Eventbrite.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to the upcoming Art+Feminism edit-athon, which will be held at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) Library at 511 NW Broadway on Saturday, April 29, 2017, from 11am to 4pm. For more information, visit the Facebook event page.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to the upcoming Wiki Loves Pride edit-athon, which will be held at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (511 NW Broadway) on Tuesday, June 27, 2017, from 5–8pm. For more information, visit the meetup page or Facebook event page.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On Thursday, October 26, a Wikipedia edit-a-thon dedicated to artists of color will be held from 4–8pm at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (511 NW Broadway). Learn more at Facebook. Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daqu. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On March 8 (International Women's Day), the Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education and artist Shoshana Gugenheim will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about Jewish women artists. Click here for more information. You can also express interest or suggest articles to create or improve here. This event is free and open to the public, and will serve as both a public art action and a public educational program. Participation is welcome in person and remotely (for those outside of Portland). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Saturday, March 10 (11am to 4pm), the Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about art, feminism, and women. You can read details on the Facebook event page, or this Wikipedia meetup page. Tutorials for new editors, reference materials, childcare, and refreshments will be provided. Bring your laptop, power cord and ideas for entries that need updating or creation. For the editing-averse, you're welcome to stop by to show your support! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Friday, April 13 (3pm to 6pm), the University of Oregon will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about art and feminism. You can learn more at the Dashboard page, or our Wikipedia meetup page. Tutorials for new editors, reference materials, and snacks will be provided. Please bring your laptop, power cord and ideas for entries that need updating or creation. For the editing-averse, we urge you to stop by to show your support and have snacks! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Make+Think+Code and the Pacific Northwest College of Art are hosting a Wikipedia editathon at the Shipley Collins Mediatheque (511 NW Broadway) on Saturday, January 19 from 10am to 2:30pm. The purpose of the event is to make Wikipedia a more vibrant, representative, inclusive and diverse resource. Please visit Wikipedia:Meetup/MakeThinkCode/TheVisibilityProject for more information. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To commemorate Black History Month, Oregon State University, Wikimedia Nigeria, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, and AfroCROWD are hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon at the Oregon State University Valley Library on Friday, February 8 from 2–5pm. The purpose of the event is to reduce Wikipedia's diversity gap by creating and improving articles about African American culture and history, as well as notable people of African descent and the African diaspora in general. Please visit here for more information. Remote participation is welcome! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) is hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon in the Shipley Collins Mediatheque (511 NW Broadway) on Saturday, March 9 from 10am – 2:30pm. This is a free community event designed to teach people to add and edit information about cis and transgender women and nonbinary folks to Wikipedia. We'll have training sessions, artist talks, snacks, free childcare, and plenty of exciting energy and collaboration! You're welcome to drop in any time during the event. Participants are encouraged to bring their own laptops and charging cables, though if you are not able, computer stations will be available. Please visit this link for more information. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education, in partnership with social practice artist Shoshana Gugenheim and as part of the Art+Feminism Project, will host the 2nd Annual International Women's Day Wikipedia Edit-a-thon to edit and/or create Wikipedia articles for Jewish women artists. The event will be held at the museum on Thursday, March 7 from 4 to 8 pm. Pre-registration is preferred but not required. Members of the public are invited to come to the museum to learn about the editing process, its history, its impact, and how to do it. We aim to collaboratively edit/enter 18 Jewish women artists into the canon. Support will be provided by an experienced local Wikipedian who will be on site to teach and guide the process. This edit-a-thon will serve as both a public art action and a public educational program. Participants will have an opportunity to select an artist/s ahead of time or on site.

Please visit this link and the meetup page for more information. Thanks! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PST. You can join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link: https://virginia.zoom.us/my/wikilgbt. The address of the physical meeting is: Capitol Hill Meeting Room at Capitol Hill Library (425 Harvard Ave. E., Seattle, WA 98102) 47°37′23″N 122°19′22″W / 47.622928°N 122.322912°W / 47.622928; -122.322912 The event page is here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing the membership registration form onsite or (to be posted) online and paying $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2019 at the meeting as well.

Hi – this is to let you know that I finally resolved your 11-year-old comment at Talk:Latin square#Problem with mention of orthogonal Latin squares about the missing definition of orthogonal Latin squares. Joriki (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Black History of the Pacific Northwest into Wikipedia - Editathon 2021 Friday, February 26, 2021, 1:00-5:00 PM PST with Oregon State University, Education Opportunities Program, and AfroCROWD Guest Speaker: Spelman College's Alexandria Lockett "Click here to register directly on OSU's site".

Cascadia Wikimedians placed this banner at 03:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC) by using the Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Participants list.
To subscribe to or unsubscribe from messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland, please add or remove your name here.

On, Friday, February 25, 2022, Oregon State University will be hosting an online editathon focused on Black history of the Pacific Northwest. You can learn more here and/or register here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited! An Art+Feminism Wikipedia edit-a-thon will be held in Portland, Oregon, on March 12, 2022. Learn more here!

Wikipedia is one of the most-visited sites on the internet—and it’s created by people who volunteer their time to write and edit pages. Learn how to edit Wikipedia and be a part of shaping our understanding of our world. In this workshop, volunteer Wikipedia editors will be on hand to train participants on how to get started editing pages and offer ideas for which pages you can pitch in to help improve. Show up at any point during the four hours to get started!

Also: Free burritos!! We will be providing vegan, vegetarian, and meat burritos from food cart Loncheria Las Mayos. Alder Commons has a large, fenced playground. Children are welcome! Some computers will be available to borrow, but if you have a laptop, please bring it to use. We will also be leading an online training for new editors at 11am-12pm PST. Please feel free to join that training if you are not able to show up IRL.

This event is part of the international month of events organized by Art+Feminism, which is building a community of activists committed to closing information gaps related to gender, feminism, and the arts, beginning with Wikipedia. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]