Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 January 7

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

January 7

Referencing sources inside sources (back again)

It would be a lot more useful to reference a book which is given as a source inside another book but i don't know how to, even with the current reference templates. Also what do i do if the book i am using gives the sources at the end of each section but does not cite within the text. From my past experience (and anyone's academically) it would be better to use or cite those sources within the book. Do i only use the author of the book (in this case Denis Smith - Civil Engineering Heritage of London and the Thames Valley) but it seems possible only to do this at the moment. Simply south (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the cardinal rules of academic writing is "never cite as a source a work that you haven't examined yourself." If I understand your question correctly, you're asking how to do exactly that. You should be citing the book you have read, not any sources cited therein that you haven't personally read. See also WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Deor (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your first part the normal thing i would have done is say using the Harvard system (Wayne Rooney 1985, cited in Graham Frivolo, 2006) [note these do not exist]. See below for some clarification. Simply south (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for dropping in and giving a somewhat different advice: (1) Try to access the original text. (2) If this is not possible, or extremely difficult, check for indications of reliability or unreliabity of the author and the publisher. (3) Is the claim being made, extraordinary? If it is, do not use the source without checking the primary source (see WP:REDFLAG), and skip steps (4) and (5). (4) If you find no indications of unreliability, and sufficient indications of reliability, you may cite the secondary source. (5) Indicate that the secondary source has taken the information from another source, or multiple other sources, and specify these sources to the extent possible.  Cs32en  07:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The book is part of an institute (ICE) that is respectable and can be trusted as a source. None of the claims they make i don't think are extraordinary as they seem to be a major organisation on this thing.

I think i also need to clear something up at the start which i don't think i did very well at the start. The problem is that the sources for the information are given at the end of the section which is goodbut it is unknown which info came from which book as the authors' names are not cited in the text. As the sources are only given at the end, i was wondering whether in the articles which use this book should I use the authors given at the end of each of the sections. Also, how, as it is not clear in the current citation templates? Simply south (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no experience with the technical issue, but maybe someone else on this board can help you. As for determining the level of reliability of the source, given that you most likely would have to refer to the source alone instead of either enumerating all the literature given there or guessing which source is being used for a particular piece of information, you can ask the people at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for their opinions.  Cs32en  21:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I will redirect them here. Also you can see why i am asking at the help desk and not the reference desk. Simply south (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would avoid citing facts from a "part of an institute" without viewing the item itself. Often institute papers are from a variety of sources and reliability, and any biases, can not be determined from a secondary citation. However, for example, "Hucksley cites the Buckland Institute for a high correlation between death and taxes." with the full pinpoint citation to the page in Hucksley. Nonetheless, it sounds in this case like your chasing a chimera without the original. --Bejnar (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Book chapters published in full within another work may be cited directly, eg, Author Authorson, "My Chapter," in A book about things ed. Editor Editordaughter (Nodnol: Nodnol Press, 1984): 14-80, cited at 25.

Other material, for instance, quotes, paraphrases, references, illustrations and arguments taken from another work should not be cited.

If you absolutely must, you need a great deal more citation information than a parenthetical quote. "Jane cites Eric to argue that "blah blah blah" (Jane Authordaughter, My Book, p34 citing Eric Editorson Another Book at p67-74).

But this is extremely bad practice, and most first world libraries offer competitive inter library loan and document delivery services. Additionally, asking around wikipedia may produce editors who have access to deposit or academic libraries which can supply. So don't do it, but if you must, reference exhaustively. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes the source is genuinely unavailable for public viewing though - especially rare or out-of-print ones - and such a request is unlikely to meet with any response at all, especially if the document in question is of local origin and the person asking has more access to the resources than those they are asking. Situation I find myself in time and again. (Note in my case it's a hypothetical - it has happened and probably will again, but I can't think of an example off-hand.) Orderinchaos 10:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't quite finished this so should i move this over to the other noticeboard? Anyway, the book itself is not a research paper or anything like that. It is a book with many sections and each section shows the sources of where the info came from, just like most other factual books. The authors are not cited in the text but in the sources at the end. I am asking here so how should i reference this on Wikipedia? Otherwise I'll just continue like any other book. Simply south (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia articles as references?

Is there an official policy on using other Wikipedia articles as references within an article? I haven't found a policy on this, but I also haven't seen an example of this anywhere on the site, and it seems like it would be sort of weird, so I thought it would be a good idea to ask here. Thanks. C628 (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. The verifiability policy says "articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, should not be used as sources". Also see Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid, which discusses this in detail. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

I added this information:

As of January 6, 2010, Abdul al Razzaq Muhammad Salih has been held at Guantanamo for seven years 11 months.

From the New York Times website to this article: Abdul Al Razzaq Muhammad Salih.

Another editor claims that this would be copyright infringement. So i have two questions.

1) Is this copyright infringement in the way it is done now?

2) If it violates copyright and is a problem in the way it is done now, how could i add this information to the WP article without infringing copyright?

Thank's in advance. IQinn (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a copyright violation to copy one sentence from a large work like the New York Times website. However, since it is a direct quote, it should be in quotation marks. --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not just rewrite it into your own words. It would still need to be cited, just as you have done, but by reprhasing it you avoid all appearance of copying. --Jayron32 02:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i would prefer rephrasing. I see the time he spent in Guantanamo until now as a simple fact with the NYT's as the reference for this fact. Any idea to write it without quotations? I may admit i am not a native speaker. That is the original:

"As of Jan. 6, 2010, he has been held at Guantánamo for seven years 11 months."

My best try so far:

"As of January 6, 2010, Abdul al Razzaq Muhammad Salih has been held at Guantanamo for seven years 11 months."

Any idea how to better rephrase this fact to avoid quotations? Thank's again. IQinn (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record:

1. I never told User:Iqinn that copying one sentence was a clear lapse from WP:COPYVIO. I told him that different contributors have different standards as to where to draw the line. There are certain sentences, or even phrases, so iconic, that I believe just about anyone would recognize that they should be properly cited if re-used. Personally, I never copy a whole sentence, without properly attributing it as a quote. I either rephrase it, or mark it as a quote.
2. I already suggested to Iqinn, that he: (1) rephrase the passages in his own words; (2) indicate it was a direct quote; or (3) use the appropriate date formatting template that does this kind of calculation automatically.
3. The New York Times website is a large website. But the NYTimes' Guantanamo dockets' pages that Iqinn has copied from mainly consist of the NYTimes republishing public domain DoD documents -- prefaced by just a single paragraph of two or three sentences of introduction. It is only that single paragraph, of two or three sentences, that is the NYTimes' protected intellectual property. I suggest it is not the overall large size of the whole NYTimes website that is important here. What is significant is the relative fraction of the NYTimes intellectual content that he copied from each article, without attribution. He copied close to half the content from each of a very large series of articles -- without proper attribution.
4. With regard to Iqinn's comment: "I see the time he spent in Guantanamo until now as a simple fact with the NYT's as the reference for this fact." I already explained to Iqinn that, while the SCOTUS's ruling in Feith v. Rural states that facts aren't copyrightable, how they are represented is copyrightable. The NYTimes can't copyright the number of days he has been held in Guantanamo. But how they represented that fact is their intellectual property, and, if it passes de minimis, it is protected.
5. I have been prolific here on the wikipedia, and my google searches sometimes turn up articles, published elsewhere, that have lifted whole sentences, or whole paragraphs, without attribution, from material I contributed here. In October 2008 I came across an article, in the Salem News, that lifted three paragraphs I had written, without attribution. Other paragraphs in that article seemed familiar. With a little bit of google searching I established that at least 70 percent of this article had been cut and paste, without proper attribution, from the work of others. I wrote to two of the journalists whose work had been plagiarized, and drew it to their attention. In their reply one of them commented on the irony of a reporter plagiarizing the wikipedia -- because the view of most reporters was that wikipedia contributors routinely plagiarize them. After reading that comment I decided to make extra sure I never lifted a sentence from someone else's work, without marking it as a quote. Geo Swan (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I would avoid using today's date altogether. It's a statement that will age quickly. Also once we introduce a person by their complete name, we normally refer to them later in an article by just their last name. So I would change the sentence to something not unlike: As of 2010, Salih has been confined in the Guantanamo facility for nearly eight years.. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How about "in Guantanamo since (the date when his confinement began)." Then the statement will not go out of date, and someone can update it to "between (start date) and (end date)" when the subject is released, escapes, or dies. Also note that we have templates that calculate people's ages from their date of birth and the current date, so it might be possible to make or find an automatically updating template which will always give the exact length of the confinement, without the need for frequent manual updating. --Teratornis (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Age calculation templates and make this cool. --Teratornis (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I already pointed out to Iqinn the maintenance burden of copying the dated statements from the NYTimes. I pointed out to him that the NYTimes very likely had a robot that updated their pages automatically. We have a robot that can automatically take care of this kind of calculation for us. I looked up the template that encapsulates this robot: {{For year month day}}. I haven't seen this template used by others. But it seems to be perfectly suited for instances like this.

raw	when instantiated
Abdul al Razzaq Muhammad Salih arrived at Guantanamo on February 12, 2002, and has been held there for {{For year month day|year=2002|month=02|day=12}}.	Abdul al Razzaq Muhammad Salih arrived at Guantanamo on February 12, 2002, and has been held there for 22 years, 9 months and 14 days.

I already suggested this approach to Iqinn. I am not a mind-reader. I am not going to speculate as to why Iqinn chooses to ignore my good faith advice and feedback. But I will say I am extremely frustrated because every piece of advice the rest of you have offered to him I had already offered to him. Geo Swan (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Geo Swan your contributions to this post (for the record, for the record) are disruptive and mostly ad hominum. But overall it is a slap into the face of every Wikipedia editor and it is specially a slap into the face of all editors who enjoy giving their best advise and help to me and other editor to improve Wikipedia.

No matter how many articles you have written. No matter how overlong your posts to talk pages are. No matter how much you claim you are an expert in everything (What is doubtful). No matter how long you refuse to engage in discussions and answer questions. No matter how often you revert instead of improving or engaging in discussions. You will automatically fail.

Wikipedia is a community project with hundred of thousands of knowledgeable people. If you can not accept that other editors change your articles and if you do not believe in the good faith and knowledge of other people or luck the ability to work and improve content together in a civil way, than Wikipedia is not the right place for you.

I thank everybody here who gave their advise to me and of course everybody is still welcome to do so and i surely will come back with more questions because i believe and enjoy teamwork and working with other editors to share knowledge and to improve Wikipedia. Thank you IQinn (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Iqinn, if you genuinely think my record of interaction with you bears criticism there are venues where you can ask for a neutral third party assessment of our interaction with one another. I suggest this is not the right forum for you to voice your concerns.

I am satisfied that my record shows I have done my best to take seriously and responds collegially, civilly and substantively to those contributors who have had civil and meaningful questions about my contributions, and I plan to continue to contribute here. Geo Swan (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an available 2012 PHENOMENON article in tagalog?

I am Ramses Leroi Bulatao, a Filipino. I just want to inquire: do you have a 2012 PHenomenon article translated in tagalog? Please respond to this. I really need this as soon as possible. Thank you! Happy new year! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsesleroi (talk • contribs) 06:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ramsesleroi. Unfortunately, the Tagalog Wikipedia does not have an article on the 2012 phenomenon. There are two ways of knowing:

1. If you go to the English Wikipedia article, and look down the left hand side of the page, you will see a box "languages" - if a link between our article and another Wikipedia's article exists, it will normally be shown there - as you can see, there are equivalent articles in several languages, but not in Tagalog
2. If you go to the Tagalog Wikipedia and do a search for 2012 (see here), I cannot see anything that looks like being the phenomenon page - although as I can't read Tagalog, I can't guarantee it!

Although it doesn't help now (as you need this as soon as possible), it is always possible to go to the Tagalog equivalent of Wikipedia:Translation and ask if someone there can translate it (the link given under the 'languages' box there for the Tagalog Wikipedia is tl:Wikipedia:Pagsasalinwika). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they'll get to it by 2013 or so. --Teratornis (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

image of Gen. John Charles Black

I am related to General John Charles Black and have an earlier photograph of him, in uniform, (with his brother William) taken during the civil war. I think it could (should) be used to replace the one that is currently on his Wikipedia page, or added as a second image.

Unfortunately I have neither the time nor inclination to read the vast information supplied, and possibly needed, to accomplish the task. If someone is willing to tell me, in less than a page worth of text, exactly how to add the photograph I would be happy to do it. I have the image saved as a 72dpi jpeg approximately the size of the current image. Snarfler (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the photographer has probably been dead for more than 70 years, the image is probably in the public domain. Thus you could upload it to Wikipedia (or preferably to Wikimedia Commons) with a {{PD-old}} template for the license information. The biggest problem with uploading images is determining the license status, but that should not be a problem for this photo. Uploading images to Wikipedia or Commons is difficult because there are so many conditional branches due to all the copyright possibilities and so on. If you can't figure out what to do by reading Help:Images and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, another option is to upload the photo to Flickr and then come back here and ask someone to upload it from Flickr to Commons. Commons users have done that for several hundred thousand photos. I guess Flickr is easier for non-technical people to use because it has about a thousand times more uploaded photos than Commons does. --Teratornis (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

PD-LIFE-70 .... Kittybrewster ☎ 10:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Penang State Anthem

In need of an admin help to delete this redirect page. Thanks in advance. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 13:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Does this also apply to Pulau Pinang State Anthem? Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 13:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know why those two are redirected at the first place. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 13:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Request is still not done. I need it to be done ASAP so that I can recreate & expand it. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 13:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to modify the redirect to be something else, then there is no need for it to be deleted. You can edit the redirect page and change it to whatever you want. This is done by first going to the redirect page Penang State Anthem. When it redirects, at the top of the page you will see "(Redirected from Penang State Anthem)". Click on that link, and you will be taken to the redirect page itself. Then press "edit this page" and you will be able to change the redirect to anything you want. You can read Help:Redirect#Creating and editing redirects for more details. --Mysdaao ^talk 14:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Admin Right

How come removal of admin rights doesn't appear in the user rights log it only shows addition of admin rights and not removal. Could someone explain why as I am concerned. Thanks Paul2387 13:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

From my understanding, requests for removal of admin rights are processed by a steward on meta, and therefore ends up in the global rights log. decltype (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have also noticed that most of the earlier admins do not have a entry in the user rights log at either wikipedia or meta, these entrys are related to both the addition of adminship and the removal of adminship. If someone could help that would be great. Yhanks. Paul2387 13:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Insults = Defamation?

Does putting insults or calling a person bad names in an article about the person considered defamation or libelous or just plain vandalism?  Merlion  444  13:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The simple answer is that it depends: it might be neither, either or both. Given the specific example of describing someone as a "dirty whore" (I assume that's what you're referring to), it's probably safe to describe it as both. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Not Trust Worthy ???

http://www.virsanghvi.com/CounterPoint-ArticleDetail.aspx?ID=417 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhav.dattani (talk • contribs) 13:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You may find this page helpful. TNXMan 14:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I use wikipedia frequently for factual information, and I always take it - and any other website - with a grain of salt. This is where citations come in and are so important to the credibility of any particular fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

redone?

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Was this page redone? It looks newer.Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 14:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Number of watchers of a page

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that there is a tool that shows pages with more than 30 watchers, accessible to all editors, but I also understand that administrators (i.e. me) have privileged access in this area. Through what mechanism can I find the number of editors who are watching any given page? Thanks in advance,  Skomorokh  14:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools#Other mentions Special:UnwatchedPages. It makes no mention of being able to see if pages are watched by 1-29 editors. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The tool is here, but in order to see pages with fewer than 30 watchers, you will need a TUSC account (instructions on the tool provided), and also your name added to this meta page. Poke a meta admin or drop a note on the the talk page for this. Once this is done, go to the tool and click "log in". This will provide the exact number. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, PeterSymonds! I was just about to suggest that Skomorokh asks at #wikipedia-en-admins, but you saved me having to do that. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

;-) PeterSymonds (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Muchas gracias muchachos.  Skomorokh  20:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss deletion of redirect

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Where would I go to discuss whether or not a redirect should be deleted? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Algebraist 18:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

English / Chinese

The page [1] provides a history of Taipei in english. It has an option to view the chinese version of the page (http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8F%B0%E5%8C%97%E6%AD%B7%E5%8F%B2). The chinese version is not a simple translation and has substantially more historical content. Were the two pages written by different authors? How is it determined what content should exist in each page? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.174.245 (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The articles on Wikipedia (regardless of the language) are not written by a single author. They are written by anyone who wants to contribute. So, without a doubt, the two articles were written by many different people. -- kainaw™ 19:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that they are from different Wikipedias. bibliomaniac15 19:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand what your talking about, please clarify. Thanks! South Bay (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:FAQ#WROTE and WP:WWW. -- kainaw™ 21:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Global sysops proposal

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I having been invited to vote, went to read the proposal and eventually to read the arguments the pro and con voters used to explain their decision. At a certain moment I saw this on the top of the page:

All members of the Wikimedia community who meet all of the following criteria are invited to vote on the global sysops proposal: Must have a registered account 150 edits on at least one project 3 months of registry

My question is, I am invited to vote, does this mean that I fit the requirements. The main problem for me is the "150 edits on at least one project". I assume I can check this out by looking at "my contributions". If so does "user talk" count as a contribution and how can I see the edits I have made on one specific project instead of all the edits I have done. If not I would like to know how I can check this.--Tomvasseur (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, "my contributions" shows all the edits on this Wikipedia, which is "one project". The SUL tool shows 69 edits on this Wikipedia and 7 on the Dutch Wikipedia, so I am afraid that you don't have 150 edits in total, let alone on either of the two projects to which you have contributed. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, still some editing to do it seems.--Tomvasseur (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How do a tag a category whose articles don't have, or might not have, sources to be in the category?

Such as this: Category:Fictional pedophiles
Thanks
Civic Cat (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If the articles do not support the categorization, then remove the articles from the category by removing the [[Category:Fictional pedophiles]] from the article page itself. The category page is probably unwatched except by maybe one or two editors, so any "tags" placed there will go unnoticed. Make any needed changes to the articles themselves, not the categories. Furthermore, should anyone object to your removal, please direct them to things like WP:BURDEN. If they want the article to be so categorized, it is up to them to provide the sources. --Jayron32 20:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I figured as much, but until I go through each and every article to look for such, is there some kind of template or tag specific to categories I could place in the meantime? The category looks messy, but I don't want to make a pest out of myself
--at least not until perusing all.
:-D
Civic Cat (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing pages. It mentions {{Category unsourced}} and {{Category relevant?}} Category pages should not be tagged with sourcing problems since categories and sources are added and removed on articles without editing the category page. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion if you think a category should be renamed or deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I started to do it an it seems to have started to work here. Thanks people.
:-D
Civic Cat (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Table or list

I intend to create (from a reliable source) a table showing when various countries adopted the Gregorian calendar, and a table showing corresponding Julian and Gregorian dates (only key dates necessary for conversion would be shown). I am aware that Wikipedia has list articles. I don't know if there is such a thing as a table article. So how should I go about naming the article (or 2, if they should be separate) so they will fit in with the list and/or table strategy? --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A table such as that is usually considered to be a List of... article. See also List of ISS spacewalks. Another common naming strategy that might apply is "Comparison of..." See Comparison of video player software —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Gregorian calendar already has a time line and a list of countries. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I know; I want to improve them. But thanks for paying attention. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

How do I find out about this Saturdays meeting in D.C.

I saw that you are having a users meeting in DC, I would like to attend but can't find out about it now, don't know how to get the time and place. It is this Sat. Jan 9, I think.

Kahartke (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You can find information about it here. Intelligentsium 22:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)