Category talk:Events

2014-05-18T16:43:25Z

128.6.224.107: The original (JohnnyRadio)?? REALLY??

it'd be nice if everybody would tag 'events' with <nowiki>[[category:events]]</nowiki>

[[User:Gba|gba]] 00:22, 15 October 2008 (PDT)
----



== Looking for help to set up an event: OOTSIDEBOX project presentation at NOISEBRIDGE ==

Hi There,

I'm Jean Noël and I'm looking for help to finalize the organization of this event on Sat november 23th:
https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Www.OOTSIDEBOX.com_making_NOISE_in_California

I plan to have up to 20 particpants, 10 guys already confirmed that they will come.
To find out more about OOTSIDEBOX project:

http://www.ootsidebox.com
http://ootsidebox.blogspot.fr/2013/10/7-key-concepts-underlaying-design-of.html
http://www.youtube.com/user/MrTROLLEEN

Waiting for reply...

Best Regards
Jean Noel jnl.ootsidebox@gmail.com

== FWD Events Re-Direction ==
There is no reason to mention that I post my events to noisebridge-discuss and noisebridge-announce, "invariably" or not.

No one benefits from that information on the event listing - I'm trying to keep my description lean. [[User:JeffreyATW|JeffreyATW]] ([[User talk:JeffreyATW|talk]]) 20:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

-- (saved separately in case of future undo's)

Thanks for using this Category_talk:Events section. 
But no, a certain percentage of people invariably see the fairly brief wiki event description here before viewing the listserve posting (assuming they're subscribed to either listserve). They'll subsequently be able to use the Discuss/Announce re-direction in its current state to effectively see timely reminders of the bi-weekly FWD highlights. 
As a beneficial use-case scenario for those of us (who shall remain nameless) solely wishing to glean highlights of bi-weekly FWD events, this very re-direction filters out the large amount of discussion "noise" even better than subscribing to the [https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss Discuss list] in Daily Digest mode.

Let's please keep it that way.

== [[JavaScript]] Edits ==
The simple idea here is that beginning programmers are more likely to pick up JS material through the more elementary [[Front-end Web Development]] material than they necessarily would be from the EcmaScript programming language, DOM, Object Oriented JavaScript, and Events covered in THIS particular advanced [[JavaScript]] class. The FWD instructor, [[User:JeffreyATW|JeffreyATW]], even routinely provides live video streams of the class for the convenience of his students (see [https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/webdev/2014-February/000237.html]).

All in all, EVERYONE benefits by directing inexperienced coders to learn JS and other FWD techniques from the [[Front-end Web Development]] class and directing more experienced web developers and programmers of other languages to the [[JavaScript]] class.

== [[User:Nthmost|Nthmost]] electing '''Nuclear option''' ==
11:47, 16 May 2014‎ [[User:Nthmost|Nthmost]] ([[User talk:Nthmost|Talk]] | contribs)‎ m . . (0)‎ . . (Protected "Category:Events": Excessive vandalism (‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) ‎[move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite)))

Okay, what's done is done. 
Still, in the Category:Events Party for Saturday May 17 2014 21:00, an awesomely '''excellent''' edit could be: 
|description = In town to get your MAKE on, come by Saturday after [http://makerfaire.com/ Maker Faire] and get your HACK on at Noisebridge! 

Current [[User:Nthmost|Nthmost]] edit leaves in-place an uber-untidy description redundancy ''[oh, sorry. err, why didn't you just edit it yourself? See questions below.'' --[[User:Nthmost|Nthmost]] ([[User talk:Nthmost|talk]]) 21:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)]

and [[User:Nthmost|Nthmost]] shows '''zero''' signs of "temporarily" relenting on the Nuclear option applying to the most valid editable wiki pages. 

[''The "nuclear option" would be disallowing editing from non-admins, which hasn't been done and will not be done.'' --[[User:Nthmost|Nthmost]] ([[User talk:Nthmost|talk]]) 21:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)]

Regardless of [[User:Nthmost|Nthmost]]'s devious plans to eliminate anonymous ''edits'' (as below), let us hope that we '''all''' can contribute anonymous ''comments'' and beneficial comments that '''won't get so maliciously and quickly erased!''' 

[''My apologies; honestly didn't mean to disrespect anyone's voice. Trust that it wasn't malice, at least. Besides, if I were really trying to be devious, I would have created a new admin account and protected the front page with THAT, so that people wouldn't know it was me.'' --[[User:Nthmost|Nthmost]] ([[User talk:Nthmost|talk]]) 21:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)]

... or [[User:Nthmost|Nthmost]] and her powerful committee-members can continue to blithely ignore suggestions like these 
Whatever...... 

[''Help me out here: how would YOU solve the problem of keeping the admins from getting burnt out defending the Event listings and other important noisebridge things from opportunistic destructive (not even interesting) trolling?'' --[[User:Nthmost|Nthmost]] ([[User talk:Nthmost|talk]]) 21:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)]

[By the way,

* *I took the above suggestion and made the edit.*

The current protection level is "block new and unregistered users from editing".

Is there some reason why making an account and editing a page is out of the question? I am honestly trying to understand. Anyone who wished to remain "anonymous" could easily still use a Tor node, create a throwaway email address to use for wiki editing, and make a meaninglessly-named user account. The point of protecting against anonymous editing is to create a friction to opportunistic destructive trolling.

I'm not try to be a dictator, I'm trying to protect everyone's interests. This is just an experiment and feedback is welcome (despite my initial knee-jerk reaction, which is why I deleted this section before.) I'll leave it here, since it's important to you.

--[[User:Nthmost|Nthmost]] ([[User talk:Nthmost|talk]]) 21:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Current Consensus Items

2013-07-13T00:59:19Z

128.6.224.107:

This is a page for hosting consensus items currently under debate, with their formal wording.

The [[Consensus_Items_History|Consensus Items History]] is the public record of consensus items that have been decided on in the past. Please move the records from the "Current" page to the "History" page once they've been approved/blocked.

{| border="1"
! Date First Discussed
! Proposed By
! Wording
! Author of this Record
|-
|[[Meeting_Notes_2013_07_09|7/09]]
|Leif
|Michael "Occupirate" Clift is unwelcome at Noisebridge. He is prohibited from entering the space or participating in the community. (This was consensed on 07/09/2013 and has been moved to the History. Leif wasn't sure it was sufficiently communicated for two week's communication, so it should be verified that the previous consensus is still the current consensus of Noisebrige.-[[user:hicksu|JH]])
|[[user:hicksu|Jarrod]]
|-
|[[Meeting_Notes_2013_07_09|7/09]]
|Monad
|Only service animals  with appropriate tags are allowed in Noisebridge. ''Note: before implementing this proposal it might be good to see if it violates the ADA: [http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm]''
|[[user:hicksu|Jarrod]]
|-
|[[Meeting_Notes_2013_07_09|7/09]]
|James
|Create a formal process for re-admitting people into the community. The exact process will be presented.
|[[user:hicksu|Jarrod]]
|-
|[[Meeting_Notes_2013_07_09|7/09]]
|Unlisted, Cannot Recall
|The guy with no pants and cheesecake on his face be banned. (Certainly, there is better wording for this for the record? -[[user:hicksu|JH]])
|[[user:hicksu|Jarrod]]
|-
|[[Meeting_Notes_2013_07_09|7/09]]
|Cynthia
|Noisebridge disallow use of poisons to control insects and other animals in favor of using diatomaceous earths and other materials benign to large animals for a period of time no less than four months, and if results are favorable, for continued sets of four months with reviews comparing with measurements to be taken this month of July 2013.
|[[user:hicksu|Jarrod]]
|-
|[[Meeting_Notes_2013_06_18|6/18]] - Deferred 07/09/2013 to clarify wording
|Monad
|Some issues need to be fleshed out by a meeting of interested parties. They can identify the central points that require consensus during the weekly meeting.
|Casey

Noisebridge - User contributions [en]

Category talk:Events

Current Consensus Items