Warning: There is an on-going scam targeting AfC participants. See this scam warning for detailed information. If you've been scammed please send me details via the email link on this page.
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Page views on this page over 365 days
So, naturalists observe, a flea Hath smaller fleas that on him prey; And these have smaller still to bit 'em; And so proceed ad infinitum. Thus every poet, in his kind, Is bit by him that comes behind. Jonathan Swift, On Poetry: A Rhapsody (1733)No, not these small bones, it's a family name
Thank you
I've seen how much you hate paid editors, and continuously making an effort to stop them, I really grateful to have you here on English Wikipedia :D .--AldNonUcallin?☎ 15:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
@Aldnonymous: Thanks for noticing! It's always good to get positive feedback. I will correct you, however, I don't hate paid editors, rather it is paid editing that is hateful. It is tearing down a wonderful structure that has been built up by many volunteers, that provides good information to whoever has access to the internet. If that information is poisoned, and people can't trust us, then the whole structure may collapse.
Your post reminded me of a news story from a couple of decades ago. After the fall of the Soviet Union people started cutting down and selling copper cable from high power electrical transmission systems (nominally still in use). I don't hate those folks who cut down the cable - they were doing what they had to do to survive. I did hate the fact that the transmission systems were being destroyed. It just seemed like there must be a pretty simple enforcement system that would stop the destruction. Everybody likely knew who was buying the cable - these folks could be stopped fairly simply if anybody took the obvious steps. Similarly, most people likely knew who was cutting the cable or where to look to stop folks from cutting more. So the system was messed up, but the parts of the system that led to the destruction of the cable could easily be fixed. The actual folks who cut the cable, in my mind, were less responsible than the authorities who couldn't be bothered to take a few minimal steps. That's my reading in any case.
That was insightful, I'm the one who should thanking you (again :D), and... You're welcome.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 19:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Editor of the Week
Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for integrity and valiance in the fight against paid editing. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
I nominate Smallbones as Editor of the Week for the integrity that he brings to the project, and for his yeoman work - unsung, unrecognized, unappreciated - fighting to preserve Wikipedia from encroachments by paid editors. He has been an editor for more than eight and a half years, and during that time has edited a staggering 11,337 articles at last count. He is not an administrator, heaven only knows why (too much sense?), but a content contributor par excellence, with in excess of 31,000 edits, 65% of them in article space. He is a generalist's generalist, with his top contributions ranging from Bernard Madoff to Media, Pennsylvania. But his prodigious talents as a contributor are not the only assets he brings to the project. No one has fought longer and more valiantly against paid editing. It is a great pleasure to nominate Smallbones for Editor of the Week.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
Hey Smallbones, just wanted to express my thanks as well for both for your contributions and your engagement with others on broader ideas with Wikipedia that I've seen on Jimbo's talk page and other spots. I often find it difficult to jump into those conversations myself, but I do read them, and I appreciate your thoughtfulness. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 02:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Very pleased to propose this. Your contributions are tremendously appreciated. Coretheapple (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas everybody!!!
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
LovelyLillith (talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Thank you for your warm holiday wishes! I understand many journalist-types enjoy a little bit of spirit to get them through tough editing deadlines, so here’s a glass raised both to your work at the Signpost as well as in hope for a good 2020. - Cheers, Lil
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 13:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year
Dear Smallbones, Best wishes to you and yours in 2020! Happy New Year! Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
A supposition and a suggestion
A supposition: the material oversighted from Pete Buttigieg was not removed because it contained a link to this Slate article. It was removed because it named a person and their alleged Wikipedia username. The link is not the issue (as I keep demonstrating). Saying that a reliable source has alleged that Pete Buttigieg may have edited his own Wikipedia page is not the issue. @Levivich: Sounds reasonable?
A suggestion: Drop the hyperbole about censorship of the press. Report the story as you would any other news item involving Wikipedia. See what happens. If there are any threats or blocks, you will have your censorship story. If there aren't, you will have reported the original item as you had intended before this all started. What do you think?Bitter Oil (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@Bitter Oil and Levivich: BO, I really don't know what you want me to do. I would like to have a real discussion of the issues raised by Ashley Feinberg's recent Slate article. These issues include what should we consider "outing" when somebody like Feinberg can find out in a half-hour on the internet, essentially all the info included under our definition of outing, without breaking into anything or breaking any laws. Now when she asks a Wikipedia editor his/her real name and the editor responds, why are we supposed to ignore the material she reports? It's not in our policies and guidelines e.g. Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment.
Now when 3 other reliable sources report her conclusions, including the Washington Post, are we really supposed to blacklist those articles as well? No, there's a link in there to something we don't like, so we can't even discuss that article, can't even mention the words "Washington Post".
Of course there's a cost to (supposedly) having such bizarre rules. One cost is that any admin or oversighters feels they have the right to look at my draft articles and say "no you can't publish that." If those people want to censor me, they should at least have the decency to let me come up with a final version and censor me *after publication.* . Another cost of such censorship is that we can't have a reasonable discussion of paid editors. Those folks are a real menace on Wikipedia. There's a huge amount of fraud going on on Wikipedia. Submitting to those supposed rules - we can't even suggest who those people we're talking about by linking through a reliable source that links through another reliable source - leaves us with a case of lockjaw. I'd much rather link to reliable sources and have a serious discussion about the cost to Wikipedians of allowing free-reign to those crooks. So obviously this isn't a case just about Pete Buttigieg. This is a case of let me at least be about to link to the Washington GD Post! Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Which article is already linked from another Wiki-in-media list (not The Signpost). Smallbones' link in the Signpost draft was seemingly/constructively singled out for suppression. Which just compounds the shittiness. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Since it’s an oversight issue, it might be for the new arbcom to decide. Generally I don’t understand the logic of oversighting a link to WaPo. – Levivich 23:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that anyone should drop the larger issue of as raised by Levivich. I think we all pretty much agree on that. But as far as the Signpost goes, I am suggesting that perhaps there was a misunderstanding of sorts, created by very poor communication on the part of overly circumspect oversighters. But having given it more thought, I now agree that the issue should be resolved so that you can freely write about the Buttigieg instance without concern that you are going to get blocked (even if I don't think it is a possibility). I will will strike my suggestion. Bitter Oil (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Biggest problems are spamming, vandalism and sockpuppetry in that order if you sum up deletions, protections and blocks.
I was somewhat surprised to see G5 to be the number one CSD in mainspace.
Spam deletions are G11 only. Given that the underlying reason behind some of sockpuppets is spam and UPE the numbers should really be bigger. Also some G13s, U5s, copyvios, PRODs, AFDs and saltings are also spam but aren't reflected in the logs. (Deletion reasons are not mutually exclusive. I count all reasons if multiple reasons are taken.)
Lots of spambots being locked on Meta out of our sight.
Portal deletions show up in a big way.
It's not likely that I will have enough time to do a writeup for the next Signpost. MER-C 08:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
By the way I emailed request for copies of the two volumes " On holy ground" and "On holy ground II" about the first 200 American Presbyterian/Reformed Historical Sites, published by the Presbyterian Historical Society in 1982 and 1999. So far I have gotten just an automated reply. I am hopeful about these being good sources. Did you happen to get these? --Doncram (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Six million
here are my answers to Bri's questions. hope they are acceptable.
I don't know if you remember it, but it looks like you are about to win Wikipedia:Six-million pool. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
There's still a chance he might not, if Wikipedia hasn't reached six million before 26 March 2020. JIP | Talk 22:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok, Bri suggested a brief interview for The Signpost. I don't know exactly where we'll put it, but at least part of it will make it into the next issue.
Q1: What are you going to do with the $6,000,000 prize? (just kidding!)
I don't know, but if i get in a catastrophic test plane accident and have my legs, one arm, and one eye destroyed, I know what I am doing with $6,000,000. Gentlepersons, they can rebuild me. They have the technology. They have the capability to build the world's first bionic Wikipedian. Mercurywoodrose will be that editor. Better than he was before. Better, stronger, faster, with more reliable sources.
Q2: Do you remember why you made the December 2019 prediction 6 years ago?
I figured I knew just enough about mathematics to make a somewhat accurate back of the napkin estimate for the date, factoring in a bit of the slowdown in new article creation, and believing that this downward trend in new articles would continue. I'm sure I must have done an actual calculation, but the methods I used would probably give an actual statistician apoplexy. It was a miseducated guess.
Q3: What's the biggest change you've seen in Wikipedia you've seen in that time (other than a couple of million articles)
A team of editors with way too much time on their hands created an automation system for creating new Portals. What's a Portal, you ask? Exactly... On a side note, the biggest change that did NOT occur is that the Deletionists and the Inclusionists are still engaged in a Manichean struggle, with neither side winning. The proof of this is that the number of articles has not gone to zero, decreased by a factor of Thanos, or expanded to infinity and beyond.
Q4: How many articles have you created?
310. using created by me, and adding up the total articles by HAND. Computers! Ha! Who needs them! I did get into the top 400 editors by edit count, which of course is a meaningless measure, but it was fun while it lasted.
Q5: What's your prediction for the 8,000,000th article? (the 7,000,000 pool is closed)
I cannot predict that, its beyond my processing capacity as a quasi-quantum computer, but I know what i would LIKE it to be. An article about ME, of course. Hopefully for something worthwhile, not notorious. First Wikipedian to be shot into the Sun for being too sarcastic? Well, that's sort of both...
Q6: Is all the effort going into creating all these articles worth it? Shouldn't we be concentrating on quality over quantity by now? (Sorry, if that one is too serious)
I will answer with an entirely unrelated story: Paul Krassner, in his autobiography Confessions of a Raving, Unconfined Nut, wrote about Stewart Brand, Whole Earth Catalog confabulator, "He could be more of a minimalist than Bob Dylan. I told Brand about the time I went to hear Ram Dass speak, and in the audience a heckler shouted out his capsule critique, "Words!" I told Brand I later learned that the heckler had once ***** a goat. Brand scoffed, "Deeds!""
Q7: What's your favorite article out of the last million created (since November 1, 2015)?
Aside from my own articles created during this time, of which my favorite subject is Jen Bartel (she rocks), I don't know. How about new articles on things i like? My first thought, I really loved Joker. That article was created, oh, wow, on my birthday! I didn't expect that!.
Q8: Anything else you want to add? Feel free to be serious, philosophical, sentimental, humorous, thank your mother, etc.
I'm a little sad that new editors will be facing an ever more complete work, with fewer areas to expand without being an expert. Perhaps we should consider erasing Wikipedia every few decades, and recreating it from scratch, to give new editors that initial experience of joy and wonder that they can be part of this, not just an observer, by clicking that innocent little "edit" tab. But maybe there is hope, maybe that sense of wonder will persist into the future. I know I fell in love with Wikipedia, and while I'm no longer obsessed with editing, I may fall in love all over again.
Together, we'll expand Wikipedia articles on American history and art, and the understanding that all communities bring to American culture, as reflected in the Met collection up until ca. 1900.
12:30pm - 4:30 pm at Uris Center for Education, Metropolitan Museum of Art (81st Street entrance) at 1000 Fifth Avenue, Manhattan
(note this is just south of the main entrance)
Galleries will be open this evening until 9 pm, and some wiki-visitors may wish to take this opportunity to see exhibits together after the formal event.
Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends, colleagues and students! --Wikimedia New York City Team 21:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Suggestion for community view
I noticed in the newsroom for the Signpost you have a draft idea for community view on the most important Wikipedia articles since 2015; I'd like to propose the Donna Strickland one, for how it displayed popular views of Wikipedia's content gaps, the media's (mis)understanding of Wikipedia, and, as best exemplified here, for showing how a diverse team of editors from across the globe worked in tandem to expand, enhance, and translate the article across the encyclopedia. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@Indy beetle: thanks for giving me a KITA on this. It could be a great article, but it needs input from the Signpost staff and the community and time is short. Please do write up the Donna Strickland article. You might mention the number of times the subject appeared Signpost articles (6?), or how many page views it had in 2019, or any reason you'd like. (I was thinking about that article as most important, but I decided not to.) My example will likely be Centennial comfort stations, which is important in that it is a small article with some personal meaning to the author (me). Most of our articles are similar. I suggested 120 words. We can judge that after the first 2 examples are written then get staff and invitees involved. If we're short of a dozen, there are masses we can ask, e.g. at Jimbo's talk page. Looking forward to seeing your contribution. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I think my computer doesn't like the raven paradox
Happy with you withdrawing the raven paradox article paragraph, mainly because my system is having a serious hissy fit about it - each time I load its page history anew and click on "oldest edits" (definitely not "older"!) it's giving me different pages. The first time it gave me a 2016 page - my fault for not checking the bottom edit was a create one. I think I'll leave off editing the Signpost till I've tracked down why this might be! Nosebagbear (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. But when the computer is straightened out, I'd love to see a different article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Your email
Just wanted to confirm receipt of your email of 22 January 2020, which I received at 18:32 UTC today. Unfortunately, I have commitments off-wiki that do not permit me to provide you with the requested information before the relevant deadline - I note the 24 January 23:59 UTC writing deadline for the next issue. Perhaps it would be helpful to make such requests earlier than 36 hours prior to the end of the writing deadline in the future, especially when the request involves activities taken a couple of months in the past. I'm sorry that I can't help you on such short notice. Risker (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Risker:I have discretion on the deadline. I can hold it for a couple of days here if needed. I can wait for your response until 6:30 UTC 26 January. Thats about . 66 hours from now. If you just have the basic information, e.g. if the report exists, that will be ok. Thanks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I wasn't onwiki again until today. Well, technically, I did try to log in at some point yesterday but kept getting error messages; and today I was mostly focusing on the Oversight and Checkuser OTRS queues before doing anything else. I'm sure you'd understand giving that work priority. If you have a chance, could you link me to the relevant Signpost article, assuming it was published? Risker (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
something else
And I don't want to leave you hanging with expectations but RL and out-of-country travel has limited my input for the next few weeks or longer. My apologies...AtsmeTalk📧 16:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Our most important new article since November 1, 2015
Depends on the definition of "important" but the most important event to Americans was on the night of November 8, 2016, when Donald J. Trump was called the winner by major news broadcasts. Probably we do not have a new article for that event.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to spring this on you last minute, but I've almost finished writing a special report for the next edition of the Signpost regarding Brian Boulton. Any chance there's still time to include it? –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 21:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
That's a beautiful article. I hope you can include it, Smallbones. LizRead!Talk! 00:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
After overseeing another great and successful edition of the Signpost, and writing a spot on editorial, you must be pretty tired. Hopefully this cuppa will perk you up and keep ya going! CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
For a very large amount of hours for this month's issue of The Signpost and its many pieces. ↠Pine(✉) 04:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Excellent work on the Signpost
Smallbones, it's an impressive outcome this month. Tony(talk) 10:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Tony1: That's especially meaningful to me coming from the best Signpost reporter that I ever saw. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Asked Llywrch to close the Status Labs ToU RFC; also Upwork stuff
Also how do you feel about reaching out to Upwork to see if we can get them to, for example, flag postings that mention Wikipedia, perhaps requiring them include the names of specific articles and subject matter that the prospective employers are asking to hire editors for, and providing the text of them somewhere so we can keep a closer eye on abuses? Their high-profile Chief Economist Adam Ozimek is a long-time Wikipedia fan who might be our best contact for such a request. I know someone said that they had offered to forbid requests for Wikipedia-related work if we changed our ToU to eliminate all paid editing, but we might be able to get more effective COI rules enforcement by getting a stream of article names to scrutinize (i.e., instead of driving the requests underground into postings which don't mention Wikipedia at all.) Please let me know what you think. EllenCT (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
The recently closed near unanimous call for action
The recently closed near unanimous call for action speaks to the persuasiveness of your op-ed. Several of the !voters mentioned it specifically, and I'm sure many more either read it or were persuaded by those who did. Thanks for your staying power on this crucial issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. I'm very glad that you brought to our attention that the WMF wanted an explicit call to action from the community before taking any further action. Because of that, well, now they've got one. I hope you'll be able to communicate with the individual(s) who brought that to your attention and make sure they're aware of that outcome. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 01:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: I think I'll be able to get through on Monday, and I'd hope to get some sort of reaction by Wednesday, but this might take longer. I don't think that any WMFers responded in the Article comments, which might indicate that they'd like a bit of distance in order to formulate an official reaction. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
@Smallbones: any news? Would you please clarify whether the official(s) who asked for the mandate were on or off the record? EllenCT (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@EllenCT:I consider this to be a delicate matter, and perhaps I haven't been very delicate myself. The emails were all on the record, but I doubt that you would recognize the names of the people involved. I believe I do have some discretion in this. My sole concern right now is how to best handle this very serious matter in a way such that I can still gather and publish news about it, while still assuming good faith for people who deserve it. Almost all the people involved, with the exceptions being those at Status Labs, deserve an assumption of good faith. But the conclusion that our method of dealing with undeclared already-banned paid editors does not work is obvious. I'm still trying to change that method, as best I know how. So, patience please, and thanks for the reminder that I've still got a lot to do on this. All the best Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
No problem, I have the utmost respect for your discretion. Do you want to reach out to Upwork too? EllenCT (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Do you want to try to open a discussion with Upwork, Smallbones? If you do, I don't want to interfere, but if you don't, I'd like to. EllenCT (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Smallbones: Hello?!? I know someone who knows Adam Ozimek, UpWork's chief economist. Adam has offered to help, and has asked for a description of what we need be emailed to him. Would you like to take it from here? EllenCT (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
How about a plan to address their clients clearly doing work contrary to our ToS, such as one currently posting "Wikipedia writer for professional Wikipedia pages", 95% completion rate, five feedback posted February–March and claimed $100k in revenue, but no disclosed WP accounts. Scan WP:PAIDLIST for plenty more. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@Bri: what should we ask for in terms of (1) changes to Upwork's TOS, and (2) some kind of automatic disclosure process that won't involve an additional burden on their part beyond an initial non-recurring development of extensions to their existing site software? What if they just required their users to agree that soliciting or bidding on a job involving Wikipedia would automatically disclose real names and their Upwork communication to, say, admins or OTRS volunteers? Would that be a reasonable first step from which to work and measure some months down the road for potential refinements? EllenCT (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.
Technical news
Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [2]
Arbitration
Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
The Signpost's "in the media" section did not get oversighted. No one was threatened with a block. Nothing was removed from Stuart_Anderson_(politician)#Allegations_of_Wikipedia_editing. Can we agree that the Signpost was not censored in any way? Can we further agree that it in all likelihood nothing would have happened had you published the Pete Buttigieg incident as written? You had said that you were going to take the Buttigieg case to ARBCOM - do you still plan to do that? There's still a disconnect between WP:OUTING and WP:RS even if oversighters chose not to enforce it consistently. Bitter Oil (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Looks
Resolved
to me. EllenCT (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 21:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Oval Office address
Hi Smallbones, I saw that you commented on the talk page discussion of irrelevant speeches on the Oval Office address article. Unfortunately, it seems most of the other users in that discussion are no longer active on Wikipedia. I wanted to reach out to you to see if you could weigh in on a content dispute between an anon user and me (See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oval_Office_address&action=history). The anon keeps trying to restore non-Oval Office addresses to the list and even made an attempt to rename the page as "Address to the Nation" instead. I have been removing addresses that did not take place in the Oval Office. OCNative (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The Tokarczuk interview
How are we doing with that? In January I talked to Polish Wikimedians (ping User:Klarqa) who told me they tried to get back to you and put you in touch with her agents, but then the communication broke down...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder @Piotrus and Klarqa:. I would kill to get that interview, but so far I haven't been in a position to do so (interview, not kill). Many apologies. I'll email both of you on Monday, after the current issue comes out. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
I reverted probable vandalism on this page [4], as I assumed you're still the Editor in Chief. I'm not sure if vandalism warnings should be used outside of mainspace, but I thought I should let you know in case there's anything else I should do. I was a bit hesitant to revert 8 edits, but they all appeared to be distruptive. Clovermoss(talk) 09:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.
Technical news
Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. This month, as part of Wikimedia NYC's commitment to the well-being of members, we will hold WikiWednesday online via Zoom videoconferencing! To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page.
We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person!
Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 04:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
FWIW inre WikiProjects
I am a novice editor reviving a WikiProject. The assessment system was the draw. There seems to a sense that the day of the project is done. SOME SUITABLE RASPBERRY! Even this week WikiProject COVID-19 began. I assume for that assessment system. There is activity for those who can see it past the defunct, inactive, and ”not the new hotness” of tooling. —¿philoserf? (talk) 06:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Philoserf! You are correct -- WikiProjects are seeing their last days. For whatever reason, WikiProjects are dying; their are only five that still see lots .of activity: MILHIST, AFC, MED, GOCE, and WIR. As for the COVID-19 project -- I would think that that project will go defunct after the coronavirus is stopped, much like the Obama wikiproject ended when his presidency ended. If I can help in any way, please don't hesitate to ping me or drop me a note on my talk page! Thanks, Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 17:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC),
Out of curiosity, why did you ping me? I don't think we've ever crossed paths before... I'm just curious, it's fine that you did! Thanks, Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 17:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I did ping you Puddleglum2.0. I think I saw your name on an article assignment for the Signpost. I hope that it is only some, perhaps many, WikiProjects that are going inactive, dormant, or defunct. The WikiProject System seems too useful to allow it to pass away. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Philoserf, it is only some WikiProjects that go defunct. Usually nowadays it's the newly founded projects that don't take off; the projects that have been around for years are usually still here. There have been a couple enthusiastic editors trying to revive projects recently, but the community generally doesn't accept the proposals. The system is very useful, however, I don't see it taking off again any time soon unfortunately. Thanks, Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 17:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the perspective. Appreciated. —¿philoserf? (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Jenhawk777. I have been keeping tabs on the Jytdog case and saw your contribution there. I just wanted you to know I empathize with how difficult this is to revisit, and say that I completely and totally admire you for stepping up and doing it anyway. Jytdog completely ran me off Wikipedia. I guess I wasn't as strong as you, but he was driving me insane--literally. He showed up on every article I worked on and obstructed everything I did. Anyway, that's done now and hopefully they won't let him come back. Thank you for being brave enough to speak up. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Traffic Report
I'm having no problems, it's just that the Top 25 Report is requiring more effort since Andrew.g's tool fell in January, given we have to compile the data for the list along with writing about the entries... and of course, this one will be nearly monothematic, and if I copied the structure from last time, the title'd be "In the hospital" or "In social isolation" (damn coronavirus). igordebraga≠ 21:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I only don't know if there will be this week's report (after all, you want to publish on Saturday). In any case, I put the last February list, but you can remove. (and see if you can make all the tables stay beside the graph, as the last two managed to do) igordebraga≠ 00:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
Miscellaneous
The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
I'm loving your research and work. I have no idea what a barnstar is. Dstrichit (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
next Signpost
Hi, I think I've seen you doing a lot of the work putting The Signpost together, yes? I wanted to suggest that the next issue might cover the work that GreenC and others have done to prevent an upcoming change at the Census Bureau's website from impacting tens of thousands of links in Wikipedia articles (see here and Wikipedia:US Census Migration). I don't know all the details, but I think it's a huge behind-the-scenes effort that people should be aware of. Thanks! Schazjmd(talk) 00:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice User:Schazjmd. Smallbones, confirming I sent you a reply email today. -- GreenC 14:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy notification
Just to let you know that I mentioned you here. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. This month, as part of Wikimedia NYC's commitment to the well-being of members, we will hold WikiWednesday online via Zoom videoconferencing! To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page.
We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person!
7:00pm - 8:00 pm online via Zoom (optional breakout rooms from 8:00-8:30)
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 23:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Destubbing Challenge
Thanks for that. Considering over 3000 people watch that page and given that we have over 3 million stubs the response has been underwhelming to say the least. There's currently 1105 articles (the women bios are counted twice) and now 25 people signed up. The plan isnt to start a 1 million Destubbing Challenge as realistically that would take over a 100 years!! but I was just thinking about how many potential contributors we could have and the fact we have over 3 million stubs! We need more people actively working on improving existing articles.† Encyclopædius 06:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
You might also want to mention the Summer Focus of the Week feature planned.† Encyclopædius 17:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Submission
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is My submission for the Signpost. It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Let me know if you need anything further. Happy to help with formatting for the SP if needed. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Deceased memorial
I thought it might be nice if Signpost notified the community when one ours passes away, an Obituary sort of thing like most newspapers have. I set something up for myself that notifies when someone dies. I could do the same for yourself or any other editor at Signpost. For example it notified me today that User:Marcus334 passed away who looks like an interesting person. -- GreenC 15:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. We're just getting ready to publish, so this won't happen in this issue. But we can talk about the next issue and the further future. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The system I made is email-based it sends notifications that way. If/when you are interested let me know. -- GreenC 15:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
In the event you want to or have time to make corrections ...
... see here. There is a reason the case name was changed from "drug pricing" to "medicine". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Interview phrasing
I wasn't aware that we are no longer allowed to copyedit articles, but do you think you could take a look at my edit and its subsequent revert and the reader comment that brought it about. For what it's worth, I was going to make this change in pre-publication c/e-ing but didn't want to conflict with publication as you had already asked Chris to publish. Eddie891TalkWork 21:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Eddie891: I think it's OK to copyedit once the publication script is finished. Within reason of course, we wouldn't want to rewrite or make substantial changes that alter the author's intent. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see now ... yes it is more complicated than at first blush. FWIW I noticed that during copyedit and left it alone. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I, too had not considered the other side of it. Consider me embarrassed... Maybe I'll stick to FC Eddie891TalkWork 22:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for a Symposium on Wikipedia and COVID-19, which aims to answer questions the public may have about Wikipedia's coverage of the pandemic. The event includes four speakers, all of whom are active contributors to the topic area on Wikipedia, but bring different perspectives, backgrounds, and interests. The event is free and open to the public, broadcast live on YouTube and Facebook, and questions taken from viewers on these platforms. Abstracts and speaker bios are available on the event page.
Hi - I see you've just sent me a mail, but unfortunately I cannot read it. Don't know what setting I've got wrong! Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Endorsing team IHouseScav2020 for U of C Scavenger Hunt
For showing initiative in the pursuit of a rather silly goal, not being jerks and following Wikipedia's first and most important rule, Ignore all rules, I hereby give my endorsement to team IHouseScav2020 for the 2020 U of C scavenger hunt. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC) (AP, ECo, IP, Rv) - should be worth 6 points
Signpost contributing
Hi Smallbones! I've been thinking about potentially helping out a bit more with the Signpost. I'm a journalist in my off-wiki life, so I'd be able to help out with editing pieces (both in the picky copy editing sense and the broader making editorial judgments sense). When I've tried to take a look at the newsroom recently, though, it appears I'm normally either too early or too late to be of much help. So if you find yourself needing help, feel free to send me a ping. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 03:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: I'll try to send you an e-mail tomorrow. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. This month, as part of Wikimedia NYC's commitment to the well-being of members, we will hold WikiWednesday online via Zoom videoconferencing! To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page.
We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person!
7:00pm - 8:00 pm online via Zoom (optional breakout rooms from 8:00-8:30)
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
- no room, or ???? AtsmeTalk📧 13:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Atsme and Bri:Confusing messages in the pix. Some of them looked like inside jokes that even I didn't get. Note that there is also a few paragraphs at "Arbitration report" that I'll take a close look at. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The perfect storm picture is pretty easy to decipher, and so was the glacier image. The passages explain it - not an inside joke but funny for whoever reads the caption. Just saying. AtsmeTalk📧 14:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, my advice to Smallbones was to use a minimal number of images that would enhance the text, but the way it was submitted I found the images a bit distracting from a very important topic. how do we all feel about keeping the perfect storm image as a lead large image? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
A perfect storm?
I'm not totally against using the perfect storm image (at the top), but in general I find that the perfect storm analogy is overused. I liked the movie, where an actual storm was described as something like a once-in-a-lifetime event. But there must have been 300 perfect storm analogies in the next year! My personal quota for these analogies is about 1 per year. I'll let the 2 of you decide whether it is appropriate here. My blurb for introducing Atsme might be more controversial, I'll let the two of you decide on whether a rewrite is needed after I write it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
re your executive order link. Might make the more specific link to List of executive actions by Donald Trump. I'm assuming you're referring to his response to Twitter factchecking him. I'm aware that he issued such an order, but I don't know exactly what it says, and some readers may not understand what you're referring to. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me for putting in my two cents. Held my tongue about the initial image deletions as I saw the editors' point about those. But I kind of like the Will Rogers quote "I just watch the government and report the facts" as it refers to what the media used to do more of back in the old days. Nowadays the media cherrypicks the facts they like to report and focuses more on interpretation and reporting their opinions. I like the brick wall too because it refers to the feeling some Wikipedia editors may feel when trying to get suppressed facts or minority views inserted into some acticles. The storm at the top, right below Smallbones' "gadfly" intro, not so much... may imply that the gadfly is causing the storms. I like Smallbones' version with the 3 images of Rogers, Koppel & Cronkite, and brick wall. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Smallbones - that is not my Op-Ed ... it's a remnant. Editors aren't supposed to edit op-eds. You changed what I wrote - all the relevant pictures have been removed, and then you tagged me as a conservative in your opinion - I'm in shock over that. That is not who I am at all, and I do not want to be pigeonholed as such. Op-eds don't need leads, and please put my images back. What I wrote has nothing to do with conservative or liberal - it's about everybody in today's political climate. Both sides are affected in the same way - and that includes far left, far right and middle. I trust you will do the right thing. AtsmeTalk📧 18:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Atsme and Bri: I've removed the introduction - yes it was too long - but Op-eds tend to have those when it is not immediately obvious who the author is. Feel free to write your own 2 line intro, but it is my decision whether to include it. Same for the images - pick 3 that you want and Bri or I (if he's not here) will decide whether they are appropriate. Sorry I don't have any more time to argue about this. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Check your email. AtsmeTalk📧 19:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Remarks by one of the blocked fr.wiki UPEs
Interesting how they lay out their program at fr:Discussion_utilisateur:Troover. Almost like it's a public good. They say that they are helping
citizens who will contribute to their region, their city, their monuments, etc.
students who will contribute on the subjects taught to them, their centers of interest, etc.
employees who will contribute on their sector, illustrations free of rights and can be update or correct the article of their company if it exists (figures, logos, history, etc.)
members of associations who will contribute on their favorite subjects
(machine translation, my French is next to nonexistent but even I understand Contributions rémunérées non-déclarées). ☆ Bri (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.
Arbitration
A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
An article you recently created, James M. Baxter, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Prahlad balaji: you're quick but not quick enough. You must have had an edit conflict during my 4th edit, so your move to draft space didn't work. I'm perfectly comfortable that the article meets notability standards and it will improve if you give me a bit of time. Thanks for your patience. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I have redirected the draft to the article. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
National Register articles
I think I got the wrong person, sorry.
A while ago someone put a message on my talk page soliciting people to create articles on NRHP places. Do you know who that was?Jim Evans (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Signpost community view/opinion idea
Hey Smallbones. In the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd, things related to Black Lives Matter and coverage of black people, especially on Wikipedia, have gotten a lot of attention. This is well encapsulated by that Slate article. Bad faith AfD nominations, contentious deletion discussions with meatpuppeting and canvassing, and accusations of racism have created some kerfuffles at ANI and come up in Village Pump discussions about raising the bar for AfD participation. I think now would be a good time to write an opinion on how editors can counter systemic bias and how they cannot. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. This month, as part of Wikimedia NYC's commitment to the well-being of members, we will hold WikiWednesday online via Zoom videoconferencing! To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page.
We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person!
7:00pm - 8:00 pm online via Zoom (optional breakout rooms from 8:00-8:30)
We especially encourage folks to add your 3-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Translation completed, feel free to check the English language.
Coming back to you first message on frWiki:
to explain the context of the pastiche to English readers, you could refer to [5]
yes, this article is (supposed to be) funny in French, and the many feedbacks we got in the press (newspapers, radio, in Canada, Belgium, France, Switzerland...) unanimously emphasize its humour. Moreover, it had even an effect on real life since a website which had recently headlined "A woman becomes xxxx" changed the headline into "Marie Machin, a woman, becomes xxx"
about the translation of pastiche: on frWiki we use the word pastiche for humoristic texts, caricaturing Wikipedia and classified under the dedicated project fr:Wikipédia:Pastiches. We call canulars (hoaxes) the (evil) articles which try to propagate fake news or to mislead the readers: of course we proscribe and ruthlessly hunt the second practice.
Hi, thanks for having corrected the meaning of "pastiche". This dictionary, edited by CNRS, is widely seen as reliable* (including by people who work daily on words' meaning, like translators): https://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/pastiche. You'll see allusions to imitation, imiter (imitate) and parody. Basically, a pastiche is a game of imitation. Hoaxes don't always contain the funny, parodic angle.
(*) Unfortunately, the dictionary is based on the French spoken in France, so Québécois people for instance will not find all variants. Regards, - - Bédévore[knock knock] 11:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Systemic racism and an individual editor
There was a recently closed ANI thread involving a specific editor who has raised (credibly IMO) concerns of systemic racism around his topics of interest. They received an editing restriction. There's an active thread on Jimmy Wales' talkpage and VPP. Saw an Arb comment somewhat acidly on the editor's personal talkpage too.
If nothing else I think there's a viable discussion here about the value of creating stubs, and the creeping bar-raising that may have been happening to discourage that practice.
Should I go ahead with this in the context of The Signpost? -- Bri.public (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
In a related way, and one also dear to my heart, there's a viable concern that AfC is overwhelmed with spammy advert sewage and is more liable to reject borderline to good articles that we as a community want made. -- Bri.public (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bri, Bri.public, and Pythoncoder: The first sounds good for 3-4 paragraphs on News & notes or Discussion report, if either of you have the time. The 2nd (AfC) sounds a bit fuzzier, but if you can make it a news story go ahead. Bri - I assume you've seen m:Community_open_letter_on_renaming. I think I can get a joint interview. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Taiwan deleted
Was this intentional? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bri: sort of. I just couldn't sort it all out and decided that we have enough material. If you want to sort it out and write it up fully, please put it back in. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.
Thought you might enjoy /be intrigued by this: [6]. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Op-ed rewording reverted
FYI [7] I think it should be up to the author whether to change this – i.e., you ☆ Bri (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Foundation ban
FYI [8]. I hadn't seen this announced anywhere and found it incidentally when trying to find a policy statement on something else WMF related. They were previously site banned [9] following an Arbcom decision to overturn an indef checkuser block ... complicated stuff, I know. Not sure if this is worthy of The Signpost or just a sad footnote. - Bri.public (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Macruzbar (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
extreme Replication lag to be examined by Signpost
I recently had to read and swallow: "Caution: Replication lag is high, changes newer than 3 days may not be shown. " Would you please make it a topic in the next Signpost that the Wp or shouldn't we say Wikimedia (paid) tech section seems to have lost control about replication lag now for DAYS! Former replication lags AFAIK never exceeded hours. And I (and all of us) not even have trustable information about WHY. Do we need to have community analysts of our own, does possibly WMF people paper over the cracks? Well, I really don't know. -- Just N. (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. It may be too late for Sunday's issue (I've got work on it lined up at lest until Monday!) Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Request
The following is in response to a simple question I put on Ed Sussman's talk page:
Disclosure - For The Signpost
Ed,
I'm working on an article for The Signpost on Robinhood (company). I understand that you have been doing paid work for their Wikipedia article. According to the ToU and WP:Paid
"you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation."
Can you tell me how *you* disclosed your paid contribution? Our deadline is this Saturday.
According to WP: PAID, "A paid contribution is one that involves contributing to Wikipedia in exchange for money or other inducements. It includes adding or removing content from any page, including articles and talk pages." I gave Robinhood advice and recommendations, including telling them they had to disclose a conflict of interest and submit their proposed changes through the Talk page. I also asked them to disclose that I had advised them, which they did: "I have a WP: COI as an employee of Robinhood. As instructed by the Contact Us page's [1] instructions for article subjects to contact Wikipedia to make requests regarding articles that are "incomplete, inaccurate, or biased," I would like to request that an independent editor review the following proposed edits. User:BC1278 helped me prepare this request, as a paid consultant."
I actually prepared a draft for Robinhood on a Wikipedia sandbox so they could see what some edits would look like if implemented by an independent editor User talk:BC1278/sandbox/Robinhood, and I prepared a sandbox Talk page for the draft so they could see my recommendations and my recommended format for making a Request Edit with disclosure language. User talk:BC1278/sandbox/Robinhood The first sentence of that Talk entry is: "I have a WP: COI as a paid consultant to Robinhood." This is my COI disclosure. However, the person at the company I was working with decided they wished to submit different language than my recommendations. Because of this, I advised the editor to submit the Request Edits with their own account -- User:Dpm715. I only use my account to submit my own recommendations, not requests that differ from my suggestions. That said, on my sandbox, I gave Dpm715 language to disclose I had been involved, since some of my recommendations were used: "User: BC1278 helped me prepare this request, as a paid consultant." Here is the edit [10] where I suggested the additional disclosure language about me, which had not been in any previous version, when I still thought I would be submitting my own recommendations.
It is important to reiterate that the editor who made the actual live Request Edit made the final decision as to what to submit, including the language, the citations, etc. Their version is different than my sandbox recommendations in several ways. Thus, the Request Edit on the Talk page of the live article is their own contribution, not mine, nor was it submitted on "my behalf." My own Wikipedia contribution was the sandbox, which has a COI disclosure from me. If I had submitted my version on Talk for the actual article, I would have made a disclosure there as well.
Smallbones, I presume you intend to disclose that you have been not only writing about me in Signpost, but following me to articles to challenge my editing proposals directly? And, in fact, to make ad hominem attacks about the clients I work with? "The article itself is horrible - you should be ashamed of having your name associated with it." [11] Don't you think this conflicts you from also writing about me on Signpost? Your predecessor felt exactly this way, even though we had only minor interactions on Wikipedia. That's why he asked you to interview me originally. You've really crossed a line when it comes to any semblance of unbiased reporting -- not just for following me from article to article but for attacking me personally. Shouldn't you be turning over any story involving me to another writer for Signpost now that you're also involved in Wikipedia Talk page discussions involving me? To not separate out Signpost from personal editing (especially where you have expressed personal animus toward me) seems to me (and apparently your predecessor) an abuse of power. BC1278 (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@BC1278: What's this nonsense about "my predecessor"? We talk about stories all the time at all stages of article development. What are you trying to imply?
I'm an editor on Wikipedia like any other. Are you saying that if I have a couple of interactions with you outside The Signpost, I have to recuse from any story about you? That kind of rule would soon make it impossible to find writers on almost any story the Signpost wishes to investigate. I'll suggest that you focus your ethical questions inward.
On your contributions to Hottinguer family and the 4 or 5 related articles. You do know that a company employee or exec was banned for editing those articles, don't you. You taking over for him strikes me as meatpuppeting. And you must be ashamed of being associated with such garbage articles, aren't you?
As you know, an uninvolved admin was called in and disagreed with your assessment: "However, requested edits on this talkpage would end up being implemented (or not, as the case may be) by users with no affiliation to the family, who could legitimately claim to have an independent reason for making such edits." Talk:Hottinguer_family#Please_note. You were given the opportunity to request further discussion at COIN or ANI before further Request Edits were considered and instead, you dropped the matter. The topic, about a 700 year old banking family, was not banned -- a specific editor was banned, not a company or the family. The encyclopedia's educational mission should not suffer because some novice editor abused anonymity (which Wikipedia should finally eliminate.) Helping to improve Wikipedia articles in bad shape is what I try to do. In fact, a 2018 book from Oxford University Press, "Financial Elites and European Banking: Historical Perspectives" [12] has recently come to my attention it has an extensive chapter about this family. I plan to propose incorporating some of it. As to your inference that because one of the family employees of a Swiss banking division embezzled money from clients and the family (forcing them to close a bank they had run for hundreds of years) somehow should make me ashamed is ridiculous. I'm not working for the embezzler. Your attack has everything to do with your all-out campaign against paid editing - not the subject matter.
As to your obvious conflict of interest in writing about me, BarKeep49 emailed me privately when he was asked to interview me in March 2019 . Here is his email:
"Hi. I've been asked to write about the HuffPo article and PAID editing more generally for the Signpost (Wikipedia's on-site newspaper). I would love to get a comment from you on your reaction to the article (if you'd like I can just you what you've written at the Administrative Noticeboard. I would also be interested in interviewing you further - which we could do via email or IRC. Because we've interacted if you wish the Editor of the Signpost (who goes by the username Smallbones) has offered to the interview instead. (emphasis mine.)
Thank. Of course I would have asked him about his previous interactions with yous for your consideration,
"Barkeep49"
I thought he was your predecessor. If not, then I will simply refer to him as your colleague. Nothing you write about me going forward can be considered objective because of your personal attacks about me on Wikipedia. You can write opinion pieces and label them as such, but you can't write news articles or news analysis. No reliable editorial source in the world would allow it. BC1278 (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
The history of Signpost editors in chief is chronicled here. I guess by that standard I'm the actual predecessor (as acting EiC). For a minute this thread seemed to about something relative to my tenure but now I see that it is not. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Ed, Seriously, you shouldn't put emails other people sent you on Wikipedia without their permission - it's a copyright violation. Also, I never would have guessed that anybody thought that @Barkeep49: was my predecessor. As I remember this it was at the time that Ashley Feinberg wrote that article about you on Huff Post, saying how much damage you do around here. I was pretty kind to you IIRC, saying in the Signpost that she hadn't actually accused you of breaking any rules, except perhaps WP:PAYTALK. So if this was the time that Barkeep49 asked to interview you (or did he ask for me to interview you?) I was giving you a big break. Of course I would have asked him about his previous contacts with you. I don't think that I'd ever run into either of you before. But that doesn't mean that I would have disqualified him for having a few contacts with you. Nobody in journalism would do that. Now when Ronan Farrow wrote more about your paid editing around here, that means a lot. Not many people get to have their work reamed out by both Feinberg and Farrow! So please don't tell me how to run The Signpost. Nobody in their right minds would accept your opinion on how to write a story about paid editing over mine.
Barkeep49, do you want me to remove your email from this page. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
This whole interaction has lost me. In March 2019 Smallbones emailed asking if I wanted to write an article that built off an idea I'd posted on a Signpost talk page. I was intrigued. Ultimately the parameters Smallbone suggested for the story were not of interest to me so I declined to write it. In between there I had emailed a few people, including Ed about whether they'd be interested in doing an interview. That's the email reproduced here. I had commented extensively on the Feinberg story which is why I noted the offer to have Smallbones interview Ed instead. Beyond this I'm not sure what it has to do with Robinhood or story the Signpost is working on now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Smallbones, as you also know, Feinberg's accusations were discredited and disavowed after weeks of investigation and discussion on ANI. A consensus of the discussion from an uninvolved admin was that Feinberg had no idea what she was talking about and that I had done nothing wrong. Some admins said not only did Feinberg distort and dissemble, but thst I improved Wikipedia. Another admin urged me to try to get the WMF to take action against HuffPo. A WIRED columnist looking at the situation said I clearly improved Wikipedia with the rigor of my research and writing -- and it was unfair chiefly because average people couldn't afford to hire professionals like me. Farrow repeated some of the HuffPo allegations without even calling me and apparently, without knowledge of the outcome of the ANI investigation. His PR person's primary defense was that he sourced it to the HuffPo. Feinberg is a horrible reporter who came out of Gawker, a trashy tabloid. She is being sued for libel for each of the last two articles she wrote for HuffPo (including by me) before HuffPo parted company with her. Your continuing to bring up these false allegations in an attempt to injur my reputation actually helps prove damages in my libel case, even though I'd rather you stop. BC1278 (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
@BC1278: Ed I'm still trying to figure out what you are talking about. You saying "Your continuing to bring up these false allegations in an attempt to injur my reputation actually helps prove damages in my libel case, even though I'd rather you stop," is nonsense. Where am I bringing up "false accusations"? Please just give me the diff, I can't make any sense of most of what you've written above. No commentary, no walls of text please. Just the diffs.
Did you really file a lawsuit against the author of the HuffPo piece? Or was it just against HuffPo? You understand, I'm sure, that anybody can file a lawsuit about anything, but that means absolutely nothing. Could you send me a copy of the lawsuit? It just doesn't seem like filing lawsuits against journalists who criticize your work is the way to solve disputes like this. BTW, did the essay you wrote and (according to you) distributed to majors news outlets ever get any recognition? It strikes me as saying the same type of stuff you're saying here. Why should I believe anything you're saying when you didn't get any major news outlets to publish it?
When The Signpost issue 7 article "COI and paid editing" was published, the first para said "the website was removed" apparently referring to right-angles.global. That website is still up. I think you meant to say that a photo was removed from the website? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
@Bri: The sub-page dedicated to paid editing, not the main page. The main page gives PR and other services. I'll check the text. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
So I'm ckind of confused about contributing can anyone just start a new Signpost page or do I go to the submissions desk. If I wasn't supposed to create this on my own, I would like to express my apoligies (in advance) for the confusion and would like to ask you to delete this "next issue" essay. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Are the essays in the "essays" section supposed to be ones that are already existing, or are they supposed to be original? P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The Scots thing
If someone is going to write something this 2014 thing from Slate[13] could fit in somehow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michal Rosen-Zvi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Reporter role
I came across this edit after seeing a conversation on Deepfriedokra's talk page. Given that in the past you've discussed the Signpost's journalism aspirations, I suggest you might reconsider initiating a discussion on behalf of the Signpost and at the same time suggesting a course of action to the editor. In addition to introducing yourself into the story, the editor can perceive an implication regarding the type of coverage they may receive from the Signpost, based on the editor's subsequent deeds. I understand your desire to provide experienced counsel. In my view, though, this role ought to be kept separate from that of reporter. I appreciate, of course, that it's up to your discretion to determine how to manage these situations. isaacl (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Signpost Editors position vacancy
Hello there. I see there are some vacancies for the editorial board of the Signpost. I would like to apply for the Editors position. I am clean and organized, and well versed in the news and media. When accomplishing my everyday tasks, I listen to a variety of objective news sources, so I am completely up-to-date on the news. This means that I can reject articles with ease if I know that they are complete nonsense.
I am good at motivating people to write, so as long as I have some guidance on who would be good candidates to solicit for writing portions of the Signpost, I can filter that list and give you only the very best.
Finally, I understand one of my roles as an Editor is to remind writers to finish their work. I get completely anal when it comes to finishing things, so I will pester people to no end until they get their work DONE. It's just who I am.
I understand that you are the Editor in chief of the Signpost, so I have decided you are the best person to go to for my request/application. I look forward to hearing your response, and if there is anything I must accomplish (such as getting to know the other editors, writers, how the Signpost positions work etc.) I will be more than happy to do it. Cheers.FlowerPetals📪 00:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
You've got mail.
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 17:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
It's a long time ago, but we were also just notified, it's new to us and interesting story. Thought I'd pass it along. If you don't want to post that is fine, I could add a comment section link if I remember to. -- GreenC 15:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
This is a follow-up to last year's successful MetFashion 2019, and will follow a similar theme optimized for a remote online experience.
We will be partially coordinating with the international Wiki Loves Fashion campaign.
Watch and join the livestream! The Metropolitan Museum of Art event on Saturday Sep 26 will host a tutorial and question-and-answer session live on YouTube and other social media platforms.
12:30 pm - 1:30 pm - Presentation
1:30 pm - 2:30 pm - Guidance and Q&A
Chat about improving articles! Support will be provided to help guide new editors in this area at Wikimedia Fashion Chat for the duration of the campaign.
Sorry for the very late question; I understand it can't be addressed before publication. It's a bit odd to have to speculate on what Wikipedia administrators thought; did they not respond to inquiries? isaacl (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@Isaacl: I understand what you're saying and will recheck the wording. Long story short, I didn't want to name anybody here and perhaps there were more than one. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it! I apologize for the piecemeal comments, as I work my way through the report: regarding how the edit being tagged as a visual edit means it was probably copied and pasted from a word processor document, I don't think it's compelling evidence. Lots of editors use the Visual Editor and I'm sure many of them use it directly without copying and pasting from another program. isaacl (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@Isaacl: i think you're misinterpreting here. It's not that all visual editors copy, but that this one looks like it was copied. If I remember correctly, it was a huge edit in many parts. I'll probably stick with my guide on this. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
You wrote, "The edit was tagged as a visual edit, which means that Issack.build most likely drafted the content in a word processor before copying and pasting it into the Wikipedia article." The sentence seems to imply that the visual edit tag leads to the conclusion that the content was drafted in a word processor. If you meant something else, perhaps it could be reworded. The edit is a couple paragraphs of text. isaacl (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, the last comment I have is editorial, and so again I'm sorry for not reading the report earlier and commenting then. The Canadian prime minister doesn't really have much to do with the story, so personally I think mentioning him again in the last section and saying there are no known links to the firm in question is a bit uncalled for. There isn't much reason to believe that people vet the advertising firms used by the people they interact with, so it's not exactly news that there is no known link. I know publication is nigh, and so I understand if you want to leave your concluding section as-is. isaacl (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I've commented at the article, but I'm glad it clarifies there is no known link, nor any evidence whatsoever, tying Trudeau to the paid editing story. Which of course begs the question, why is he mentioned at all? At best this is just clickbait, at worse, a BLP violation. – bradv🍁 00:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
You've got mail
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.FlowerPetals📪 19:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Closing/re-opening noms might be worth an op-ed. [W]e should retire ITN as a section of the Main Page altogether, except possibly for the RD portion. We basically are saying to our readers that we know way way way better what's good for them and what's really important. That 8 editors who cast the 'oppose' votes in that discussion count more than all the news coverage in the world and the fact that tomorrow we'll probably discover that the DT Wikipedia article had been viewed by over 500K readers today (or at least I wouldn't be surprised if it were a number in that range). Those readers, they don't know anything about our ITN and ITNR rules, no do they care. But they most definitely know when a story is 'in the news'. seems on-point to me (I've had problems with ITN for a long time now, I could show you my unsuccessful bid for what seemed an obvious item to me). Another comment: The thread was closed too quickly, in less than 1.5 hours, of course while the U.S. editors were asleep. Perhaps a revenge for the RBG story being posted so fast. - Bri.public (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
discussion closed [19] 13:01 (09:01 NYC / 06:01 Los Angeles)
talkpage discussion "Closing/re-opening noms" started [20] 13:04
Brief timeline above for Smallbones and/or watchers. - Bri.public (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@Bri and Bri.public: I'm just gobsmacked. Of course there can be an op-ed; do you want to write it, or find somebody else to write it. Perhaps even a forum-type article with 2 authors facing-off. I'll be at the beach for the first time in about 2 months. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Proposal: How about a mix of the two ideas. I'll do some legwork while you're relaxing (this weekend?) and we can make a decision about what to do next. I'm thinking of an outline/introduction kind of neatening up what I wrote above, and locating perhaps 1-2 people who can provide opposing POVs on whether ITN is tenable.
One of the things this exposes is how there's a shocking lack of procedure for something that is part of the front page. The story selection is personality-driven ... no semblance of developing consensus IMO ... with a strong bias against US news (my own experience). I'll be digging into what the procedures are or are supposed to be. - Bri.public (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll be writing a book review and trying to catch up on my emails. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion continues. It looks like it has turned into a vote on a proposal but incompletely defined and without any notifications AFAIK. They are also mixing the merits of the specific story with the discussion of the proposal to re-open discussion. What a mess. - Bri.public (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Update: Discussion closed 6 October as "moot" without a resolution [21]. A reform proposal to introduce an ITN editorial board, in a separate thread, was trounced. Bri.public (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@Bri: I couldn't find the separate discussion. You should write the whole thing up, including the separate discussion. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Guideline and policy news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
Technical news
Resolved
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversight changes
- no room, or ???? Atsme Talk 📧 13:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL
Jackmcbarn
There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime