![]() |
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) |
User:Coretheapple submitted the following nomination 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))
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Smallbones |
A Favorite Photo |
Editor of the Week for the week beginning August, 2014 |
A content contributor par excellence known for integrity and yeoman work fighting encroachments by paid editors. |
Recognized for |
Contributions ranging from Bernard Madoff to Media, Pennsylvania. |
Nomination page |
Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 16:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hope it’s fine that I’m posting this on your talk but I don’t think anything I’m saying here will reveal anything sensitive. Just wanted to say that I have received and read your email but I feel like I'm not the best person to make a judgment call on publication because I am EXTREMELY biased on such matters. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Questions about Mr. Whitaker’s claims to have been an Academic All-American were raised Monday on Wikipedia Signpost, an in-house publication for Wikipedia editors, by a user named Smallbones. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I tried to clean the article up a few weeks ago and added some sources I thought were appropriate; however since you took a look at it and removed some, I think it's worth trashing the whole thing. It relies almost entirely on original research, in current form is mostly my writing, and has almost no diversity in sources. I'm on my phone right now but I figured I would just check in on what you think, but I just don't think it has the coverage to be worthy of an article. Dr-Bracket (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
For Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-12-24/Op-ed and all the resulting breaking news on various outlets!! Great to see the Signpost breaking news!!
Happy New Year!! Buckshot06 (talk) 09:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC) |
Decred sources it but you removed it from Cryptonote here. While I personally try to avoid anything that's not on the list of perennial sources (unless I'm fairly confident in its reputation), I'm just trying to find a baseline for when I should remove it from other articles. Dr-Bracket (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
At User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 232#Thar she blows! you wrote "I'll say it's close to worthless now, and that will become apparent by New Year's Day (please remind me then)." I waited an extra week.
Full disclosure: I have never owned any cryptocurrency or had anything to do with bitcoin other than being hired as an engineer to advise someone who has a large mining rig on how to get his electricity bills down.
It is my considered opinion that, like stocks, bitcoin prices are essentially unpredictable. Which is why I found your prediction to be interesting. There certainly was a bubble -- hitting the "all" button at https://www.coindesk.com/price/bitcoin is really interesting -- but your prediction failed.
Care to make another prediction? A day, a week, a month, any time frame is fine with me. I would like to compete against you with a prediction based upon a coin flip. I think that if we both do this a number of times that our performance will be about the same (I don't think you have the ability to be consistently wrong either!).
Back to that bitcoin miner: right now he loses money if he turns on his rig. He can become profitable if he invests in a more efficient mining setup, but there is a low enough bitcoin price at which the new rig becomes unprofitable -- and a high enough bitcoin price at which the old rig becomes profitable again. So he is really into predicting future prices, and doesn't care much for me saying that they are unpredictable. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I see that you have made another prediction.[1] Let's see how you do this time. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Saw you posting about Trump's speech on Jimbo's talk page, and figured you might want to see January 2019 Donald Trump speech and weigh in on the talk page discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Black Monday (January 2008). Since you had some involvement with the Black Monday (January 2008) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Moved to talk:Cryptocurrency
Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I unpacked the galleries on Alexander Stirling Calder, because I added images of the buildings along the right border. It seemed to be less visually cluttered to me, but feel free to play around with things if you have a better solution. Thanks. Best, == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
You just burst my bubble. No, just kidding, change the headline to one that makes sense. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Press Barnstar | |
Wait, you don't have one of these yet? Awarded for your mention in The Wall Street Journal for "Wikipedia not trumped by Trump appointee" op-ed in The Signpost (24 December 2018) ☆ Bri (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC) |
You moved an adequately defined list-defined reference to the body of the article. Were you aware that WP:Citing sources#To be avoided specifically warns against "...moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist..."
I just took a brief look at your contribution history. I see you started to contribute in late 2005. "Citation styles" were first introduced in late 2005 and 2006. I learned about the first citation style I used by seeing someone else use it, and figuring out how they worked by following their example. This edit of yours, from October 2006, suggests that you weren't using any citation styles as late as October 2006. I think this means you missed the settling out period, where the <ref>((cite))</ref> style replaced the earlier and harder to use citation styles. I used the template:ref/template:note citation style in early and mid 2006. It was superior to not having any citation styles to aid linking a list of references at the end of the article to the places in the body of the article where they were relevant. But it was much harder to use and maintain than the <ref>((cite))</ref> style, so I defected to that citation style.
Some contributors misinterpret other passages of WP:Citing sources, and related wikidocuments, that warn against switching an article from using one "citation style" to another "citation style". They assume those warnings apply to references defined inline and list-defined references. But as someone who used one of the earlier now rarely used alternate citation styles, I think I know those warning really apply to recklessly mixing the earlier citation styles with the overwhelmingly popular <ref>((cite))</ref> style. List-defined references are the same citation style as inline <ref>((cite))</ref> references.
An Arb ruling that one of those related wikidocuments quotes dates back to 2006 -- they year when mixing and converting articles that used the genuinely different citation styles would have been an issue.
How much of what I wrote above were you aware of? If you were aware of this history could you explain why you moved where the reference was defined?
Why am I concerned? (1) unnecessarily moving or rewriting perfectly adequate reference definitions breaks the fine principle of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"; (2) unnecessarily moving or rewriting reference definitions provides an opportunity for typos to introduce errors, and break articles that weren't broken; (3) unnecessarily moving or rewriting reference definitions can obfuscate when minor errors to those references are introduced; (4) unnecessarily moving or rewriting reference definitions strongly erodes the utility of our revision control system.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Quaker City Dye Works is now a redirect to Front Street (Philadelphia), which has a photo of the dye works. Perhaps you might create an article for the dye works.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
...so much for you kind words of encouragement. Wow, what an impact-the wrong kind. If you have any other words of wisdom please come back to my talk page. I am hoping to get my topic ban lifted so I get back to contributing content. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 01:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I am happy to share that script draft 1 is complete and ready for public comment.
The script (link to the Google doc) is much longer than I anticipated, at almost 21 pages!
Although I think that the 21 page script would be a very good introduction to referencing policies and workflows, I am considering dividing it into two or more smaller scripts that would be produced as separate videos. For example, one script could focus on policies and a different script could focus on how to use the citation tool. I am considering this for three reasons:
I would very much appreciate constructive criticism and comments regarding the script, preferably by March 10 at 11:59 PM UTC. This is a shorter time window than I would like to provide, but the planned end date for this project is March 14 and I would like to finish video production by the end of March 13 so that I have 24 hours for communications before the grant period ends. If you would like to review the script or make other comments but the end of March 10 is too soon for you, please let me know that you need more time, and I will take that into consideration as I plan for final production and consider whether to request a date extension from WMF. (Extending the finish date for the project would not involve requesting additional funding for the current grant.) I would prefer that the video be done perfectly a few days late than that the video be done on March 14 but have an important error that was not caught during a rush to the finish.
I have three specific requests for feedback:
1. Please find errors in the script. This is a great time to find problems with my work, before the script goes into production and problems become more expensive to fix. Please go to this link in Google Docs and use the Comment feature in the Google Doc.
2. Do you have comments regarding whether the script should be divided, and if so, how it should be divided? Please let me know on the project talk page.
3. How do you feel about the name for the video? Do you prefer "Referencing with VisualEditor" or "Citing sources with VisualEditor", or a third option? Again, please comment on the project talk page. However, if I divide the script then I will create new names for the smaller videos.
Thank you for your interest in this mini-project. I am grateful to be working on a project which I hope will help Wikipedia contributors to be more efficient and effective, and indirectly help to improve Wikipedia's quality by teaching contributors how to identify and to cite reliable sources. I believe that the finished video will be good, and I hope that the community and novice contributors will find the video to be very useful.
Yours in service,
See: this. The link has been sent to me by a friend who actually has no time for Wikipedia and rarely even reads it. In the normal run of things I would make a big article out of it for The Signpost but of course now that some of The Signpost's biggest detractors and antagonists are going to be part of a new editorial team, I won't be having anything to do with The Signpost. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Smallbones! I think that Kinesis (monetary system) should be on the disambiguation page for Kinesis. If you think that the article is incorrectly named (I'm not a cryptocurrency expert), that's fine, but that's the name of the article and that's how I should add it to a disambiguation page. What are your thoughts? Rename the article--just re-add as is? Thanks for your input! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I've been watching you clean up after the poor sourcing for weeks now, I think it ought to be protected. Dr-Bracket (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
It takes me a while to get around to things: Friends meeting houses in Pennsylvania#Demolished meeting houses
== BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi! The full version of this newsletter issue has a lot of information. I am sending a short version to talk pages.
The most important information to know is that draft 2 is finished, that the single long script has been divided into many smaller scripts, and that portions of the script have been prioritized for production.
Due to budget constraints, not all scripts can be produced within the scope of the current pilot grant, but the other scripts will remain available for potential future production. (This project feels somewhat like doing a vehicle repair when the mechanic starts to work on the engine, and once the mechanic gets under the engine and starts to work, they discover that accomplishing their objective requires twice as much time as they first had estimated.) However, nothing is lost, so do not fear. Overall, my assessment (me being User:Pine) is that this project is producing a lot of good output and is generally a valuable pilot project.
For more information, including my requests for your feedback, please see the full version of the newsletter.
What do you want to know? Wrote a bit here. --Christian140 (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for being up for taking up the mantle of Signpost leader during such a time of stress. Without assigning blame in recent issues, the Signpost has always been an invaluable "outside" opinion on what's going on at Wikipedia, both in a global sense and for specific changes on the English Wikipedia. There have always been critics, as there are throughout Wikipedia, and your efforts will not be without criticism. And that is why being willing to dive in and open the Signpost up for scrutiny means so much. I wish you luck in your work to continue the valuable work of the Signpost and the difficult process of listening to sometimes-unhappy readers. I'll be a faithful reader regardless of what you publish but I hope you will keep up the great work of the past. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Smallbones, thank you for this. I think it's excellent, and you should not feel under any pressure to change it - but that's just my opinion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Smallbones, I understand Dlthewave objects to my quoting his reply to The Verge article. However, I believe that if Dl wants to include that article text box I should be allowed to include a reply text box. I would ask that either both are removed or both are retained. Linking to an inflammatory article while not allowing me the space to reply seems, lacking a better term, unfair. I'm specifically thinking of the first box removed here [[5]] Springee (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much for stepping forward to serve as the Signpost editor-in-chief. It is really wonderful that you are committed to saving the publication. I appreciate it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2019/apr/2/artifact-legendary-humboldt-murderer-seth-kinman-f/ Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Smallbones user, my column is ready, I do not know if it's okay. If it needs to be expanded, it says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Villalaso/sandbox/1. Thanks you.
Attentively....
--Villalaso (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Smallbones, I think that my column is ready. But, talk me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Villalaso/sandbox/1. --Villalaso (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I am going to learn about The Signpost. --Villalaso (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Can I email to you first? Atsme Talk 📧 16:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
For your skill, speed, and support in my recent unusual, and highly public, WP:PAID ANI. Britishfinance (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC) |
Thanks for writing that! It was an interesting read. I just have one thing that I would like to clarify: "...the community (both the individual editor community and also our community of affiliate groups) Support Foundation staff coming out of a period of cultural..."
Is there a missing comma in that? --Best, TheSandDoctor Talk 18:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
Four years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
As a fellow Pennsylvanian, I thought you might be interested in this thread at COIN. Best.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Walter Rogers Furness Cottage. I only wish we had a better image.
Best, == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I am completely of your opinion that it should be forbidden to write for monetary reasons on Wikipedia. This User has some nice Pictures on his page too : https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBenutzer_Diskussion%3AReiner_Stoppok
And because my Letter to the Godfather of Wikipedia
I know that a reaction from an important Person like Jimbo Wales is a bit too dreamed but does he has even read it ?
what do you think?
WikiVerwelkt (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
When you have a minute please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions, where Bluerasberry and I have made proposals. Many thanks for your good work. --Pine (✉) 02:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
A news story worthy of Woodward and Bernstein's attention is actually happening right now in en.wiki. Do you have plans for a special edition of Signpost? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Please consider including this petition launched by WMF Taiwan branch in the upcoming Signpost. Gratitude. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 18:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The file File:SamuelFinley1761.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files))
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files))
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
see WP:NODEADLINE. ∯WBGconverse 12:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Signpost Barnstar | |
For important original reporting during a Wikipedia community crisis, I award you the Signpost Barnstar.--ragesoss (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC) |
I have filed a case, as you suggested. I still hope this can be solved amicably. [12] Haukur (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I think you've made a very poor decision. Please put it right, asap. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
For your courage in objectively reporting on an issue of critical importance to the entire Wikipedia community. Nicely done. Montanabw(talk) 19:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC) |
can be hard at the top, particularly if one is an Editor-in-Chief of The Signpost Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, the PA, the harassment, and the bruises. Illegitimi non carborundum. Email me any time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I read your article before deletion and thought it was an excellent piece of work; it helped me better understand aspects of Framgate. Considering the hidden evidence had led you to suspect Fram was 'Guilty as charged', & that you had huge stacks of evidence you didn't show, I thought it was overall very neutral. (that was before I'd read Fram's meta statements though.) It's reasonable to assume most Signpost readers are smart enough not to uncritically accept a quote from an anon as obviously true. Id guess that most readers who had heard only the bare bones – that WMF has banned Fram for Harassment – would actually be more open minded towards him after reading your article.
That said, the quote that alleges Fram repeatedly linked to the "graphic depiction" does seem to be in rather blatant violation of policy, even accepting that Signpost deserves a little leeway in interpretation due to its valuable journalistic mission. Additionally, if you carry on with the line of defence youre so far taking in your Arb statement, theres a risk folk will see it that youre assuming the right to be Frams judge.
If you were to at least implicitly accept that you might of got caught up in the Framgate emotion like so many others had, and that maybe the 'graphic description' passage does deserve to be taken out, then it looks to me that the case would be a clear win for your side - i.e. no sanctions, and possibly even the article (- passage) would be cleared for re-publication.
Whereas if you continue to insist it was fine to include even the 'graphic depiction' passage, it's possible the case would not end well. Which would be a great shame – while we're maybe too busy to show our appreciation – the Signpost is highly valued by a great many editors. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Posted by Slate about an hour ago: "Wikipedia's "Constitutional Crisis" Pits Community Against Foundation"
Discusses the deletion of your Signpost article, and mentions you by your Wiki-name. Also uses the same "constitutional crisis" title and leading Jimmy Wales quote as was in my article.
I like this quote especially: Fram's ban could be either a seminal moment in the Wikimedia movement or yet another deleted entry in the internet encyclopedia's graveyard.
Bri.public (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
ist&oldid=904920325 -->
I take it that my submission to the Signpost was delayed until the next issue because of WP:FRAM. Am I correct in that presumption? MER-C 16:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Brevity in writing is the best chance for its perusal. —Rudolf Virchow
Hi, Smallbones. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Disputed Signpost article. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; in any event, concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.
Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-enwikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.
For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 17:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
hope this helps:
— Ched : ? — 19:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The request for arbitration Disputed_Signpost_article has been declined by the committee. The arbitrators' comments about the request can be viewed here. SQLQuery me! 23:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Special:diff/908046196, I think it was a reference to Girls, Girls, Girls (Mötley Crüe song). But your change makes sense in a keeping-the-peace way. Bri.public (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Just FYI, not sure how much more I'll be able to contribute to the "In brief" section of The Signpost for this issue. I have a busier schedule this week and likely won't manage to contribute more than I already have. Just wanted to inform you, so you can plan accordingly.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
On 3 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Yola Letellier, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Yola Letellier is widely believed to be the model for the main character in Colette's story Gigi? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Yola Letellier. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Angie Kim, Gale Galligan - The Baby-sitters Club, R.O. Kwan, Mitali Perkins [13] Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The Post reporter Isaac Stanley-Becker contacted me through my Talk page, and we had a few cordial exchanges. My explanation of the multiple tiers of Wikipedia deletion debates must have been too hairy for a general audience, but the article hits the main points of our conversation, and I think the final product ended up rather nice. Of course, the headline has to put a face on the process in order to catch the reader, but the article does convey that the effort is a collective one. XOR'easter (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Would you like my help with the Signpost? I have been active at WP:ITN from time to time and am interested in news. Long ago I even worked as a freelance reporter and am familiar with the basics of journalism. Jehochman Talk 23:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
From here:
That's all the Hollywood Reporter says on the topic, but perhaps Farrow's book will have more detail when it comes out. XOR'easter (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm telling you this now rather than later in the hopes that it will reduce the all-too-familiar-to-me deadline crunch: Due to real-life circumstances, I will not be able to contribute to the Signpost for the time being. I may write a few sentences here and there, but I won't be able to write anything major for a while. This is not a resignation, as I plan to return eventually, but the exact return date is unclear for now (beyond "sometime in 2020"). Sorry. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
This comment from Sitush seems to be partially addressed to you.
I found the surface meaning of Sitush's comment alarming, and said so here. I'd be curious to hear your opinion on those comments.
When Sitush referred to the WMDC POV, he is referring to the Washington DC chapter of Wikimedia, or Wikimedia supporters, correct? Are you a member of this group? Do you know about this group? Am I correct that this group does not play an actual role in either WMF or wikipedia governance?
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think my post violated WP:TPG and should've been hatted. But I am open to discussing it further, as I always strive for my post sto be civil. If you think something in it was inappropriate I will be happy to consider refactoring it. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
The Smallbones. Just heard of them for the 1st time today. But I kinda like the idea that there are other Smallbones out there. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).
|
![]()
|
It seems to me that The Daily Caller hiring an attorney as a "media consultant" to improve/whitewash/(insert opinionated verb here) their Wikipedia article is a bit above the significance threshold for potential conflict-of-interest editing. (See the talk page for details.) It's not quite "Wikipedia in the media", more "Wikipedia and the media", but I feel it ought to be noted somewhere, however it shakes out. XOR'easter (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Risker: you may be right. Smallbones(smalltalk) 11:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I am an editor who loves to write. Ever since I joined Wikipedia, (and when I just browsed before I made an account), I have read the Signpost. One of my favourite parts was the WikiProject report, but it is not a regular report. Because of this I am interested in perhaps becoming the Wikiproject report writer. I am currently working on a draft for a report on WikiProject Video Games (found here), but I wanted your permission before I went and interviewed members of the Project. If this is not the right place to ask, can you direct me to the correct place? I am fine with the Report being only like once every other month or something, but I would like to revive it. Thank you for considering this, Puddleglum 2.0 18:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).
Interface administrator changes
will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.
For your attention, [14] and their follow-up, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1024#IP mass tagging notable mostly women scientists for notability. The ~50 bios targeted are listed at User:Bri/Mass deletion women bios.
Then see WT:WikiProject Women in Red#Jess Wade and Katherine Maher interviewed on BBC ☆ Bri (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry
No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well S. MarnetteD|Talk 22:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC) |
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Waverly, Ohio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
"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."
Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)
Chris Troutman (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Smallbones: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Did I miss a discussion about who we collectively honor? |
![]() George Bellows, North River (1908), Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts. |
Best wishes for a healthy and prosperous 2020. | |
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 |
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: 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)