User:Smallbones/Archive 8

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)

User:Coretheapple submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

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}}

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)

Thanks for your continuing concern over the issue and your calm, level-headed approach. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow! It's always great to get feedback like this. Thanks Coretheapple and Buster7 Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

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, JethroBT ^{drop 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)

Email

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)

ICYMI: you got a mention in WSJ

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)

Best wishes for a happy 2019

Should we nominate Cryptonote for deletion?

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)

A barnstar for you!

	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)

When is Nasdaq an appropriate source?

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)

@Dr-Bracket: I'm not sure NASDAQ is ever a reliable source, rather it is an aggregator of other sources - it just reprints things. For example, at the end of the first article I removed at Cryptonote is the text "Disclaimer: Particl is a client of BTC Media, which owns Distributed.com .

The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc." Also "Distributed" follows immediately after the author's name.

With a bit of reading on the link from "Distributed" you can see that it concentrates on bitcoin and blockchain - never a good sign. Particl has a major section in the article, so BTC Media is "covering" a client (i.e. as a PR firm) and it is distributed by its subsidiary "Distributed".

Similarly with the second article I deleted, Bitcoin Magazine follows the author's name and the bottom of the text reads "The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.

This article appears in: Bitcoin". Since Bitcoin Magazine isn't a reliable source "NASDAQ" isn't as well, at least for this article.

I've seen something similar for Yahoo! but they also have their own editorial staff, so just check the author line and the bottom lines to see what's going on there. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Perfect reply, thank you very much :). It's amazing how little I knew about actual proper sourcing before I started trying to edit Wikipedia, so I definitely appreciate everything you guys have taught me so far! Dr-Bracket (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

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)

You asked for a reminder...

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)

(Answered on Jimbo's talk page) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019 Donald Trump speech

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)

Smallbones might be interested, but for me the last thing I want to do is listen to a politician or get involved in a political Wikipedia page. My sole interest is in Smallbones' accuracy as a predictor of future events. I checked the news, and despite various predictions in the press and despite his prediction on jimbotalk, it appears that Trump did not declare a state of national emergency. The speech and the democrat's response is online -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OenMJ_eMw_E -- so if anyone has a specific timestamp where he did declare a state of emergency, please post it and I will reluctantly watch that part of his speech.

"A president can declare that the country is in a state of national emergency at his discretion. The declaration confers a set of special executive authorities that are designed to give the president the power to effectively handle emergencies, such as an outbreak of war."[2]

"A president can declare that the country is in a state of national emergency at his discretion. The declaration confers a set of special executive authorities that are designed to give the president the power to effectively handle emergencies, such as an outbreak of war."[3]

"What the President Could Do If He Declares a State of Emergency: From seizing control of the internet to declaring martial law, President Trump may legally do all kinds of extraordinary things."[4]

I look forward to Smallbones' next prediction. <--- (Good-natured kidding among friends.) BTW, I tried my hand at this "predicting the future" business today, and predicted that the sun would rise in the east. Alas, I was completely wrong. The sun did not rise. Instead the horizon moved in a downward direction. See Heliocentrism and Geocentrism. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Black Monday (January 2008) listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Combining the second sentence versions in the Cryptocurrency article

Moved to talk:Cryptocurrency

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Unpacking

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)

Found a better solution. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Bubble burst (ed)

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)

Could you please explain...

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)

@Geo Swan: - You're mistaken. I didn't move your ref, I totally removed it. Gone, kaput, no more. Cryptonewsz is likely one of the worst of the so-called "cryptopress", which are all considered to be non-reliable sources except in extremely limited circumstances. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. So, is there a discussion, at RSN, or elsewhere, where one can see how the decision to forgo this reference was made?

With regard to those "extremely limited circumstance" -- why isn't this one of those circumstances? Geo Swan (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

See this at AN. By extremely limited circumstances, I was leaning toward "when hell freezes over" but that might be a bit too extreme. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I checked the link to the ANI discussion, you made good points there, so I am convinced websites that report largely or solely on cryptocurrency are unlikely to be RS. Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Quaker City Dye Works

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)

Thank you

...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)

Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 1

Good news: the (lengthy!) script draft 1 is complete!

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:

People may be more willing to watch shorter videos that have more specific focus.
Shorter videos may be easier to search for an answer for a single specific question.
There is a possibility that if I attempt to produce a single video from almost 21 pages of script that I might exceed the budget for this mini-project. I would like for both WMF and the community to be satisfied with the results from this mini-project, and I think that dividing the script into smaller scripts which could be produced separately would be a good way to ensure that the budget for the current grant is not exceeded. While there is a reasonable possibility that I could finish production of the entire 21 pages of script within the current grant, I think that dividing the script would be prudent. After one of the smaller scripts is fully produced within the currently available funding, remaining script could be considered for production within the current grant if there seems to be adequate remaining funds, or could be saved for possible production with a future grant.

Request for constructive criticism and comments

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.

Closing comments

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,

--Pine✉ 07:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Paid editing

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)

A discussion more-or-less related to this article is ongoing at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jytdog's_efforts_against_paid_editing_covered_in_Media.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

disambiguation, kinesis Comment

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)

@Megalibrarygirl: I don't think this article should have been promoted from AfC, when I have the time, I'll list it for deletion. The sources aren't reliable as far as I can see, even the Forbes one, which is not staff written. You have to be very careful with cryptocurrency articles. 90%+ of the companies are scams (I'm being generous). There are lots of paid editors about working on them. Leaving out the scam companies that have been caught, there are only about 5 companies in the industry that are notable enough for an article. Please check out the following articles on companies/currencies that are similar and better known that Kinesis: Tether (cryptocurrency), Quadriga Fintech Solutions, and maybe Dogecoin for a laugh.

Finally - there's no way that any cryptocurrency can be described as a monetary system. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know anything about crypto at all, like I said. It just looked like it a GNG to me. I have no problem with you nominating the article for AfD if you disagree. I do have a question: What is the difference between a staff-written article at Forbes and an article written by a non-staff person though? As far as I can see, Forbes chose to publish it and there must be some editor who signed off on it. Anyway, thanks for the response and enjoy the rest of the weekend! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed protection is probably needed on the Quadriga Fintech Solutions article.

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)

@Dr-Bracket: Feel free to ask an admin to do this. I haven't myself been very concerned since the story had been moving quite fast, and every new edit gave me an excuse to check on new developments. But I won't have much time for it in the future so I wouldn't mind semi-protection at all. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Finally

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)

Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 2 short version

Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 2

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.

Thanks very much. --Pine(✉) 23:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

German Wikipedia shutdown

What do you want to know? Wrote a bit here. --Christian140 (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Signpost

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)

Signpost request

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)

@Springee: Please add text in your Con section to this effect, but also please be aware that quoting a person's past views that may have changed might seem odd to some readers. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I may reply as a comment since I otherwise would have to do this via the phone. Dl is welcome to explain why their opinion changed but I think it's very disrespectful to make me defend both his own opinions and with no additional space the opinions of a writer who didn't do his homework. It reminds of the ignorant flak Wikipedia got when the female Nobel winner didn't have an article. [[6]] Springee (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

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)

Seconded. Read your opening op-ed this morning; well said. It's good to know the 'Post is in safe hands. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
That's great writing! Thanks for taking this on. Johnuniq (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328, Yunshui, and Johnuniq: Thanks for the kind words. I'll try to do my best. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Smallbones, thank you for stepping forward and taking over as Editor-in-chief for the Signpost. I enjoyed reading the issue this month. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 02:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

You may find this of interest....

https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2019/apr/2/artifact-legendary-humboldt-murderer-seth-kinman-f/ Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: Thanks for the link - did you see *both* videos there? Is the Lost Coast Outpost considered to be reliable locally? I'd never read anything that directly called Seth Kinman a murderer before, but I'll probably put that in the article (as one point of view, not proven fact) together with my favorite external video box. Thanks again. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Lost Coast Outpost (LOCO) is often referred to as the "local Onion" because while it's one of two local news blogs, it is the one most likely to go over the top on headlines, captions and assumptions for what I believe they call in social media "click bait." I have done my utmost to refrain from ever citing anything from it on any Wiki project as I am unconvinced of the quality and longevity of the source. For Kinman, I am personally unaware that he participated in the infamous massacre on Indian Island, but of course there were dozens of nearly simultaneous massacres, and anything is possible with these settlers. At about the same time, Henry P. Larrabee was getting his well known contemporary murderous reputation by floating corpses down the river on rafts. I would assume if Kinman had been that flagrant, even the press of his time would have mentioned it, as they did for Larrabee. Later famous, writer Brett Hart was secretary to the militia group which applied to the state for funding to wipe out the indigenous peoples, and later was run out of town for writing about the Indian Island Massacre.[7] Meanwhile William Carson, who built the Carson Mansion, and other lumber barons were busily assembling land title to empires of redwoods and Doug fir[8] built on a cultural foundation of forced removal, child kidnapping and murder.[9][10] Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost Hispanic

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)

Jimbo & Larry bar jokes

Can I email to you first? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: please do. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank You

		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)

You may not have seen this, but the Washington Post have now covered this case in an article [11], which includes the following statement: "The campaign also drew attention to various Wikipedia articles that clarify the complexities of these tax-avoidance schemes. Politicians, policymakers, and the legal-finance profession responded vigorously and tried to discredit the Wikipedia articles. But none of these critiques have challenged their substantive truth". thanks for all your help ! Britishfinance (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Signpost interview

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)

@TheSandDoctor: I think I got the copyedit right this time, thanks. I really did enjoy doing the article - but of course all the work was Maher's! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Glad to help

. How did you manage to line up the interview? You emailed Maher and asked I assume? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, she seemed quite happy to reach out to the community. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

May be of interest

As a fellow Pennsylvanian, I thought you might be interested in this thread at COIN. Best.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: Thanks, I've seen the COIN posting and the 2 Lancaster Online pieces (for at least a few seconds!). But I get bounced by the paywall. I've sent them an email trying to get access, but haven't heard back so far. BTW there was a case a year or 2 ago where the Republican leader in the PA House (or Senate?) was written up was written up in the Pittsburgh paper (and picked up by Newsworks on WHYY) but I don't think anything came of it. I haven't tracked that down yet though. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You might like …

Walter Rogers Furness Cottage. I only wish we had a better image.
Best, == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow you User Page looks great!

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)

Proposals for the June issue of The Signpost

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)

@Pine and Bluerasberry: will do. I expect that they will be just what I'm looking for, but I should really look first! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Special Edition of Signpost?

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)

Invitation

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)

Proposed deletion of File:SamuelFinley1761.jpg

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)

Please

see WP:NODEADLINE. ∯WBG^converse 12:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Nice essay, but I don't see how it applies to a newspaper. I do like the part WP:There is no deadline#View_four:_There_are_a_lot_of_deadlines. That certainly applies to newspapers. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

As nice as your inability to learn lessons from historical mistakes, I might say. ∯WBG^converse 06:22, 4 July 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)

Most befit. So glad you + the Signpost are there for such sprawling + important events. – SJ + 15:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom case

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)

Voting is currently <5/3/1> which indicates the case will proceed ☆ Bri (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear

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)

A barnstar for you!

	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)

Life at the top

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)

Well, I haven't got the T-shirt yet, but I got everything else Kudpung mentioned. As far as I'm concerned that just proves that the story is correct. Censoring The Signpost further proves that Wikipedia itself has a problem. The argument for the censorship seems to be that nobody can criticize admins in project space and that would really be a problem. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It's ironic that at the Arbcom case request, nobody who says they are shielding an admin from discussion seems to realize the same logic would have to apply to WMF employees and executives. We'd have to immediately blank WP:FRAM if they are correct. See if this fits ... "processes that manipulate, deny, or distort reality"... I said something about that somewhere else. ☆ Bri (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

A minor tactical retreat might be advisable

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)

Mentioned in Slate

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)

Bri.public I've had a chance to read it through now. Looks ok to me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

ist&oldid=904920325 -->

Quick question

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)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests

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)

Counter

hope this helps:

https://wordcounter.net/
or the wiki sponsored one: https://www.countofwords.com/

— Ched : ? — 19:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for arbitration declined

The request for arbitration Disputed_Signpost_article has been declined by the committee. The arbitrators' comments about the request can be viewed here. SQL ^{Query me!} 23:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Mötley Crüe is probably not the exemplar for gender neutral tone

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)

Am I becoming "politically correct" in my old age? Probably in the sense that The Signpost has a wide range of readers and it would be very easy to ignore "little things" and insult people without even thnking about it. But as far as the actual content - yeah, those candidates for president are women, not girls. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Signpost in brief

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)

3family6 Good timing! I usually quit gathering material at this time. It'll take a day or two to write it up. My quirks may surprise you. Some of it is personal preferences, others are from hard earned lessons. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay! And hopefully in the future I can contribute more. I'm getting married soon, after that as I start to get settled and have only one job, I might have some spare time.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Yola Letellier

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, Yola Letellier), 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)

Some women writers

Angie Kim, Gale Galligan - The Baby-sitters Club, R.O. Kwan, Mitali Perkins [13] Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

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.)

Charlie Louvin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to WHYY

Earl Scruggs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to WHYY

Johnny Gimble (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to WHYY

Marty Stuart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to WHYY

Merle Haggard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to WHYY

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)

Regarding the Washington Post article

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)

@XOR'easter: Thanks. I do agree that the final product ended up rather nice. Simplification is always going to be there - in any writing! And headlines are always the most simplified, of course. So I'll have to simplify your comment into 1 or 2 lines for The Signpost's "In the media". If I need more info, I'll email you. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Signpost

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)

@Jehochman: For this issue it is too late. We're going through the publishing process and, I'm sure you understand, somebody new to the system can only get in the way right now. If you'd like to submit an article for next month, opinion might be the easiest but anything really, please just write it up, or propose it at submissions and ping me when you think it's at the point when we can discuss it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh I wasn’t thinking to get into this issue. But yes I could write something for next month. Jehochman ^Talk 00:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Another "Wikipedia in the news" item

From here:

Farrow asserts that NBC used other methods to sanitize and neutralize reporting about Lauer's behavior, including employing a Wikipedia whitewasher to "unbraid references to Oppenheim, Weinstein and Lauer" after the allegations became public.

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've been unable to find any clear wikiwashing using various tools on the Lauer and Weinstein articles. However a large portion of January 2018 is redacted in Matt Lauer and something might be in there. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bri: However, see Talk:Noah Oppenheim (compare also earlier coverage). Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Signpost

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)

I double checked, there was only one wrong number in the Traffic Report (I copy-paste from the Top 25 before putting in the Signpost draft, so it hardly has problems). Only don't know if this week's iteration will come out until Wednesday, given I'm trying to get others to write. igordebraga ≠ 01:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

citation example

Block, Timothy A.; Rhoads, Ann Fowler (2011). Aquatic Plants of Pennsylvania: A Complete Reference Guide. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 9780812205046.

your opinion please...

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)

@Geo Swan and Sitush: Sitush was certainly being a jerk in that comment, accusing the whole WMDC of having and pushing an unreasonable POV. And accusing me of being part of WMDC. For the record, 5 or 10 years ago I paid about $10 to them for a 1 year membership, but I don't get to DC enough to make membership there useful. But being accused of being a WMDC member makes me reconsider - perhaps I'll make a donation this year without reactivating my membership.

I'll suggest leaving Sitush alone and just ignoring his more ignorant comments. I doubt ANI or Arbcom are going to block him for being a jerk. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect

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)

@Piotrus: The comments at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media are to be used *after* the article is published. Right now it is a draft article, that has the *potential* to be published. I'd appreciate it if you put all the comments that you took from under the hat and others since back under the hat. If you'd like to move the whole discussion to the Suggestions page, that would be fine as well. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

You make a fair point that that talk page may not be the most appropriate venue, as it is somewhat unusual to discuss drafts there. But I think that this piece is going to be published, it is not a draft but a regular section report, and as such I am not sure the suggestions talk page is the best venue. If you want to move it there and leave a simple comment with a note that a discussion about an earlier version can be found there, I would be fine with that. As a Signpost editor (correct me I am wrong here?) I think it is your decision to make where a discussion is appropriate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Piotrus I was just reading through the lengthy and convoluted discussion this has sparked. Perhaps you could write up your side of the story and, if my friend Smallbones finds it appropriate, it can be referenced in this article or a subsequent one if there is not time? Coretheapple (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@Coretheapple: - It's good to hear from you! But this particular situation is not something I want to spend any more time on. The combatants on both sides have just worn me out and I don't see the benefit of doing anything more, in what was always for me just in the role of an observer. A pretty argumentative opinion piece was submitted to The Signpost about a week before deadline last month, during an Arbcom case about the subject, apparently written by somebody who was topic-banned by Arbcom from the subject. I declined the submission. That's 90% of my involvement and I hope nobody will ever again put me through such a hassle over a declined submission ever again. Sorry. Feel free to contribute to The Signpost except on this topic. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Ha! Understand completely. That's why I've contributed less. Tired of all the argumentation. Coretheapple (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely no relation to these guys

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)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Administrator changes

GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear

DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD

DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ

CheckUser changes

L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47

Ivanvector

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux

DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Potential Signpost item

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)

(talk page stalker) For perspective, the media consultant has made ~40 kB of edit requests on that page since the end of October. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Bri, wow, I hadn't counted! There seems to be an attempt at a character smear against Michael E. Mann buried in there, which is mildly concerning. XOR'easter (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Add to that another 43 kB discussion at ANI concerning undeclared paid editing and some esoteric lawyer talk about rule 4.3. It's a good example of the magnitude of the burden imposed on volunteers. -- Bri.public (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he is (apparently) getting paid to generate walls of text, but nobody is paying any of us to read them. I might not have the time to participate much over the coming week, so I hope others will be looking in and keeping it from getting out of hand or into poor taste. XOR'easter (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Update: additional edit requests have been posted. XOR'easter (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Risker: you may be right. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Report for the Signpost

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)

Hi again, this is just to notify you that I have finished the draft and it is awaiting review in the Newsroom. Thank you! Puddleglum ^2.0 18:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Notability of women's bios

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)

Cheers

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

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

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)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

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)

Merry Christmas

"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.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Season's Greetings

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello Smallbones: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBig Xrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Belated holiday greetings

Belated holiday greetings. Merry Christmas and happy new year.
↠Pine (✉) 05:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

On behalf of everyone at The Signpost: past, present, and future because I asked all of them

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Did I miss a discussion about who we collectively honor?

Happy New Year!

^{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!

	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)