User talk:Smallbones

Scam Watch Warning: There is an on-going scam targeting AfC participants. See this scam warning for detailed information. If you've been scammed please send me details via the email link on this page.

/Archive 1, User:Smallbones/Archive 2, User:Smallbones/Archive 3, User:Smallbones/Archive 4, User:Smallbones/Archive 5, User:Smallbones/Archive 6, User:Smallbones/Archive 7 User:Smallbones/Archive 8m User:Smallbones/Archive 2020 10 08

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

Page views on this page over 365 days

Is there any way someone who doesn't work for wikipedia could acquire this fashion grail? 45.28.158.240 (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The originals of this hat were made in 2012 and given away by David Thomson at the Wikimania in Washington, D.C. I think there were perhaps 12-16 of them. I still have mine, but it's kind of crumpled up under the front seat of my car, for use in sunshine emergencies. As far as I know no WMF employees were given one. It was just David's way of saying "thanks" to the community. I believe he had them made at a souvenir shop that made t-shirts and hats. The only thing special IMHO is the high quality of the stitching of the letters. Feel free to make as many copies as you want! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen how much you hate paid editors, and continuously making an effort to stop them, I really grateful to have you here on English Wikipedia :D .--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 15:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aldnonymous: Thanks for noticing! It's always good to get positive feedback. I will correct you, however, I don't hate paid editors, rather it is paid editing that is hateful. It is tearing down a wonderful structure that has been built up by many volunteers, that provides good information to whoever has access to the internet. If that information is poisoned, and people can't trust us, then the whole structure may collapse.

Your post reminded me of a news story from a couple of decades ago. After the fall of the Soviet Union people started cutting down and selling copper cable from high power electrical transmission systems (nominally still in use). I don't hate those folks who cut down the cable - they were doing what they had to do to survive. I did hate the fact that the transmission systems were being destroyed. It just seemed like there must be a pretty simple enforcement system that would stop the destruction. Everybody likely knew who was buying the cable - these folks could be stopped fairly simply if anybody took the obvious steps. Similarly, most people likely knew who was cutting the cable or where to look to stop folks from cutting more. So the system was messed up, but the parts of the system that led to the destruction of the cable could easily be fixed. The actual folks who cut the cable, in my mind, were less responsible than the authorities who couldn't be bothered to take a few minimal steps. That's my reading in any case.

Thanks again.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was insightful, I'm the one who should thanking you (again :D), and... You're welcome.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 19:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]
• Very pleased to propose this. Your contributions are tremendously appreciated. Coretheapple (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the very late question; I understand it can't be addressed before publication. It's a bit odd to have to speculate on what Wikipedia administrators thought; did they not respond to inquiries? isaacl (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl: I understand what you're saying and will recheck the wording. Long story short, I didn't want to name anybody here and perhaps there were more than one. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it! I apologize for the piecemeal comments, as I work my way through the report: regarding how the edit being tagged as a visual edit means it was probably copied and pasted from a word processor document, I don't think it's compelling evidence. Lots of editors use the Visual Editor and I'm sure many of them use it directly without copying and pasting from another program. isaacl (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl: i think you're misinterpreting here. It's not that all visual editors copy, but that this one looks like it was copied. If I remember correctly, it was a huge edit in many parts. I'll probably stick with my guide on this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, "The edit was tagged as a visual edit, which means that Issack.build most likely drafted the content in a word processor before copying and pasting it into the Wikipedia article." The sentence seems to imply that the visual edit tag leads to the conclusion that the content was drafted in a word processor. If you meant something else, perhaps it could be reworded. The edit is a couple paragraphs of text. isaacl (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the last comment I have is editorial, and so again I'm sorry for not reading the report earlier and commenting then. The Canadian prime minister doesn't really have much to do with the story, so personally I think mentioning him again in the last section and saying there are no known links to the firm in question is a bit uncalled for. There isn't much reason to believe that people vet the advertising firms used by the people they interact with, so it's not exactly news that there is no known link. I know publication is nigh, and so I understand if you want to leave your concluding section as-is. isaacl (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at the article, but I'm glad it clarifies there is no known link, nor any evidence whatsoever, tying Trudeau to the paid editing story. Which of course begs the question, why is he mentioned at all? At best this is just clickbait, at worse, a BLP violation. – bradv🍁 00:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Closing/re-opening noms might be worth an op-ed. [W]e should retire ITN as a section of the Main Page altogether, except possibly for the RD portion. We basically are saying to our readers that we know way way way better what's good for them and what's really important. That 8 editors who cast the 'oppose' votes in that discussion count more than all the news coverage in the world and the fact that tomorrow we'll probably discover that the DT Wikipedia article had been viewed by over 500K readers today (or at least I wouldn't be surprised if it were a number in that range). Those readers, they don't know anything about our ITN and ITNR rules, no do they care. But they most definitely know when a story is 'in the news'. seems on-point to me (I've had problems with ITN for a long time now, I could show you my unsuccessful bid for what seemed an obvious item to me). Another comment: The thread was closed too quickly, in less than 1.5 hours, of course while the U.S. editors were asleep. Perhaps a revenge for the RBG story being posted so fast. - Bri.public (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ITN story proposed [1] 05:09
• discussion closed [2] 06:32 (02:32 NYC / 23:32 Los Angeles)
• discussion reopened [3] 12:12
• discussion closed [4] 12:38 (08:38 NYC / 05:38 Los Angeles)
• discussion reopened [5] 12:38–12:48
• discussion closed [6] 13:01 (09:01 NYC / 06:01 Los Angeles)
• talkpage discussion "Closing/re-opening noms" started [7] 13:04

Brief timeline above for Smallbones and/or watchers. - Bri.public (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri and Bri.public: I'm just gobsmacked. Of course there can be an op-ed; do you want to write it, or find somebody else to write it. Perhaps even a forum-type article with 2 authors facing-off. I'll be at the beach for the first time in about 2 months. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: How about a mix of the two ideas. I'll do some legwork while you're relaxing (this weekend?) and we can make a decision about what to do next. I'm thinking of an outline/introduction kind of neatening up what I wrote above, and locating perhaps 1-2 people who can provide opposing POVs on whether ITN is tenable.

One of the things this exposes is how there's a shocking lack of procedure for something that is part of the front page. The story selection is personality-driven ... no semblance of developing consensus IMO ... with a strong bias against US news (my own experience). I'll be digging into what the procedures are or are supposed to be. - Bri.public (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll be writing a book review and trying to catch up on my emails. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion continues. It looks like it has turned into a vote on a proposal but incompletely defined and without any notifications AFAIK. They are also mixing the merits of the specific story with the discussion of the proposal to re-open discussion. What a mess. - Bri.public (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Discussion closed 6 October as "moot" without a resolution [8]. A reform proposal to introduce an ITN editorial board, in a separate thread, was trounced. Bri.public (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: I couldn't find the separate discussion. You should write the whole thing up, including the separate discussion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Radical idea. I have not started my write-up yet (other than these notes) but still plan to. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI [9] ☆ Bri (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hadn't noticed yet. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plus minor Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was browsing Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/About and saw that "Editors" appears to be vacant right now. Do you want a pair of eyes and a brain on it? jp×g 12:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to see User:Bri/Signpost Story1 for potential inclusion in the issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: - maybe for the December issue? Right now the story seems to go around in swirls if not circles. Maybe we can straighten out the story 1st, Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Maybe you can assign suggest one of the new folks go over it copyedit-wise.

Perhaps it can be December's In focus or Special report? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article on someone so very distantly related to me that I do not think it is a conflict of interest to edit, and I noticed that since he is Alaskan Native Heritage, whoever started his page uses "Bill Beltz" but I never find that he actually used that, all the papers and documents about him are "William Earnest Beltz" and as first president of the Alaska Senate, I think we should honor him with his name spelled out correctly. Do you know the process by which an existing article can be renamed? Thanking you in advance for all your continuing help! Sincerely yours, Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably just move it if you want. I move so few articles I sometimes forget how, but try the "more" button right next to the "view history button" on the 2nd line from the top. But that might be considered rushing things (maybe not though). I think I'd just ping RadioKAOS and RFD from the talk page and say something like "if both of you are against moving this to William Earnest Beltz I won't move this. But I think it should be moved because ... Or we could have an RfC if you'd like." (RFD and RadioKaos seem to be the "major" editors). I bet that would take one day. @Ellin Beltz: Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have not yet gotten to it but thank you very much for your help. I think pinging is probably best! "RfC" is request for comment? Thanks for all your help! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Tony (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded! Zazpot (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded — Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthed! SarahSV ^(talk) 23:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fifthed! Great to see the Signpost doing so well, makes me remember working on it very fondly. Actually, looking forward to the next edition, I have a Conflict of Interest case that I think you might find interesting. The article is Dragon Group and the CoI discussion is here. Lemme know if you're interested in more info! Zarasophos (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See User:MER-C/AdminStats2020. I am not convinced the drop in spamming and sockpuppetry are real - these admin stats are reflective of the amount of abuse that gets caught and mitigated, not the amount of abuse that there is. I do think the amount of vandalism has decreased in reality, though - it's seen in all five actions examined. MER-C 20:04, 2 January 2021

Just letting you know I haven't forgotten about writing up edit #1,000,000,000 for the Signpost - any place in particular you'd like me to write up my draft? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes and we can edit it there, or send me an email. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I'll try to work something up this afternoon/evening. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's here - I may come back to it in a little while and tinker with it a bit. Please let me know if it's of any use. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to see if it'd be okay to do one last-second tweak to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Obituary. I would like to change ...she was well-known for policy-focused editing in controversial topic areas, especially to ensure that appropriate sources were used and the neutral point of view policy followed... to ...she was well-known for policy-focused editing in controversial topic areas, especially sexology, to ensure that appropriate sources were used and the neutral point of view policy followed... This adds "especially sexology". Both I and her brother think it would be good and more accurate. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: Go ahead. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 06:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; done. Also, I had forgotten to mention, should we clean up (cut) all that hidden text (most of which is from myself and SMcCandlish)? Crossroads ^-talk- 07:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok, but I'll check it out as well. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 07:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's was not my intention to be edit warring or WP:OWN. I have added the reasons why i don't believe Wally's edits are helpful on that page to the talk page. Looking forward to have a constructive discussion. The same user is doing a massive rewrite on another related page History of the Jews in the United Arab Emirates, where a consensus NPOV wording regarding leadership and rabbis was reached months ago. Also please note that these are the only two pages the user has ever edited. I also suspect the revert from anon account (207.237.117.218) was same user. Shemtovca (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Thank you for being a part of and spearheading The Signpost in 2020 as Editor-in-chief. Volume 16 is informative and a delight to go through! DTM (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your interest in paid editing corporate articles, I thought you might be interested in the discussions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Policy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not_(organizations)#Requested_move_18_February_2021 Coretheapple (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's reasonable to ask for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Special report to be restored? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: It's reasonable, since it never should have been deleted. I'm not sure it's reasonable from the perspective of the time and effort it would take. email me if you want to go ahead. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I started the process. - Bri.public (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know about it, WP:PAIDLIST is updated fairly frequently when editors sight either on-wiki paid editing or off-wiki offers to do so. Might be something to keep on your watchlist to see what's afoot. -- Bri.public (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• FP1, a political reputation management firm on PAIDLIST, seems to be active here again. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lesbianadvocate ☆ Bri (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you an email regarding my book: How I wrote a million Wikipedia articles HitomiAkane (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've written up a Signpost draft at User:Ganesha811/Signpost draft. I was wondering, for the checklist at the top, which parts are supposed to be done by me and which by other editors. I've added a title, but was unsure if I should go ahead and write a blurb or mark the article as being ready to be copyedited. Thank you for your help. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SmallBones, Last month, I came across your Opinion article and decided to create an article about one of the public-shy billionaire individual. It went through the review and I was thinking, ok this will likely get linked to their autogenerated google snapshot. Seems to me this article has not been cached by google (it shows up on both bing and duckduckgo). Moreover, it doesn't even show up when you google "robert brockman billionaire wikipedia". I was wondering if this is some kind of catching issues or suppression by google. Is there anything I should do? Please let me know if may be I should just wait. Thanks. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 17:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GreaterPonce665: This information may be of interest: Wikipedia:Controlling_search_engine_indexing#Indexing_of_articles_("mainspace"). It looks like it took a long time for your article to get reviewed and thus become available to get indexed by Google. I am not sure how fast Google usually picks up a newly eligible article after that, but since this one isn't orphaned, I would be cautiously optimistic. There is also wmf:Notices received from search engines, but unfortunately that page hasn't been updated since 2019, and also, such RTBF deletions would be expected to only affect search results in the EU. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB: Thanks for letting me know. I'll wait to see if google updates this in a month. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 14:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've wasted a lot of time on your user page, wouldn't you agree? Thanks for doing it! Your friend, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI my intuition is something is afoot ... see [10]. Proxy IP editing, reputation management, affects many other other articles about companies. - Bri.public (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-04-25/Disinformation report, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-04-25/Disinformation report and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-04-25/Disinformation report during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Fram (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Fram (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean here? Do you mean you'll make the notation on the list of Signpost articles, or that Signpost will write something? Risker (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We will compile it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not helping. Are you writing the article or not? I mean, a lot of people are working together collaboratively on this piece; if you're not going to use it, please just say so. Risker (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: You don't have to worry that we won't use it, but, as usual with obits, we will start with the material on WP:Deceased Wikipedians and then add material from other sources - 2 other sources in this case. We also will edit the result, for length and to meet our standards.

In the future, if you want to submit an article to The Signpost, please submit the article via our submissions page, or drop the editor-in-chief (that's me for now) a line to get some feedback, or perhaps just a note on the newsroom talk page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• When you have finished throwing your very light weight about and making what you no doubt think is clever repartee, but can only be interpreted as impertinence to Risker, you should realise that many editors thought more than highly of Sarah. Over the years, we have lost many valued and respected editors, but none who have done so much to change and improve the project. That many here wish to give her what amounts to Wikipedia’s first state funeral, in the form of a collaborative obituary, is unsurprising. You should remember a newspaper only survives if people choose to read it. Editors and dull newspapers are here today and gone tomorrow, and I doubt many will mourn the Signpost not appearing on their talk page. Giano (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, Giano. I totally agree. Bishonen | tålk 20:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  My thanks as well Giano. Smallbones please remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and that applies to the Signpost as well. How anyone can look at the heartfelt sentiments that are still being added here User talk:SlimVirgin and then retreat into "submit the item in the usual manner" and "we need two sources in this case" trope is beyond human and humane comprehension. MarnetteD|Talk 20:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Smallbones. I have now submitted the draft obituary to the Submissions page. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions. There's also a subpage at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Obituary/FA-GA detailing her major contributions. I have to admit I was shocked and dismayed when you blanked the page and will consider publishing instead. Thank you,— Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MarnetteD: as I understand it, the reference to two sources was that there are two other deaths that were added to the list of deceased Wikipedians and thus are slated for inclusion in the obituary column. isaacl (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out Isaacl. I have struck through that part of my post. MarnetteD|Talk 20:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope everybody will calm down and realize that I'm just doing everything here in the usual way. Every article in The Signpost needs to get the approval by the editor-in-chief. We'll be writing our own article compiled from WP:Deceased Wikipedians, User talk:Slim Virgin, and your submission. I'm not up to something nefarious here - it's just our usual procedure. Please assume good faith. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The people above seem quite calm to me, Smallbones. I think what they dislike isn't so much your procedure, as your breathtaking rudeness. Please think about it. Bishonen | tålk 21:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Smallbones, if ever you wonder why it is so hard to get anyone to willingly write for the Signpost, this entire exchange and activity can be used as your template of how not to treat colleagues. Most of this article is written by some of the best writers on the project. It is written specifically for the Signpost, with an intention to move it over to the WP:DECEASED page following final copy-edits and publication. Materials from the user talk and the little bits over at WP:RIP have already been incorporated, although I wouldn't object to the notion of adding a few pull quotes from the user talk page. But you've been very deliberately obtuse at every step of the way. Just last month, you said you wanted out of the role of the editor in chief. This isn't the behaviour of someone looking to attract others to the role. Risker (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones, I think maybe the piece of the puzzle you're not seeing yet is that the people who wrote the obituary did so as a final tribute and memorial, after having lost a co-worker and friend. It's been part of the grieving process for some of us. Remember too that Sarah was no ordinary contributor, she was larger than life, Wikipedia personified, our Princess Diana if you will. So there's a real sense of loss, even for people like me who did not know her well. For you to throw our work away by blanking the page (or implying that only small bits of it will be published) seems to me to be inappropriate under the circumstances. — Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Many people seem to be all wound up over Sarah's passing. Many of us, myself included, considered her to be a close personal friend. She was also a trusted advisor to The Signpost. I do not think that "only small bits" of the submitted obit will be kept. I am not going to throw away your work. But we are an independent newspaper and decide on our own what we print. A newspaper can't operate any other way. We have rules and traditions that go back 16 years. Even if people don't know how a newspaper works, by now they should be familiar with how The Signpost works.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why should people be familiar with how the Signpost works, when it doesn't work the same way consistently? This is a level of expectation that is unrealistic. The last time I wrote for the Signpost, my piece was published without any major changes, just a few copy edits. That's how I expected it to work this time, too; and how it works for the majority of contributions. Risker (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that earlier today you blanked the submission re SV's obit. I'd asked Risker how to publish in the Signpost and have been in communications with Sarah's family. Risker has been helpful to me in terms of helping how to navigate the death of an editor; in retrospect I should have come directly to the Signpost and asked about how to get an obituary published and I apologize to Risker for ... well perhaps placing her in this situation. But Smallbones, I must ask that you reconsider the sentence above: "Many people seem to be all wound up over Sarah's passing". In fact, many are grieving. "Wound up" is entirely an inappropriate term for grief. If the Signpost's policy is to write obituaries, then please be very clear about the policy and post it somewhere easy to find, so those of us who are just regular editors can find it. I looked and found nothing. Victoria (tk) 02:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Using the phrase "wound up over Sarah's passing" shows a complete lack of sensitivity. Please don't belittle editors emotions in that fashion. Your blanking of other editors work with the edit summary "for signpost staff" is not an example of how any newspaper I've been around works. It would behoove you to take on board the posts here and start respecting your fellow editors. MarnetteD|Talk 02:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deep breath, everyone. Smallbones, I took a few minutes to re-read your last editorial, and it occurs to me that this discussion and the related actions are all a part of what you were talking about. I know this past year has been rough for you, and some of it may be playing out in unintentional ways, such as a degree of desensitization toward the concerns of others, and too much dependence on structures and processes that you know well and are comfortable with, whether or not others are equally knowledgeable or comfortable. A lot of care from some truly remarkable editors has been put into the draft article, and we should probably assume good faith that you recognize and appreciate that this is one article you aren't going to have to write from scratch, even if you haven't said that. A lot of care has also been taken on the part of the members of the collaborative effort to only include SarahSV's Wikipedia life, even though several of the editors have had more personal experiences with her, because we know how badly she was harassed over the years, and that at least a few of her tormentors would not hesitate to leverage any personal information made available to similarly harass those close to her outside of Wikipedia. I hope that you will keep this firmly in mind when publishing. There's not much on WP:DECEASED at this point that isn't covered concisely in what has been written in the collaboration, and a few pull quotes from her user talk would probably serve a Signpost article very well. Risker (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the problem is that when Smallbones says "we are an independent newspaper and decide on our own what we print" what they mean is veering signficantly towards the Royal "we". It is ironic that certain royals were also known for what Bishonen describes correctly as their "breathtaking rudeness". Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note. As mentioned above my last From the editor column describes some difficult circumstances I'm dealing with right now. The next edition of The Signpost will be delayed until June 27, so there's lots of time to deal with the issues in the section. I'll be taking several days away from Wikipedia, so let's consider this discussion closed for the time being. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 16, 7pm: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page. We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person! If there's a project you'd like to share or a question you'd like answered, just let us know by adding it to the agenda or the talk page. Wednesday June 16 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (optional RSVP on-wiki). 7:00pm - 8:00 pm online via Zoom (optional breakout rooms from 8:00-8:30)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 16:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

<languages /> {{Help translate/AffCom Elections June 2021}}

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

This is a final Call for Candidates for the June 2021 Affiliations Committee election.

If you are interested in running, please post your application and follow all four steps on the nomination page by 30 June 2021 23:59 hours UTC.

If you know somebody you think may be interested, please share this with them and encourage them to consider it. If you have any questions about this process or the requirements, please email affcom@wikimedia.org before the application deadline or reach out to any of the current members.

On behalf of the AffCom elections committee,

--- FULBERT (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Affiliations committee communications Category:AffCom Elections June 2021 Category:Help translate templates [[:Category:AffCom Elections June 2021{{#translation:}}|]]

re: this. FWIW - I prefer the first option (green box) I think it looks cleaner and more professional. Just IMO. — Ched (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC) (edited: — Ched (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Ched: Thanks for the advice. I think I'll call in a box expert (and the ultimate copy editor) just to make sure. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why I bothered to put that work into copy-editing. It seems to have been ignored. Tony (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(watching:) from what I saw you added a version, instead of replacing, - how is anyone supposed to even notice if it was different? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you ruined it. Why didn't you do a simple check? Tony (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Tony, I don't know whom you mean by "you". I didn't touch the thing. I was only watching, and thought you did, too. I tried to explain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1 and Gerda Arendt: Tony1's last version got mangled via an edit conflict with another user. It had 2 Signpost editing templates on it (which would duplicate the text). So I went back before the mangling and attempted to replicate tony's edits. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the best I can do is to show you the diff [11] where you should see your copyedits. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, see what happened, the template replication does make them hard to work out. But, but...but can we please restore Tony's edits, they were a large improvement. Thanks all. Ceoil (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i'll try, but it will take some time. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Had a go Smallbones with this diff, if @Tony1: could look over if what was intended. Ceoil (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why the "pet" image was placed on top with an edit summary saying that she recently put it on her user page while she added it to her user talk page I don't know, but I have regretted edit summaries myself. This is her user page, - magnificent and bold, no pet in sight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Gerda Arendt!
• Thanks for your help on this. I was getting too emotional. too sure that everything wasn't going to come out *exactly* right. I'm sorry to say that I don't know exactly where that pic went. I didn't delete it unless it was an accident. Yah, my edit summary was off by a word. It'll be a long time if ever that we get over the loss of Sarah, Thanks again. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Smallbones, I've been out for the day and just took a look. It looks lovely. Thanks so much for everything and thanks to everyone else too. It has been an emotional journey. Victoria (tk) 21:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, both. I see that you were getting emotional - which I believe is a good thing. With less emotion, you'd have seen, Smallbones, that this is not a pic "missing" (which says "Art doesn't help people"), but a pic that a user who misses her created based on it (which says "This user misses SlimVirgin"). You did well, both and many, and if I had been less emotional I'd given you a flower of thanks right away, with some impressions of places, flowers and music for you. I hope we won't have to do this heartbreaking job too often. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

added: missing SlimVirgin, and RMF festival opening --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Love the pic you eventually chose for the top. Tony (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
• An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

• IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

• The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

---

July 14, 7pm: Virtual Coney Island Meetup + NYC monthly collaboration

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly online gathering (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page. Instead of our usual "WikiWednesday" Salon, we'll focus on the WikiProject NYC monthly collaboration and this month's subject of Coney Island. And rather than Zoom, we'll meet on a proximity chat virtual Coney Island beach and share over topical articles and collaborations. We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person! Wednesday July 14 Virtual Coney Island Meetup (optional RSVP on-wiki). 7:00pm - 8:00 pm online via WikiConey on Gather

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding voting methods where voters rank candidates, including single transferable vote: I assume you've read the mechanics of the various procedures and are just wondering about the rationale for them? For STV, are you being tripped up by scenarios with multiple seats being elected and thus the different ways to specify quota and how to transfer the excess? (My current favourite Condorcet method voting system is Ranked Pairs because I think its method of resolving preferences loops (e.g. A is preferred to B is preferred to C is preferred to A) is relatively easy to understand.) isaacl (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

• Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

• Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.

---

Regarding this edit: I can't quite figure out what you're trying to say; perhaps you could clarify on that talk page? There is no "2nd method" listed in the Terms of Use. The paid-contribution disclosure page has a second bullet on changing the policy (which, without going back to check, I believe you added in order to assert that more stringent requirements could be added without ratifying an alternative policy). However, when you said the 2nd method listed in the policy (and in the ToU) which would need to include using "the project's standard consensus-based process for establishing core policies, you seem to be referring to the first bullet anyway. If I had to guess, I think you're saying an alternative policy can't be enacted without establishing community consensus support for the policy. isaacl (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 14, 12-5pm: Wikimania Wiknic NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for a planned socially-distanced Wiknic ("the picnic anyone can edit") in Brooklyn's Prospect Park to coincide with the virtual Wikimania 2021. For this occasion, and to allow more space as desired, we have individually packed lunches provided by the chapter, and attendees are encouraged to RSVP at Eventbrite and give sandwich/entree orders. Saturday August 14 Wikimania Wiknic NYC (optional RSVP on-wiki). 12:00pm - 5:00 pm in a shaded grove in front of the Picnic House (Prospect Park, Brooklyn)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 18:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

August 25, 7pm: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page. We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person! If there's a project you'd like to share or a question you'd like answered, just let us know by adding it to the agenda or the talk page. Wednesday August 25 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (optional RSVP on-wiki). 7:00pm - 8:00 pm online via Zoom (optional breakout rooms from 8:00-8:30)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Jasenovac_concentration_camp#This article has been mentioned by a media organization: template. It's so... Wikipedian. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• de:Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Olaf Kosinsky; Subteno
• https://netzpolitik.org/2021/wikipedia-edits-aus-dem-bundestag-abgeordnete-wahlkampf/

I only found out about it just now, so I have nothing to say. MER-C 12:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @MER-C: Got it. There now will be 2 very big paid editing stoties this month. The other involves $7 billion payment to IRS. 15:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a nice quote for you: "Autopatrolled would help me a lot". MER-C 12:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones I've drafted the article here. Hope you like it, feel free to do to it whatever you think is necessary! Zarasophos (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to go back and sign WT:NEWSROOM#Changing content after publication. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was re-reading the special report that you wrote a year ago about UPE and found that the discovery timeline was incorrectly flipped backwards. So I flipped them back to correct sequence while preserving the words that you wrote. Hope you're ok with that change. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Bri's talk page.

If you have revert notifications on, you'll probably see that I rollbacked you just now. It was an accident - I was looking at page history and fat-fingered my keyboard somehow. I've re-reverted myself. Sorry about that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I was *really* scratching my head over that. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
• Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

Technical news

• DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.

Arbitration

• A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
• Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
• The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

• Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
• The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

---

If in a news article, you quote Person A talking about Person B, you ask Person B for a comment/response before running the story with Person A's quote about Person B, and if they give a response, you quote Person B's response in the story along with Person A's quote. This is journalism 101, don't you agree? It's why so many stories say something like "Person B did not respond to repeated requests for comment before this story was published." Shouldn't Signpost have done the same? Levivich 15:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich:

"An important part of the EiC job is to ensure that The Signpost follows Wikipedia's rules and to read every word in every article to make sure violations of our policies and guidelines do not happen. If you believe there is a violation, please politely inform us on the article's talk page. I'll take every such report seriously, even if I disagree with you. If there is no satisfactory response, please email me directly and I'll try my best to make sure that any violations are corrected. This promise is not a guarantee that I'll take the actions you request. I will not censor a contributor's opinion simply because you disagree with it.

"All Wikipedia users have the right to take any further complaints to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents or the arbitration committee, but please remember that your complaint will be against me, since I am in charge of compliance with Wikipedia's rules, and not against our writers, staff or other contributors." (from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-03-31/From the editors)

There is a distinction betweem Wikipedia's rules and the rules that we impose upon ourselve - that we will follow the standard ethics of journalism. Wikipedia admins and arbs enforce Wikipedia's rules - and I doubt that they'll find anything amiss here. I've offered Person B a very simple way to make sure that's the case. He should take it to a non-involved admin. We can both send our statements to the admim and let them decide. I'll automatically accept the admin's decision if I believe that they are applying Wikipedia's rules, and not applying additional rules that don't apply to everybody else on Wikipedia. The additional rules on journalism ethics don't apply at this stage.

Now The Signpost does apply the rules of journalism ethics to itself, and I've already decided that. This is not a violation IMO. You seem to believe that anytime a person is mentioned in a story journalism ethics require us to get a comment from them and then print it. No, journalism ethics say that if a person is seriously accused or criticized, they should be contacted. There's a level of criticism below which there is no requirement. Person A did not accuse person B of a crime or suggested that B was a fascist. He stated it clearly in an RfC and was not contradicted for at least 3 weeks (maybe never). Person B has not even told me in an understandable way that he thinks A's statement is wrong - just that he thinks it should be removed.

What B wants to do now is up to him. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am only talking about journalism ethics, not Wikipedia policy. Do you accept Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics as authoritative? "Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing." I don't see where that is limited to allegations of criminal conduct or anything that substantiates There's a level of criticism below which there is no requirement. Is there any journalism code that limits the right of reply in this way?

If a Member of Parliament, on the Parliament floor, criticized another MP, and a newspaper later block quoted that criticism in an article, wouldn't they either also print the other MP's response if it's in the record, and/or contact the criticized MP and offer right of reply? You can imagine where the MP may not have replied in Parliament (for any number of reasons), but should still be given the opportunity to reply if the criticism were to be republished by a newspaper months later? Levivich 16:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly accept the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics as authoritative as far as it goes. I consult it about every other issue. Now "Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing." does appear to be absolute, but what you are missing is that there are no absolutes in the code. Everything involves a trade off. It's more like Wikipedia's guidelines - allowing occasional exceptions

Under Why doesn’t SPJ enforce its Code of Ethics? they leave the enforcement and interpretation of the code up to the newspaper and say that there are always trade offs involved.

"We realize — and have embodied in our code — that all journalism ethics is a balancing act between often conflicting responsibilities. One of our guiding principles, whose importance we all recognize, is "Seek truth and report it." Another is "Minimize harm." Obviously, if one reports all truths without flinching, we will inevitably do great harm, and if one minimizes harm as much as possible, one will not be reporting essential truths. The key is in the balancing act — and in recognizing the importance of each core value. That's not easy to enforce.

"Similar conflict exists between our other two basic principles, "Act independently" and "Be accountable." "

Now when I see an editor A who has made a truthful statement (ignoring some rhetorical exaggeration) being criticized by a person who has made some exceptional accusations and criticism against A, complaining without success in 3 different forums about his minor penalty, I am not going to lend credence in any way to B's original accusations. This code is not subject to purely formal arguments, which when you scratch the surface have no substance.

I'm sorry, but I've made my decision on this. Further discussion about journalism ethics in this case should be sent to me by email. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take every such report seriously, even if I disagree with you – I had to laugh at this. You made no serious attempt to engage with this complaint: you posted a lengthy and defensive dismissal before you had even take the time to read and understand it. You seemingly still don't understand it, as you are repeating the patently false claim that I have forum-shopped this in "3 places" – I politely asked the author to remove it on his talk page, that's it. More bizarrely, you didn't post your response as an actual response to me, you posted it on another page entirely, without a ping or even mentioning my name. It's almost as if you're more interested in self-important grandstanding about being the Signpost 'editor-in-chief' than having a good faith conversation with a fellow Wikipedia editor. Which, by the way, is how we resolve disputes around here, not by running to a teacher admin and having them decide.

Oh, and another, uninvolved admin (unprompted by me), did ask you to remove it, but you ignored that and will doubtless now explain how his intervention does not pass your moved goalposts. – Joe (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday October 10, 12-5pm: Wiki-Pavilion Picnic NYC (part of WikiConference North America 2021, Oct 8-10)

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for a planned socially-distanced Wiknic ("the picnic anyone can edit") in Brooklyn's Prospect Park, being held at the historic Concert Grove Pavilion to coincide with WikiConference North America 2021, which will run virtually from Friday to Sunday. For this occasion, and to allow more space as desired, we have individually packed lunches provided by the chapter, and attendees are encouraged to RSVP at Eventbrite and give sandwich/entree orders. Sunday October 10 Wiki-Pavilion Picnic NYC (optional RSVP on-wiki). 12:00pm - 5:00 pm at the Concert Grove Pavilion 40°39′34″N 73°57′51″W / 40.65934°N 73.96414°W / 40.65934; -73.96414 (Prospect Park, Brooklyn)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 17:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you think we can/should collapse the infobox at North Platte, Nebraska, at least below "coordinates"? It would displace the image below less, fullscreen-on-laptop-wise. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I'll suggest writing the article first, adding more content of course, then worry about the formatting. But in the meantime, whatever you think is best. BTW I'm taking this very seriously, even perhaps a full article for The Signpost. It represents to me a constant conflict in how we write Wikipedia, but even beyond that how we deal with contradictions in our lives! I'm swamped again (serial killer, mass tax avoidance, Wikiconference - the usual) but I'll try to help over there a bit. BTW, references are in the NRHP articles as well as 5 photos I took a decade ago. I was there for an hour or so. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting conflict, yes. "No, WP isn't for putting a positive spin on your city - but the article shouldn't look like that, either." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smallbones. Hope that you're well. What a year so far! I was thinking of doing an interview with the COVID-19 WikiProject to cap off our December Signpost. I thought I'd notify you early to see what you thought about that idea and ideally reserve that spot. Cheers, Tom (LT) (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom (LT): Go for it! I was thinking that we might have done something similar before. If so it was last year, not this year. It's still the biggest story of the year, so this interview is sorely needed. December or November will be a good time to do it. Note that the December issue *might be* published a week or so early. Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom (LT) - have to admit this section title made me laugh. I had visions of a sarcastic "interview" with the Covid-19 virus. Risker (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Now found at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view

Dear Editor in Chief:

I'm 不爱思考得猪 (a pig that does not like to think). I have written an op-ed piece for your review. You can find it at the bottom of Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions. Here is the direct link to the draft article itself: User:不爱思考得猪/Signpost_draft

Thank you for your time and consideration.

不爱思考得猪 (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:@不爱思考得猪: thanks, I'll get back to you in a few hours. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

Many, many thanks for your prompt reply Editor in Chief. 不爱思考得猪 (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Editor in Chief! Feel free to change the article however you like and put it in whichever section of the next issue of the Signpost as you see fit. I will check back on Wednesday but I'm sure it will be looking good in the upcoming issue of Signpost. With respect to the tardiness: it is I who should apologize to you for the tardiness in bringing my piece to your attention, due to me repeatedly reading it over to iron out any bugs (out of my perfectionistic tendencies ;-) prior to submission.不爱思考得猪 (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks beautiful! Last paragraph removed. 不爱思考得猪 (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Smallbones, This is the item about which I sent you an e-mail: GLAM Newseletter (draft). Vysotsky (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear Smallbones. I have just realized that I probobly wont be able to finish my article before Sunday. How do I save it for next month? NW1223(^{Howl at me}/_{My hunts}) 00:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NightWolf1223: Your content is currently at [12] but it will have moved after publication. It will be in the history of WP:Wikipedia Siignpost/2021-10-31/Opinion after 31 October. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The final round of the WikiCup concluded at the end of October. Would you be interested in having a page about the contest in the November Signpost, perhaps something like the one Adam Cuerden did last year? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]