User talk:Smallbones: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:03, 17 May 2014

So, naturalists observe, a flea
Hath smaller fleas that on him prey;
And these have smaller still to bit 'em;
And so proceed *ad infinitum*.
Thus every poet, in his kind,
Is bit by him that comes behind.
Jonathan Swift, *On Poetry: A Rhapsody* (1733)

File:Lincoln School RI IL.jpg

Thanks a lot for this image; the building has since been destroyed, leaving the site a dreary empty lot. Nyttend (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame. I see Kepper44 (?) has 3 pix of it. I'll check my files to see what else I have on the same date, but likely they are worse pix. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I agree with you, and I feel the same way whenever I learn that an NR site is an empty lot (I got a few Davenport and Rock Island photos two weeks ago while passing through, and several were empty lots), but on the other hand, it's mildly exciting when I see a story like this, because I have a concrete example of the way in which my image is now an irreplaceable part of the historical record. The possibility of preserving a building visually despite modifications or destruction is perhaps the single biggest reason that I do more work with photos than with article writing. Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your photo at MkuCr

I think the discussion has concluded, assuming you are willing to accept the most recent proposed caption. As the initial proposer of the edit, I defer to you to post the edit request. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

One of your images is the subject of discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/PAHMC.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For proposing an eight-part proposal to deal with paid advocacy article editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User box

I manufactured a user box[1] out of the illustration you posted on Jimbo Wales' talk page. Hope you don't mind. Coretheapple (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)(though actually I see that it was posted by someone else!) Coretheapple (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon! Saturday November 2

Please join Wikipedia "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon on November 2, 2013!
Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach
for Greenwich Village articles on the history and the community.
--Pharos (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FTC disclosures

I think I figured this out, at least for my own sake (people may think about it differently philosophically).

If a marketer and their employer/client embraces the spirit of WP:COI, they will do their best to imitate the contributions they would make as a disinterested volunteer. If they do so successfully, the lack of disclosure is an extreme technicality. It is "as if" the content was crowd-sourced anyway and the fact that the reader doesn't know how the sausage is made is unimportant.

However, most BrightLine produced articles are very different than what a volunteer would produce. They have a shiny, smudge-free appearance, large Philanthropy sections with only primary sources, and so on.

The fact that a marketer uses the BrightLine does not protect them from criticisisms and controversy, nor does it eliminate ethical ambiguity, because Wikipedians are not professional journalists. It is not good conduct for marketers to take advantage of a volunteer's laziness, lack of spin-detection skills, or naiive sense of good-faith.

It is 100% ethical for marketers to bring our attention to problem articles, point out errors and whatnot and for them to genuinely attempt to mimic a volunteer's contributions. However, BrightLine articles that differ greatly from what a volunteer would produce raise some ethical questions with no clear answers - it's a form of gaming the system by being a professional taking advantage of amateurs. Whether amateur editors "approved" the content or not, the company is accountable for their contributions and must be able to vouch for them. CorporateM (Talk) 17:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to think about this, but my first reactions are 1) this looks difficult to monitor/police, and anything that's difficult to monitor will likely be abused; 2) nothing we do can really affects the advertisers' liabilities under US law (with the exceptions that we could put something in place that would allow clear disclosure on the article page - which I'm not willing to do, or maybe in *borderline cases* under the law, where the advertiser can claim "this is explicitly allowed by wikipedia policy" or the FTC can claim "this is explicitly disallowed by wikipedia policy," i.e. perhaps we can fine tune the border. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have very few means to enforce anything here - even civility or verification. I see no reason for COI to be any different. The community cannot even enforce disclosure on Talk. I would expect legal repercussions only for the very worst and most obvious cases. The rest is a grey area that will remain indefinitely unresolved and controversial. CorporateM (Talk) 19:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a question, if two editors make the same exact edit, and one is paid to do the edit, which edit is "better"?--v/r - T P 00:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is the idea - that an editor with a COI should strive to make/propose the same edits they would make if they had no COI, but in practice this is only the case in a very small number of cases. CorporateM (Talk) 14:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Public Affairs

I am not a part of the public affairs office at any level of the USAF. However, I have been in contact with them. I had a proposal for last year's Wikimania to try to connect Wikipedians with public affairs and history departments. Both of these departments share a common goal of trying to educate the public about the military. They both have resources not available to the general public and the idea was to teach them how to edit Wikipedia properly and teach Wikipedians how to engage with these folks (and even just find them). The potential for WP:MILHIST articles was tremendous. Could you imagine how many pictures and how much history sits on a shelf? If only folks knew who to ask.

When I spoke to the public affairs offices, they said one of their biggest problems with Wikipedia is the blocks on government IPs because of the huge user base and the potential for vandalism. These folks want to learn how to edit Wikipedia properly and get real knowledge out there. They are experts on their bases and have access to information that most editors will never have. And the crazy thing is, with the exception of classified, FOUO, Privacy Act, SBU, and OPSEC data, it's all in the public domain. The public owns it, but has no idea how to get access to it. It's a real tragedy.--v/r - T P 00:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. (edit on Jimbo page)

I thought I was clear, but, of course, as I wrote it, I know what I meant. I changed to emphasis for clarity.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia LGBT

I just wanted to bring Wikimedia LGBT, a proposed user group and thematic organization that promotes the development of content on Wikimedia projects which is of interest to LGBT communities, to your attention. I am sure you are so busy with your current projects, but I hope you might be able to direct people to this group if they are interested in LGBT content in any way. Of course, you are also more than welcome to indicate your interest/support, if you wish. Hopefully we can get some LGBT-related GLAM/Education/etc. projects up and running in the near future. Best, --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

I see they keep deleting some guy's barnstar. Well, here's one I dare them to delete.

		The Original Barnstar
		For fine contributions to the cause of eradicating paid editing. Coretheapple (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple: Just to avoid any misunderstanding, the questionable barnstar was placed onto ninety pages in just over an hour by this sockpuppet. This abuse has nothing to do with the debate about how to detect and deter biased editing. - Pointillist (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I garnered as much, but I felt Smallbones deserved one anyway! Coretheapple (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the other barnstar to User:Smallbones/Barnstars. If anybody wants to remove the barnstar there, all you need to do is follow the directions. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to you, of course. I'm a bit surprised you decided to present the sock with your own Thanks, and don't let them bring you down. barnstar, though. - Pointillist (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest limits

I suggest listing an actual vote (e.g., Support, Oppose) at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest limit rather than just a comment. The various proposals are being evaluated, and several of them are being closed in the next day. DavidinNJ (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts on Telenor

Interested in your opinion here. -- Stylecustom (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice on Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia

Hello, I would like to inform you that a requested move proposal has been started on the Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia talk page. I have sent you this message since you are a user who has participated in one or more of these discussions. Thank you for reading this message. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While it's not precisely on this topic, you may want to see the "Overtly Using Wikipedia for Marketing" section of WP:VPM. Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I seem to have made you angry, which was not my goal. My goal is to try to find ways to reach consensus on the COI issue. I recognize it as my goal; I made my query to get answers to the question I had, which was, is there any data on extent of the problem. I was pretty selfish in pursuing the kind of answers I wanted. I know you have been living the struggle to get a COI policy in place for a long time and I respect that a lot. I want to try to find some orthogonal way to get out of the chorus of "support" and "oppose" with everybody repeating the same arguments, many of them based on vapor. Anyway, thanks for your attention and words during that discussion. I am going to keep trying to talk to opponents of a COI policy, one by one, trying to learn how to meet honest concerns with defensible answers. It is very useful to me, (to me), to know that neither side has much of a leg to stand on when they talk about the extent, or lack thereof, of the problem, with respect to damage to the encyclopedia caused by paid advocacy. Thanks again, and apologies again for frustrating you. I am sure we will see each other around.Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

http://www.fpcphila.org/building/

https://www.dot7.state.pa.us/ce/Application/ASP/Report/HistImage.asp?HistImage=H000134_01B.jpg

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

McColloch-Weatherhogg Double House

I created an article on this home. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added some other article with photos you took recently (Indiana related). I'm actually not a big fan of info boxes, but I try to tolerate them since it doesn't seem wroth tussling over. Hopefully it will get expanded. I like to include the architect as well, but I didn't have it at hand. And just including NRHP refs gets a tag now too so... Anyway, thanks for taking so many great photos. It's nice to be able to include them for these historic buildings. Interior shots? Party on. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notion Capital

Would you be kind enough - as an uninvolved, but trusted editor - to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help#Notion Capital, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Walsh political maneuvering

Smallbones, could you explain to us (given that you hate the "garbage" of Wikipedia articles appearing like advertisements) how the three sources used to document Kat Walsh are sufficient in your mind, in no need of further attention? Two of the sources are press releases published by the charity she chairs. The third is a staff directory published by her employer. There are no references to third-party, independent sources documenting her life in any detail. Why are you railing against garbage PR handiwork on Wikipedia, but then you yourself are promoting and nurturing it? - 2001:558:1400:10:7D3D:EE03:C7FC:C86A (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer seems obvious to me, as does the your intent to manipulate the rules. There's clearly no commercial motivation here, except perhaps on your part. Feel free to nominate the KW article for deletion, but it's a slam-dunk keep as you well know. Also please keep your nonsense off my talk page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links to external videos within articles

Have reverted this edit [2]. There is discussion ongoing here at WP:MED. Never mind I see you have already found it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more open to posting external links to videos if Khan Academy ever made a public statement about why they are choosing to do this. If it is a thoughtless decision, then I feel that they should reconsider. If they have a well-considered rationale for doing this then I would like to hear it. I have trouble understanding why they would feel that non-commerical licensing is best. I hope that they understand why most Wikipedians feel that it is not. I have a huge amount of respect for you doing this and I want Khan Academy to succeed in whatever it attempts, and I want it to be able to collaborate on common ground with Wikipedians. I feel like I am lacking an understanding of their perspective and I wish that I were not. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Videos

Oh sorry I never got back to you on that. Yes, the videos are fine and load up well. I trust you saw the advertorials article in the New York Times today? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/business/ftc-says-sponsored-online-ads-can-be-misleading.html Coretheapple (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sullivan County NRHP sites

I can work on the courthouse first, but am fairly busy and may be slow. I got some more photos of the Eagles Mere HD this summer - see Commons:Category:Eagles Mere, Pennsylvania. Will try to get more of the courthouse eventually. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COI

I came across the discussion at WP:COI. IMO, discussions on the topic continue to - if anything - degenerate and become more polarized. It did remind me to take a second look at my little essay, How WP:COI would read if I wrote it, that is about one-fourth as long (I hear folks at the Help Desk and others use it from time to time). I don't think any legal content should focus on the FTC, because similar laws exist all over the world and even internationally. Lawsuits by the WMF and competitors (as happened in Germany) are also issues. I thought if you haven't seen the essay yet, I should point it out, as it covers the same issue in a more general way. CorporateM (Talk) 00:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review, please

Would you mind rating Carnegie Free Library of Beaver Falls, which I've just expanded 10x? I think it's big enough to warrant better than "Start", but I'm uncomfortable using anything higher than that; the Stub-Start boundary is pretty clear, but everything past that is ambiguous enough that I won't self-rate with them, and I won't complain if you think it a Start. Thanks for the Merrick article, by the way; I've been meaning to create that for five years without ever getting around to it. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Did you see my note on the article's talk page? I've suggested a research angle for Merrick's personality. Nyttend (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wish I could have gotten anything from the Centennial History, but at least I was able to find decent coverage in the much newer book; until I took it off the shelf, I thought I'd have to go with nothing except the nomination form. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SG

Seasonal Greetings

Merry Christmas Sb

		Holiday Cheer
		Victuallers ^talkback is wishing SB Season's Greetings! Thanks, this is just to celebrate the holiday season and promote WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger inspired by this - you could do the same

	Merry Christmas and best wishes for a happy, healthy and productive 2014!
	Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays

Happy Holidays! Hope

you

are having a wonderful time!

From Hafspajen (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC) 12:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sullivan County Courthouse (Pennsylvania)

I saw User_talk:Ruhrfisch#Sullivan_County_NRHP_sites and have expanded the Sullivan County Courthouse article. It's kind of on the stub-class/start-class line, but there are not really many sources (at least online), so I think it's safe to say it's a start-class article, per WP:CL-RULE. If someone can find maybe two more paragraphs in the next few days, it could be a DYK. --Jakob (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update:It's now been nominated at DYK. --Jakob (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays

Warmest holiday greetings to the person most responsible for my 10K edits in Wikipedia/Wikicommons! I hope the New Year brings you the best in everything! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

Hope you are having a lovely time!!!! All the best for you! Some nice cake for you! Gingergread like this is tasty!

^{Hafspajen (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)}[reply]

FTC

I sent an email to the address you provided. I will let you know if they tell me anything. Though I wouldn't expect much, as I've tried to reach out to them previously. However, I imagine if more editors bring it to their attention, they are more likely to see that there is widespread concern. CorporateM (Talk) 06:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

Please explain your rationale for this deletion. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Kohs is not a reliable source on paid editing, as explained in the edit summary. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try to keep up, Smallbones. The deletion linked to above has nothing to do with Gregory Kohs. - 2001:558:1400:10:A88E:BE0C:116C:D108 (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Head House Square

In the ref you just added for its nomination form, the link points to the form for the Rittenhouse Square Apartments instead. Can you fix it?--BillFlis (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NRHP

See John Ruan House.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nassau Inn address

I corrected the address for the Nassau Inn. They are located at 10 Palmer Square, not 72 Palmer Square. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arcade Nashville.JPG

Nice image; I got a few inside when visiting Nashville last week, but this is better than any of them. Nyttend (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Mass surveillance

WikiProject Mass Surveillance
Dear, Smallbones. We would like to invite you to join WikiProject Mass surveillance, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to the privacy and global surveillance. If you're interested, consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage.

-- HectorMoffet (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut

WP:SETEC

Saturday: NYC Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon

Please join Wikipedia "Art and Feminism Editathon" @ Eyebeam on Saturday February 1, 2014,
an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists!

There are also regional events that day in Brooklyn, Westchester County, and the Hudson Valley.
--Pharos (talk)

Thanks!

Thanks for the notice! Someone did tell me about the discussion earlier—I don't have strong opinions on it (having strong opinions about this would probably be harmful to my sanity), so don't mind too much if it gets deleted. Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 18:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FTC Rules

I've signed. I think that it is really a matter of FTC regulations interpreting a law that was passed by Congress in the 1960's to deal with abuses such as "payola" and "free plugging". Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules - Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC) "[reply]

DavidHobby (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Smallbones, you're making a mistake in asking the FTC for an opinion about COI editing. Asking for the intervention of a government agency in WP rule making is asking for trouble, as people besides myself have said on the relevant talk page. You are writing in the name of WP or identifying yourself as a WP editor (and very few people outside WP can understand the difference) without the agreement of the community. It is similar to past efforts to ask government agencies to interfere with our image policy: one cannot predict what will come of it--they might support what we want to do, or they might want to do something that would really harm us--and once we invite them in, we're helpless. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome

There is a chance it may backfire I guess, but I don't see the harm and I frankly was getting annoyed by the scaremongering and sky-is-falling rhetoric coming your way. Coretheapple (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just found this

You have a photo now! maybe you want to start her page? she has a ted videoVictor Grigas (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and another

Victor Grigas (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Euromaidan riots

How do we know tomorrow won't be "the crucial day". They've all looked pretty crucial to me... Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BBC television news reporter Gavin Hewitt in Kiev was tonight quite clear that the people of Ukraine themselves see it as a revolution, and I see no reason to argue with him. So the recent article name change by User:Lvivske seems quite appropriate and timely. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think we need to wait for a wp:commonname when 'revolution' is the dictionary definition of what just happened. Uprising leading to total regime change. To call an event like that a "riot" is POV pushing at this point to dismiss what happened and make it look like anarchy among the minority. --Львівське (говорити) 23:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You two seem to agree. I'll put something on the talk page - where the name has been changed back to Euromaidan. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

What it says on the tin. Risker (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graham87's edit

[3] I am fairly certain you do not realise it, but that formatting trick is problematic for users who depend on screen readers; it is a usability and accessibility problem, which is why it's been removed from so many standardized pages and templates, and why it's deprecated in article space. Your comment isn't a new heading (the intention of that markup), it's just something you want to highlight. Please just bold it instead so that users who depend on screenreaders - as Graham87 does - don't have to deal with usability issues when trying to follow a discussion. Risker (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Signpost talk

Hello, I'd like to discuss this revert of my edit. Your use of a semicolon rather than a colon for indentation changed the structure of the HTML which made it more difficult to use for screen reader users. The semicolon and colon in wiki-markup create definition lists (or association lists in the new lingo). The colon creates half a definition list, which is alright, but your use of a semicolon followed by a colon later in the line (ppart of the timestamp) creates a full definition list that reads like this with screen readers: "Bluff called ... Smallbones (talk) 20
20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)". See the HTML source for evidence of this. I'd therefore appreciate it if you would undo your reversion. Graham87 14:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NRHP San Antonio Loan and Trust

Hi Smallbones,

That image you just posted on National Register of Historic Places listings in Bexar County, Texas. It's mislabeled. Scroll down to the image of First National Bank of San Antonio - same building, but it really is the First National Bank.. Here's proof. Now, look at the image you put for San Antonio Loan and Trust. Same building, right? I don't know why photographers keep making this mistake, but I just had This Same Image, taken by a totally different photographer two years ago, relabeled at Commons. Have a look at This image and read the description. The SA Loan and Trust is a 5-story building. It's the one on the left. Isn't it interesting how this error has repeated by two different people? — Maile (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: Good catch - somebody likely added the NRHP registration number recently. Do you want to change it to the right one or should I try? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it from the NRHP page, and requested a rename of the file at Commons. There is no image of the Loan and Trust at Commons, as far as anything I can see, so it will just have to be without image on the NRHP page. — Maile (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I've seen how much you hate paid editors, and continuously making an effort to stop them, I really grateful to have you here on English Wikipedia :D .--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]

Discussion you might be interested in

This RfC about allowing role accounts may be of interest to you (there is also a discussion included about handling representatives of companies that you might be interested in). -- Atama頭 22:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Dorflinger Estate

Thanks for taking responsibility for a picture. I could not decide on which could be representative. Agathoclea (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to pick a different one. You know the site better than I do. I couldn't see how the commons link works until the pic was added. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OER inquiry

Hi Smallbones, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rossetti's Pandora

You might find this of interest. Rossetti's oil of Pandora will go up for auction on 22 May and should set a record for his work. I'm still wrestling with a broken arm, so I may not be able to create an article - though that's still a couple of weeks away, so we'll see. I did grab the image for Commons. I'm still typing one-handed so far. :-) - PKM (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes! Thanks for this. There's plenty of material for my usual formula, e.g. British newspapers, the Sothby video, a V&A photo, the usual. But you'll have to breathe some life into it - perhaps the timing fits with the Rossetti-Morris story? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could probably use Water Willow (Rossetti) as a template to get it started ... But yes, lots of material, and there should be more news coverage once the sale happens... I'd love to tag-team on this. I'll see if my big Rossetti book has any good tidbits. - PKM (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

outline looks good!- PKM (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrite

Mr 2001 has been told to stay off my talk page (with one exception - he didn't meet the conditions of that exception). I will remove any of his posts to this page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor who was banned for (self-redacted), and then comes back to Wikipedia to attack paid editors, is in no position to call anyone a hypocrite. As a matter of fact, that's precisely the problem that I have with your (2001's) Jimbo posts: they reek of hypocrisy. You (2001) do(es) realize that, I hope? Coretheapple (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

removed 2001's comment and added parenthetical 2001's to Core's appropriate comment. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually I self-reverted, to remove a reference to an external website where Mr. 2001 also engages in (self-redacted). This guy is the No. 1 paid editing advocate out there, and in his posts on that external website he does nothing but out other editors. Look, I have no personal animus against the guy, but I think the best stance to take with Mr. 2001 henceforth is to delete his posts as ban evasions and ignore the ones that slip by. He serves no useful purpose and is a waste of time, other than to perversely show how rotten to the core paid editing is, and the absence of character of its perpetrators. Coretheapple (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Self-redacting some more. See, that is the problem with Mr. 2001. He exploits Wikipedia rules while at the same time flouting them. Best to just ignore him in the future. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thekohser/Archive#04_January_2014. Coretheapple (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

@@ Line 362: / Line 362: @@
 ::::Self-redacting some more. See, that is the problem with Mr. 2001. He exploits Wikipedia rules while at the same time flouting them. Best to just ignore him in the future. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 15:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 ::::See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thekohser/Archive#04_January_2014]]. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 20:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
+== 3RR ==
+==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion==
+[[Image:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]]
+Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]].   <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you.