User talk:Smallbones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Your photo at MkuCr[edit]

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)


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

A barnstar for you![edit]

Brilliant Idea Barnstar Hires.png 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)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

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)

User box[edit]

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)

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

Jefferson Market Public Library
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)

FTC disclosures[edit]

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)

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)
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)
  • 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 - TP 00:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
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)

Public Affairs[edit]

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 - TP 00:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. (edit on Jimbo page)[edit]

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)

Wikimedia LGBT[edit]

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)

A Barnstar for you![edit]

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

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For fine contributions to the cause of eradicating paid editing. Coretheapple (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
@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)
I garnered as much, but I felt Smallbones deserved one anyway! Coretheapple (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)

Conflict of interest limits[edit]

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)

Your thoughts on Telenor[edit]

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

Notice on Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia[edit]

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)

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)


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)


Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

McColloch-Weatherhogg Double House[edit]

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

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)

Notion Capital[edit]

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)

Kat Walsh political maneuvering[edit]

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)

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)

Links to external videos within articles[edit]

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)

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)


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? Coretheapple (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

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)

Re: Sullivan County NRHP sites[edit]

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)

Sounds good. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


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)

Review, please[edit]

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)

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)
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)


B. W..jpg Seasonal Greetings

Merry Christmas Sb[edit]

Christmas tree.svg 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
2013 Christmas Tree.jpg

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

Happy holidays[edit]

Evergreens covered in snow in Nebraska.jpg Happy Holidays! Hope


are having a wonderful time!
From Hafspajen (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC) 12:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sullivan County Courthouse (Pennsylvania)[edit]

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)

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

Happy holidays[edit]

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)

Happy New Year[edit]

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)


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)

Please explain[edit]

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

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

Head House Square[edit]

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)

Fixed, thanks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


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

Nassau Inn address[edit]

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)

File:Arcade Nashville.JPG[edit]

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)

Invitation to WikiProject Mass surveillance[edit]

Nrol-39.jpg 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)


Saturday: NYC Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon[edit]

Jefferson Market Public Library
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 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)

FTC Rules[edit]

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)

Thank you. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see[edit]

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

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


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)

You're very welcome[edit]

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)

Just found this[edit]

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)

and another
Malinga Nopote at 2013 graduation

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

Euromaidan riots[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)

You've got mail[edit]

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

Graham87's edit[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)

Re: Signpost talk[edit]

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)

NRHP San Antonio Loan and Trust[edit]

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)

@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)
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)

Thank you[edit]

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

@Aldnonymous: Thanks for noticing! It's always good to get positive feedback. I will correct you, however, I don't hate paid editors, rather it is paid editing that is hateful. It is tearing down a wonderful structure that has been built up by many volunteers, that provides good information to whoever has access to the internet. If that information is poisoned, and people can't trust us, then the whole structure may collapse.
Your post reminded me of a news story from a couple of decades ago. After the fall of the Soviet Union people started cutting down and selling copper cable from high power electrical transmission systems (nominally still in use). I don't hate those folks who cut down the cable - they were doing what they had to do to survive. I did hate the fact that the transmission systems were being destroyed. It just seemed like there must be a pretty simple enforcement system that would stop the destruction. Everybody likely knew who was buying the cable - these folks could be stopped fairly simply if anybody took the obvious steps. Similarly, most people likely knew who was cutting the cable or where to look to stop folks from cutting more. So the system was messed up, but the parts of the system that led to the destruction of the cable could easily be fixed. The actual folks who cut the cable, in my mind, were less responsible than the authorities who couldn't be bothered to take a few minimal steps. That's my reading in any case.
Thanks again.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
That was insightful, I'm the one who should thanking you (again :D), and... You're welcome.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 19:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion you might be interested in[edit]

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 22:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Eugene Dorflinger Estate[edit]

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

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)

OER inquiry[edit]

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)

Rossetti's Pandora[edit]


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)

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)
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)
outline looks good!- PKM (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Sotheby's site suggest that Pandora didn't sell ... - PKM (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


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)

An editor who was banned for running a paid editing service, 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 Jimbo talk page and Wikiopediocracy posts: they reek of hypocrisy. You do realize that, I hope? Coretheapple (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thekohser/Archive#04_January_2014, "Currently, Jimmy Wales believes that "Hell might be other people" is "Mr. 2001", which he (correctly) believes is me." and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MyWikiBiz#16_May_2014. Coretheapple (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


In the past I had been submitting complaints to the Attorney Generals in CA and NY, who are active on the issue. It sounded like you were filing them directly with the FTC and I was wondering if you knew a better place. I usually only report really overt cases - stuff like censoring properly sourced material. CorporateM (Talk) 19:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't filed any formal complaints about paid editors anywhere off wiki, but do recognize that anybody who wishes to file a complaint has the right to do so. I may do so in the future. I don't think that the WMF or the community have any interest in preventing folks from filing formal complaints. WP:No legal threats might be interpreted as discouraging formal complaints, but I think the obvious reading of that is that you simply should not threaten anybody on-wiki or off- with the fact that you are contemplating a legal complaint. Rather, just do it without telling anybody except the FTC or other enforcement agency about it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the idea behind no legal threats is to prevent bullying and in that regard only the clearest cases of bad-faith should be taken that route. However, I do ponder if such complaints are a black-hole or not. CorporateM (Talk) 03:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM, who on their own page is quite open about their COI has whitewashed the Banc de Binary page, when it had consensus from several editors. Would it be possible to revert the page back to how it was yesterday when BlackKite lifted protection? User JohnNagle has already suggested it and I wanted to ask you as I am a newbie and haven't figured out how to do itHistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Okteriel's edits[edit]

What are you doing with them? The community should confirm he is in fact a banned editor before ypu go around deleting his comments. --NeilN talk to me 21:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

When it is so obvious, you don't need to wait for what would be a very long procedure. I delete his edits, e.g. at User talk:Jimbo Wales all the time. Of course if he want to contest that he is a banned editor, he is free to do so. But in this case, in his response to my questions, it was very obvious who he is. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Umm... it looks like they have a disclosed COI[4], but I have my doubts they are the same person. CorporateM (Talk) 03:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Corporate WIRs[edit]

It is unlikely to work, but perhaps I am not thinking boldly enough. However, in my view, the role of a WIR is to improve articles, not police them. So imagine if 5 of the participating agencies each paid a fee to sponsor an independent editor. If any of their clients want their page improved, they can opt-in to have this sponsored editor write their article independently and without their input. If they find errors or other problems, they can go through the usual process for any refinements. If corporations could let loose of their corporate approval process and it has WIRs with a high degree of integrity, it could work, but those are two very high obstacles. CorporateM (Talk) 16:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about anything like that and would oppose it. Policing is not exactly what I had in mind, perhaps "Community watch coordinator", but if the WiR name doesn't fit here, just come up with another name. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride[edit]

Upcoming Saturday event - June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC
Wikimedia LGBT outreach logo.svg

You are invited to join us at Jefferson Market Library for "Wiki Loves Pride", hosted by New York Public Library, Metropolitan New York Library Council, Wikimedia LGBT and Wikimedia New York City, where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme:

11am–4pm at Jefferson Market Library.

We hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

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

Putin khuilo![edit]

File:Deputati UDAR.jpg
Ukrainian deputy in a T-shirt with the words "Putin khuilo!"

. Please post on the page.-- (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


about this dif. as far as I can tell, the document as it stands, at WP:COI, currently contains the WMF ToU and the enWP guideline. Also far as I can tell, the WMF ToU are also Wikipedia policy as per Wikipedia:Terms of use. So the document as it stands at WP:COI contains both policy and guideline. So.. I don't understand your edit note in the above dif, which says "(Everybody now knows this is a guideline, not a policy. No more discussion on it". Tparis has been less careful and less patient than I would have him be, but as near as I can tell, he is saying that a) yep the WMF have jammed policy down our throats but they clearly described a a way to overrule it; 2) the deep, good essence of Wikipedia is that it is a radical democracy and the community should be heard, as to whether to it accepts the ToU or rejects them. 3) on an even deeper level, if enWP does not embrace the ToU as policy it is very unlikely to ever be treated like policy on enWP - it is likely to just be ignored. I thought #3 was pretty profound. Like Lex orandi, lex credendi or the wisdom underlying "do what i say, not what i do". It is what we do, not what we say, that really matters, and an RfC to confirm (or deny) the ToU would certainly help it become the living, praxis-ed conensus, as well as the letter policy. i hope that makes sense. but i don't understand on a simple, factual level, how your edit note is true. Jytdog (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • WP:COI has been a guideline forever. There are means to make a guideline into a policy, but nobody has done that. Are we in agreement here?
  • The terms of use are policy. Guidelines are allowed to quote policy, but if a guideline quotes policy that doesn't mean that the guideline becomes a policy - just that the policy is a policy and the rest of the guideline is still a guideline. Are we in agreement here?
  • If you agree with the 2 points above, you agree with what I meant in the edit summary. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been, but there is no dispute about whether WP:COI is a guideline. There is a dispute about whether that silly box should be used anywhere, as noted on the box itself. And there has not been any discussion for some time on whether WP:COI is a policy.
  • As far as the WMF jamming down our throats the ToU changes - you have to remember the RfC at Meta where 1,100 editors (80% of the total participants) supported the new ToU. If anybody wants to make a technical distinction between meta and Wikipedia, and say that an RfC on Wikipedia with 100 participants can over-ride the ToU, then I'd suspect they are trying to force paid editing down the the throats of the community.
  • I definitely support having a well-publicized RfC that would allow the Wikipedia to confirm, weaken, or strengthen the policy on paid editing. I think that would be wonderful, and would show paid editors and reluctant admins what the community really thinks. I've proposed that at WT:COI. But a quicky RfC with a 100 participants would be an insult to the community and to the 1,100 editors from the Meta RfC who supported the ToU change.
  • What to do if admins refuse to enforce the new policy? I'm sure you understand that the undisclosed advertising that the policy is aimed at is both illegal and unethical. If admins don't enforce the rules and thus help to enforce the law, what should a Wikipedian do? Well, the best solution is certainly that the community enforces policy, but if the admins don't I'd guess that the WMF will, and if they don't it's every man for himself (or every woman as the case may be) which I don't think would be pleasant for anybody. I have no doubt that the law will eventually (and perhaps only sporadically) be enforced. Better if the WMF enforces it, best if admins enforce it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
"WP:COI is policy" is a TParis hobbyhorse with absolutely zero support from anyone else, and I don't think it has anything to do with the "disputed" tag. I was going to remove it myself, as it was put there because of edit warring by a small number of editors and should not have been deployed in the first place. Coretheapple (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I hear you on that Core. Thanks for replying smallbones; i hear you and i do agree with points one and two. i just didn't understand your edit note and suspected that it was written hastily. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Eh, it might have been a little off-point but at least it was accurate. I am astonished by the amount of sheer bullhockey that seems to be floating around the discussion of the TOU. "WP:COI is policy" is one. The other, which I see Smallbones just responded to, was that he "changed the policy." If this TOU issue or related behavior issues ever goes up to arbcom, I am quite certain that factual misrepresentations are not going to go over well. Coretheapple (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
No, actually I was mistaken. Smallbones' edit summary in fact was correct. He was referring to the language of the tag, which indicates that it is to be used only in a specific situation. Coretheapple (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic[edit]

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic
Wiknic logo.svg

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Central Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.

1pm–8pm at southwest section of the Great Lawn, north of the Delacorte Theater.

Also, before the picnic, you can join in the Wikimedia NYC chapter's annual meeting.

11:30am-12:30pm at Yeoryia Studios, 2067 Broadway.

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Happy Fourth![edit]

Greetings Smallbones: I hope all is well with you as the 4th approaches. Wishing you and yours a safe holiday and many more marvelous photographs from you! Ellin Beltz (talk)

Somebody has edited what you wrote without any credible reason (see the WP page on Marx and Religion)[edit]

Dear Smallbones, I think your analysis on Karl Marx is more relevant than the edits that were later done to your inputs. Please look into the matter yourself. I could not help myself but revert the present version to YOUR original edit. I feel there is a POV problem in the current content. Your input that Marx's view on religion was ambivalent is correct, accurate, and impartial. I want your version to be maintained. Hope you would cooperate and check to see what is happening on the page. Arghyan Opinions (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Education in North Korea shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. livelikemusic my talk page! 00:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong ID[edit]

Education in PDRK is not a Kohs troll. Be careful with your IDs. It is a troll, mind you, probably originating from Australia, if you catch my drift. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gass House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fuller. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi Smallbones, would you please comment on this? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

GMAT Page Concerns[edit]

Hi there,

Not sure if this is the correct place to chat with you about the GMAT page but I just wanted to reach out to discuss what's going on over there. I joined wikipedia because I looked at the GMAT page and saw that it was chock full of advertising and opinion. The page needs a ton of work which hopefully I'll be able to support in a positive way. I have been deleting what seems to me is at best unsubstantiated opinion. But really it just looks like advertising. If you look at all of my edits there is no attempt to advertise anything. I do not work for GMAC. That's completely ridiculous. I'm not paid to edit anything. I'm not using wikipedia to promote anything. Again - I think that if you look at my edits you'll see that.

It looks to me that there are people editing the page for the benefit of certain test prep companies. You can see in the citations that there are a few companies that keep returning. Why? No clue. But it seems strange to me.

Also - the moment that I deleted one of TDJankins posts which promoted some test prep companies he sent me what I would consider a subtle threat:

Welcome to Wikipedia. You have recently twice deleted the preparations section from the GMAT page. Continued destructive edits may result in you being blocked or banned.--TDJankins (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe TDJankins isn't shilling for these companies. I don't know what this person's motivations are. There are certainly other people working on the GMAT page that feel the same way that I do about TDJankins additions. I'm happy to go with the consensus. It would certainly be nice to work together to create a spam free and informative GMAT page.

I'm completely new to wikipedia. I'd would be happy to be a positive contributor. Please advise on how to move forward. Deleteasaur (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Evaluation portal redesign preview[edit]

Dear Smallbones - The Learning & Evaluation team at the WMF is currently redesigning the Evaluation portal! Before we take the next steps in the redesign process, we'd really like to hear your thoughts and feedback about the new design. You have been involved in evaluation portal over the last year and can help us design an improved site.

When you have a moment, please visit the link below for screenshots and more information. We'd really like to hear your feedback by July 21 07:00 UTC so we can incorporate your ideas or comments into the design process.

Thank you so much! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)