User:Smallbones/Archive 9

Special report on paid editing
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

Newsworthy newsworthiness
Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news 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)
 * ITN story proposed 05:09
 * discussion closed 06:32 (02:32 NYC / 23:32 Los Angeles)
 * discussion reopened 12:12
 * discussion closed 12:38 (08:38 NYC / 05:38 Los Angeles)
 * discussion reopened 12:38–12:48
 * discussion closed 13:01 (09:01 NYC / 06:01 Los Angeles)
 * talkpage discussion "Closing/re-opening noms" started 13:04

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

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)
 * Update: Discussion closed 6 October as "moot" without a resolution . A reform proposal to introduce an ITN editorial board, in a separate thread, was trounced. Bri.public (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Check Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news. I have not started my write-up yet (other than these notes) but still plan to. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello
You commented on my question at teahouse which made me happy. Thanks for your help. I will like you to help me in my first signpost draft and guide me. Tbiw (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Reply to email
Thank you for your interest in my project.

Unfortunately I have no time time to detail my answers. If you don't mind, I will quickly speak out here.

I'd like to ask you, on the record, about the tender you won to write articles about Tatarstan for the Tatarstan government.
 * How long have you been active as a paid editor on ruwiki? on enwiki?
 * How do you handle the conflict of interest that arises from being paid?
 * How does the Russian Wiki community react to your articles? The enwiki community?
 * Do you see any problems going forward with the government insisting that something be published onWiki, which the community would object to?

Since 2015, I have been primarily engaged in teaching wikipedia and wiki-mentoring. My paid contribution is the result of competencies. I work only transparently and speak directly to customers if they have no chance. And I assessed all the conditions, risks, requirements and consequences from technical task before starting the tender. The work doesn't imply any influence on the text on the part of the customer. Wikipedia rules are always more important.

Russian wikipedians generally treat this project favorably and with interest. They know that I'm principled and uphold the rules of the site. Of course, there are editors who fear a PR invasion on Wikipedia. But clear requirements for affiliate editing are always a more reliable control tool than catching shadow intruders.

About money. The average cost of an original article or its translation is significantly lower than the market value of any copywriter order. The authors, whom I have involved in this project, understand and accept this fact. From their side, work is more like volunteering. The prize fund of any wiki contest will be more profitable. As a result, I want to show both wikipedians and government customers that this is not a profitable and difficult format of cooperation.

Thanks again for your interest and, I hope, understanding.--Birulik (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Your Percepto piece is in the news again
FYI ☆ Bri (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hadn't noticed yet. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Plus minor Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Billionth
Wasn’t this prediction made after the pool closed in 2019? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Articles
Is three articles too many? I've finished Featured Content, I've done my bit of the Wikicup report, and I was planning on finishing the Gallery, but the Gallery can be knocked forwards again at this point. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 05:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

October 18: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC (plus weekend editathons)
(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 17:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

No editors for the Signpost?
Was browsing 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)

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

Exploding whale link
Can you please explain this edit of Exploding whale, adding a link (http://smarthistory.khanacademy.org/post-impressionism.html) to a Khan Academy article about post-impressionist paintings? —&hairsp;BarrelProof (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that! I was interrupted during the edit (long story) and thought I'd saved it (but it was still incomplete and I had to go in a hurry). Sorry. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Izno

Guideline and policy news
 * There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news
 * Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration
 * Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Your help if possible
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)
 * 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.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)

Good edition of the Signpost
Thanks! Tony (talk)  08:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Seconded! Zazpot (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thirded — Eddie891 Talk Work 23:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fourthed! SarahSV (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)