Skip to top
Skip to bottom

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

Page views on this page over 365 days

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)
No, not these small bones, it's a family name

Thank youEdit

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)

Editor of the WeekEdit

  Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for integrity and valiance in the fight against paid editing. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

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

I nominate Smallbones as Editor of the Week for the integrity that he brings to the project, and for his yeoman work - unsung, unrecognized, unappreciated - fighting to preserve Wikipedia from encroachments by paid editors. He has been an editor for more than eight and a half years, and during that time has edited a staggering 11,337 articles at last count. He is not an administrator, heaven only knows why (too much sense?), but a content contributor par excellence, with in excess of 31,000 edits, 65% of them in article space. He is a generalist's generalist, with his top contributions ranging from Bernard Madoff to Media, Pennsylvania. But his prodigious talents as a contributor are not the only assets he brings to the project. No one has fought longer and more valiantly against paid editing. It is a great pleasure to nominate Smallbones for Editor of the Week.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
A Favorite Photo
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning August, 2014
A content contributor par excellence known for integrity and yeoman work fighting encroachments by paid editors.
Recognized for
Contributions ranging from Bernard Madoff to Media, Pennsylvania.
Nomination page

Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 16:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your continuing concern over the issue and your calm, level-headed approach. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow! It's always great to get feedback like this. Thanks Coretheapple and Buster7 Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey Smallbones, just wanted to express my thanks as well for both for your contributions and your engagement with others on broader ideas with Wikipedia that I've seen on Jimbo's talk page and other spots. I often find it difficult to jump into those conversations myself, but I do read them, and I appreciate your thoughtfulness. I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Very pleased to propose this. Your contributions are tremendously appreciated. Coretheapple (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years agoEdit

Ten years!

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

Special report on paid editingEdit

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)

@Isaacl: I understand what you're saying and will recheck the wording. Long story short, I didn't want to name anybody here and perhaps there were more than one. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
@Isaacl: i think you're misinterpreting here. It's not that all visual editors copy, but that this one looks like it was copied. If I remember correctly, it was a huge edit in many parts. I'll probably stick with my guide on this. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
You wrote, "The edit was tagged as a visual edit, which means that 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 newsworthinessEdit

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

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

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

@Bri and Bri.public: I'm just gobsmacked. Of course there can be an op-ed; do you want to write it, or find somebody else to write it. Perhaps even a forum-type article with 2 authors facing-off. I'll be at the beach for the first time in about 2 months. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
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 [8]. A reform proposal to introduce an ITN editorial board, in a separate thread, was trounced. Bri.public (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@Bri: I couldn't find the separate discussion. You should write the whole thing up, including the separate discussion. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Check Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Radical idea. I have not started my write-up yet (other than these notes) but still plan to. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


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)

October 21: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYCEdit

October 21, 7pm: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page.

We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person!

In honor of Wikidata's 8th birthday earlier this month, we especially encourage lightning talks related to Wikidata and Wikidata adjacent projects and tools. We'll also discuss the recent proposal to change the Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws, including the Statement of Opposition from Wikimedia NYC.

7:00pm - 8:00 pm online via Zoom (optional breakout rooms from 8:00-8:30)

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

--Wikimedia New York City Team 04:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Reply to emailEdit

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.

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 againEdit

FYI [9]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)


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


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)Edit

October 18, 7pm: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page.

We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person!

This month we've invited the creators of instagram accounts @depthsofwikipedia and @wikipediapictures to chat with us about their Wiki* appreciation accounts. If there's a project you'd like to share or a question you'd like answered, just let us know by adding it to the agenda or responding to this message.

7:00pm - 8:00 pm online via Zoom (optional breakout rooms from 8:00-8:30)

Editathons this coming Saturday

You are also invited to join thse two editathon on Saturday November 21:

(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)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

No editors for the Signpost?Edit

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

Late November Signpost contributionEdit

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

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

Can you please explain this edit of Exploding whale, adding a link ( to a Khan Academy article about post-impressionist paintings? — BarrelProof (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: 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 2020Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

  Administrator changes


  Interface administrator changes


  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news


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

Your help if possibleEdit

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. @Ellin Beltz: 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 SignpostEdit

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)

Slow as Christmas!!Edit

🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻 Atsme 💬 📧 04:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas & Let's See Out the Year!Edit

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! In this toughest of years, thank you for continuing to care about others - both in your editing, your words, and just in your being. Roll on 2021 and I'll see you there!
Nosebagbear (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you @Nosebagbear:. I'll be continuing to be being! Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!Edit

Walter Elmer Schofield, Across the River (1904), Carnegie Museum of Art.
Best wishes for a safe, healthy and prosperous 2021.
Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place.
BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Oneupsmanship: This painting turned the friendly rivalry between Edward Redfield and Elmer Schofield into
a feud. Schofield was a frequent houseguest at Redfield's farm, upstream from New Hope, Pennsylvania,
and the two would go out painting together, competing to capture the better view. Redfield served on the jury
for the 1904 Annual Exhibition of the Carnegie Institute; at which, despite Redfield's opposition, Across the
was awarded the Gold Medal and $1,500 prize. It was not until a 1963 interview that the 93-year-old
Redfield revealed the painting as the cause of the 40-year feud between them. Schofield may have painted it
in England, but a blindsided Redfield knew that it was a view of the Delaware River, from his own front yard!

Ruining the joke by explaining itEdit

Maybe this helps with the question you asked (you pinged but didn't sign, I noticed it anyway). The joke is regarding use of PLACEHOLDER NAME because these sorts of situations happen so frequently in the software industry. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

In the mediaEdit

Regarding Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media#Introducing Wikipedia and data journalism: I'm finding it hard to copy edit as the through line is not clear to me. Admittedly, I think part of the issue is that the first graphic in the article seems to be misplaced—it would fit better in the section about using Twitter bots to help monitor edits from specific IP ranges. However you didn't explain the usefulness of Twitter bots for journalism, and instead talked about community response to problematic edits. That would be another use for Twitter bots, but it doesn't fit the story about mining Wikipedia data for journalistic purposes. And the last sentence left me wondering, was I supposed to be worrying? Nothing else gave me any indication that I should be. And I don't know what you mean by half the article is left; did you not cover half the article for some reason? Or is there a part 2 forthcoming from the author (I didn't see any indication of this in the article, though)? isaacl (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Isaacl: I just made a couple of changes, a few words really. Please see if that helps. "The first graphic" - If you're talking about the "exteranl video" box - it should be way down on the same line as "In Brief". What other graphic are you talking about? A Twitter bot obviously sends Wikipedia data, but doesn't send a whole dataset all at once. Let me know what's wrong. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I realize I was confusingly referring to the original article by Monika Sengul-Jones. What you referred to "her first example" was the first graphic in her article, which I think ought have been placed in the section where she actually talks about Twitter bots. isaacl (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Please don't try to edit her article - I don' think it will work! Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
The edit to the last paragraph is helpful; thanks. To me the through line is still unclear regarding the Twitter bot: whether or not the change was reverted isn't related to the use of the Twitter bot to alert journalists when potential conflict-of-interest edits occur. It's of interest for a "can Wikipedia editors detect and revert problematic edits" story, but the point I get from the original article is how to try to mine Wikipedia data for all kinds of stories. isaacl (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
You're right, it's superfluous. I'll get rid of it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy holidays!Edit

Hey Smallbones, sorry to arrive empty-handed without a card. I'm too disorganized as usual. But thank you for your card (great photograph), and I'm wishing you and yours all the best for the New Year. SarahSV (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!Edit

  Happy New Year!
Hello Smallbones:

Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Happy New Year 2021!Edit

The sequel to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-03-01/By the numbers is hereEdit

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Someone is in a deleting moodEdit

Greetings: Please see and also It seems as though the gentleman above is in the process of attempting to delete present and historical populated places in California. As always, I do not spend enough time over here to follow the practices and politics of this project, and appreciate any help and guidance you can offer. In personal experience, Waddington, California is five miles from my house and very obviously currently populate. Pecwan, California was an historic settlement until the white settlers massacred its Yurok inhabitants. I am extremely concerned that smaller villages both white and native American appear to be slated for destruction - which means that us out here encouraging people to put up all the towns was a completely wasted effort - because now someone wants to delete them all. Additionally it renders local history projects back to "go look in the library" instead of "look on Wiki." I do not think the former is service to community. Your help is most gratefully appreciated. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Featured content reportsEdit

Right. Think I have everything set up so that it'll be easy to keep this all going. Only downside is that I'm already working on the issue after next's featured content, which might be a little weird at first at publication time. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 07:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Friday Jan 15: ONLINE Wikipedia Day NYCEdit

January 15, 6pm: Wikimedia NYC celebrates 20 years of Wikipedia

Wikipedia Day is always a big day for Wikimedia NYC. While we cannot meet in person, we still have something special planned. We will begin the event with the debut of a new video celebrating our community. This will be followed by a panel discussion with some of the people you'll see in the video talking about Wikipedia's 20th anniversary, Wikimedia New York City, and the amazing work they do on Wikimedia projects.

The event will be broadcast live via YouTube. Feel free to ask questions for the panel through the chat!

We will also have some NYC wiki trivia you can participate in, with confectionery prizes.

6:00pm - 7:00 pm online via Wikimedia NYC on YouTube

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

--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)