Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Content

message: What is going on with the late addition of the super-short article on TBSDY?  Though I'm sympathetic, it sticks out like a sore thumb.  Was it an oversight that was corrected in a rush, or was it not vetted by the editor?  The Signpost is useful because it is concise, which requires some centralized coordination.  If the addition of the article was not coordinated, can it be removed, perhaps with the contents tacked on to an existing article? - BanyanTree 15:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderfool wrote and added that article. I am not certain if it is "official" or not. Jordi·✆ 15:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented out the link to the stub story, for the moment, as it seemed not to be an offical entry (being badly placed on the page as well as very short). Worldtraveller 15:43, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, good idea. Perhaps User:Wonderfool could submit an article to Michael Snow for next week's edition? — Matt Crypto 16:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've let Wonderfool know on his talk page, including your suggestion. Jordi·✆ 16:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of these things is not like the others 

message: Ta bu shi da yu has given a brief call for help on maintaining WP:Press. He outlined the following procedure:
# Go to http://news.google.com
# Search for Wikipedia
# Setup an alert for new articles on Wikipedia via email
# When an Google alerts you, put it onto the Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source page (next year, can someone change the redirection to Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source 2006?) - please link to the article in question! If it is an article that references information in a Wikipedia article, or to Wikipedia:Press coverage if it is an article ABOUT Wikipedia. There are some other categories, but I'm sure everyone gets the jist.
# If the article is due to us being a press source, go to the article talk page and if an author is provided, use Template:authoronlinesource2005. An example is:
{{
(this is on John DeLorean).
If no author is provided, use Template:onlinesource2005. An example is:

(this is on Mass media).
The reason that Ta bu shi da yu has asked is because noone had updated the page for a while (except for himself, often anonymously), and as he's left the project he would like somone to fill in for him.
*For someone's who's left the project, you still seem to be hanging around a lot :) Anyway, as it happens I've already got a Google news alert for WP, so I'll try and remember to do some of this myself. sjorford →•← 11:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any chance of popping in a new article? Something like this: 

message: I'll be leaving the wiki for a time soon, so I won't be around to monitor.  If someone wanted to, however, keep an eye on meta:List of Wikipedias.  Nauruan just became the 99th language with a Wikipedia past the first milestone of 100 articles, so it will soon be 100 languages (the next will probably be Mongolian, Yiddish or Nahuatl).  Recent growth in new languages has mostly been in South Asian languages like Gujarati, Kannada, Urdu, Malayalam, Tamil and Bengali, as well as regional minority languages in Europe, like Corsican, Cornish, Breton and Sicilian.  If Nahuatl is the 100th language, it will be the first Native American language, unless you count Haitian Creole.  Anyway, I just thought I'd throw that out there in case someone wanted to put it somewhere in the Signpost. Tuf-Kat 16:54, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Nahuatl has just reached 100 articles, making it the 100th Wikipedia to do so, and the first Native American language. As Tuf-Kat says, Yiddish and Mongolian are not far behind, then there is a bit of a gap. The African languages are getting interesting too. Swahili is still in the lead, but Bambara is seeing some activity and is catching up fast. All have some way to go yet however, but we can probably expect the first African language (not counting Afrikaans, which has nearly 4000) to hit 100 articles in the next few weeks. — Trilobite (Talk) 10:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 100 pedias

message: I have created an article on the VfD done for this. See User:Ta bu shi da yu/GNAA. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GNAA vote 

message: The Norman Borlaug article that is scheduled to appear on the main page on July 27, is being promoted on this sitein their July 25 news. This might be the first time such an adverisment for an upoming feature has appeared, and makes an interesitng bit of trivia for the signpost. First discovered by User:BanyanTree.--nixie 04:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External site promotes an upcoming featured article

message: I reverted and moved to here the following comment which was added to the current edition of The Signpost by User:Mydogategodshat. Perhaps this can be used for the next edition?
 New Business and Economics Portal started this week. 
-- Longhair | Talk 13:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted again. Many people do not check Signpost after the Monday publication and it's just confusing  to add things in the interim.  Far better to add it to an actual article coming out in the next issue. - BanyanTree 13:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or add to Wikipedia:Goings-on, which is updated continuously. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Goings-on or Wikipedia:Announcements would have been a good place for this. I don't mind people who want to contribute (in fact, I highly encourage it because we need more help), but the links on the page are headlines that take you to news stories, not announcements that merely take you to the subject of the announcement. If someone wants something included in The Signpost, it's incumbent on them to draft a story about it, or else submit it to the newsroom and let the people writing the stories decide whether to include it. --Michael Snow 15:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment Added to The Signpost page

message: Ha!  There is a word for word copy of the Esquire article at http://www.irishdev.com/NewsArticle.aspx?id=1085.  I've sent an email to their online manager informing them that they should explicitly attribute it to Wikipedia, but I was a bit taken aback that an external site was reading our newspaper and not just our article content.  - BanyanTree 21:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is truly bizarre. There was a little "For more information, go to wikipedia.org" sticker when I looked, but that hardly ammounts to credit.--Sean Jelly Baby? 22:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, legally, it was released into the public domain...I don't agree with it, but the contributors did release it into PD.  Ral315 WS 00:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh. Forgot about that. --Sean Jelly Baby? 00:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nyet. The Esquire article was released into the public domain - but this is a copy of the Signpost article, which was not. Ambi 01:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's right.  This is weird...--Sean Jelly Baby? 01:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that weird, there are a number of simple words which apply: intellectual dishonesty, plagurism and copyright violation. The article is currently being attributed to [joanne@irishev.com Joanne Kelly] at the top. -- Joolz 02:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They've taken it down, it appears.  I'm fascinated by the fact that someone would take a Signpost article and use it, though.  For what it's worth, I do release all my contributions into the public domain, and so I guess, in theory, it's legal for them to use any Signpost article which only I edit, and since I was the only one to edit the Esquire article...however, I doubt they necessarily checked up on that.  Ral315 WS 13:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I sent them a polite e-mail, and Ms. Kelly sent me a very nice e-mail back. She apologized and took full responsibility, and that she is a fan of Wikipedia. She took down the article and asked how she should cite it properly or do we have a press release or something they could use. How should I answer: That they may use it, but they should say something like "Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-09-26/Esquire_article" or what? They were very polite and took action immediately, and I for one appreciate the publicity. — Knowledge Seeker দ 13:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't realized that it was under public domain because of Ral315's release.  In that case they don't have to explicitly say that it is from Wikipedia at all, though it would be nice of them.  Simply removing the misleading author by-line, which makes it appear that it was written by Ms. Kelley, would appear to be sufficient, though I'm not an expert on intellectual property by any means.  - BanyanTree 15:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer having the byline removed, although in all honesty, the reporter can do basically anything she wants with the article.  For the time being, I'm not licensing any of my contributions into the public domain anymore, until I can figure out what I want to do in this regard.  Ral315 WS 22:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Make it easy on yourself. Use . Titoxd 05:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  a dubious milestone 

message: Do you think that the community is aware of this interview on TV? It's very watchable and easy on the brain. --hydnjo talk 05:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we were aware of the interview, I believe it took place two weeks ago. Zach (Sound Off) 05:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: On the Television Set

message: If I heard correctly David Vitty thanked wikipedia in regard to his Tedious Link on the The Chris Moyles Show this morning, if someone wants to verify that you can "listen again" on the BBC website, the Tedious Link is about 2 hours into the show I believe. btw The Chris Moyles Show has about 7-8 million listeners! Martin 09:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki mentioned on BBC radio 1 

message: If someone decides to discuss the Guardian article Can you trust wikipedia? in a future edition, you might want to look at the discussion at Talk:Encyclopedia (one of the articles discussed) for some info.  I couldn't find any other discussion of it at the moment. flux.books 18:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guardian article 

message: Does anyone know if there was ever an article about the grant that Wikimedia was given to establish Wikijunior (currently residing over at Wikibooks)? --LV (Dark Mark) 22:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that was just before signpost appeared. The grant has been mentioned in passing though.Geni 23:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks. Maybe if Wikijunior ever gets published, Signpost would be interested in doing a bit on it. If it ever gets published... --LV (Dark Mark) 14:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As soon as we find someone who know something about dead tree technology we will be able to move in that direction quite quickly.Geni 17:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikijunior 

message: 1. add a wikipedian of the week section
2. add a BJAODN of the week section
--Urthogie 21:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  two ideas 

message: Not sure if this has any importance or if it's listed but... Wikipedia, specifically List of Half-Life 2 mods was listed on Steam's December 30th update... is this notable? no idea... but, there you go. gren グレン 15:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? I found the article without the steam update and am quite happy with my recent downloads of Garry's Mod and SourceForts. But that's not why I'm here... —Ilyanep (Talk) 02:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the news... 

message: Something like, major developments in enforcement not involving policy changes or arbitration cases? Sortof like, "the articel warez was attacked between 9 and 9 45 AM on the 11 by a mass of different users who were later tagged as sockpuppets of "DickyRobert", who has been banned etc etc...". 68.39.174.238 17:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police blotter? 

message: This message:

Appearsatthe beginning of the Milestones section of the News and notes article. If that information is sopertinent,why do straight out give the date and time, if at all possible? It would be nice to be able to list the pertinent page too, if possible. Circeus 15:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not pertinent, and on most of them, the date and time is not given on the source I get them from.  I added that message because someone had taken the habit of arranging them in order of either the number of articles, or of perceived importance, and I don't feel that we should make some projects seem more important than others.  Ral315 (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think that would make sense, if only to mimic the style at Wikipedia:Milestone statistics. Circeus 21:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  News and notes: dates and stuff 

message: Do you think that you guys could do a story on the redisgn of the Main Page occuring here? It's a great way to get new contributors and imput.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that and I cross posted this to Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions from Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Content - Ravedave 23:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Main Page redesign

message: It was mentioned emergency Captcha was used to keep vandalbots under control. What is being used? I was expecting cool graphics and stuff; which I would like to see as any extra step in the registration process would further discourage mass sockpuppets. - RoyBoy 800 04:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an apparent graphic and discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Captcha. - BanyanTree 04:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captcha 

message: A LOT of Wikipedians will be affected by a expected ice storm on Fri-Sun,  2-17-06 to 2-20-06. For more, go to the Weather Channel Website and/or Accuweather Website for more information, news. Martial Law 08:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For future reference, you may make suggestions at the tip line. The Signpost usualy only covers news relevant to Wikipedia and its parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. Traditional "news", such as weather and such, are not included; they are more appropriate for current events or "In the news". Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ice Storm

message: Wikisource very recently created Wikisource News, the local variant of the Wikipedia Signpost. Many of the stories, such as email confirmation, are likely to apply equally well to both wikis. I'd like to occasionally use content from the Signpost in WN stories, with appropriate credit. Signpost editors are free to use WN content, though the relationship would no doubt favour the more undermanned Wikisource. Would do you think? // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 06:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think collaboration would be good; also note Wikizine, a news source more focused on meta and issues surrounded all Wikimedia projects, not a specific language or project. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine with me, certainly.  You're certainly welcome to use any of our articles under the terms of the GFDL.  I'd appreciate a note on this page when you borrow content.  Ral315 (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A section from Wikipedia in the news, "Interesting mentions", prompted the Wikisource News story "New database to identify public domain works". Thanks. :) // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 12:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  You might want to mention this new development at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/About.  User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nah, I don't think it's necessary there.  Ral315 (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikisource News 

message: Given the byline policy, I suppose I ought to check that people don't mind me making small changes to Signpost articles (often wikilinking dates, for preference purposes, but occasionally adding other links or minor titbits - I can't think of an occasion where I have made an amendment that I would consider major). 
Please let me know if you think it is out of order for me to carry on doing so. (I trust it is a useful thing to be doing, in lieu of actually writing articles?) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do continue. To the extent that it matters, the bylined author should usually get the final say if there's a disagreement about the article, but otherwise it's still a wiki and we're happy to have the benefits of other people touching things up. --Michael Snow 16:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed -- I've always appreciated the improvements you've made to "my" articles.  Sometimes it's stuff I've overlooked, and sometime's it's stuff I meant to link after looking up the proper article title, and forgot to come back to.  Your additions are helpful, especially to future readers looking through archived articles.  Please carry on!  — Catherine\talk 18:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed.  Ral315 (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh good - I'm glad I haven't offended anyone.  I really appreciate the effort that all of the "proper" authors put into their Signpost articles. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting 

message: I realise that this is verging on nit-picking, but I think it is an important distinction to make: on News and Notes and elsewhere the numbers of registered "users" is given. However, shouldn't this be number of registered accounts? You noted this when you reported on English Wikipedia reaches 1,000,000 users: "such a stat is really insignificant, due to inactive and sockpuppet accounts." Shouldn't that be made clearer when reporting these stats in future? --G Rutter 13:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Registered users/accounts 

message: A minor quibble, but the section of the current Signpost containing "In March, Answers filed a claim in a Tel Aviv court against Babylon Ltd., another Israeli company, seeking 1 million sheqels in damages (about $210,000)" could be made more international by specifying which country's currency is being used to describe the amount of damages (I'm assuming it's in US dollars). '$' as a description is imprecise, as there are more than twenty countries using this symbol for a variety of different currency types. Cheers, Ziggurat 02:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also converting to a couple of other currencies (perhaps GB£, € and AU$) would give more people a better idea of the amount than just US$. Obviously converting to every currency is OTT, but I suggest that at least one of those four will have some meaning to the vast majority of people reading the English language articles). Thryduulf 08:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure "$" means US$ in the cases where it has been used so far.  Although GBP, € and AUS$ are used more or less widely, I suspect that the US$ is most widely recognised and understood of all; unless the context told me otherwise, I would usually expect "$" on its own to mean the US dollar.  It certainly would not hurt to say US$, though.-- ALoan (Talk) 12:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh guys, this is wikipedia, the page is editable by anyone. Fix it if you find it annoying. -Ravedave 15:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it would be helpful to agree a consenus approach for the future too. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think US Dollar is fair enough; perhaps adding the pound would be good too, but not altogether necessary.  I'm not worried about adding the euro or the Australian dollar; we can't cover all currencies.  Best to hit one or two well-known ones in the English-speaking world.  Ral315 (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with the dollar on its own, especially when giving an equivalent for a local currency in the first place, but the euro is certainly the best-known and most widely-used international currency apart from the dollar, so it would be the obvious alternative. And many of our editors are not from English-speaking countries, while a fair proportion of those that are are still probably more familiar with the euro than with the GBP. Palmiro | Talk 10:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it should be up to the editor's discretion which currency to use as a rough description (on behalf of a country with one of the less well-known currencies, we all know the rough conversion rates with pounds, US dollars, and Euros already; adding them all is overkill), but it should be clearly signalled as such to avoid confusion. Ziggurat 20:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Currencies

message: The Globe & Mail wrote the following about Wikipedia:
:The Wikipedia model is not perfect, but its success has implications that go far beyond how people conduct research. It puts a question mark over the whole idea that information must move from credentialed producer to passive consumer. That presents established companies and organizations with a big challenge. Media groups will have to find a way to emulate Wikipedia and bring readers and viewers inside the tent, as this newspaper is trying to do by, among other things, inviting on-line comments and organizing question-and-answer sessions with journalists. Political parties will have to use the Web to involve an alienated public, as Howard Dean managed in his Web-driven run for the 2004 U.S. Democratic presidential nomination. Government itself, that ultimate control freak, will have to open up to the views of its Web-empowered citizens. In the same way that Wikipedia presumes "collaboration among users will improve articles over time," government should learn to accept that collaboration among citizens can change things for the better. (source)
Not a bad review, if I may say so! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globe & Mail on Wikipedia 

message: This week's News and notes, um, notes:
:The most recent Wikipedia to reach 1,000 articles was the Wikipedia in Northern Sami.
Unfortunately, this isn't true. The Urdu Wikipedia reached 1,000 articles on June 19th, 9 days after Northern Sami (and a week before the date on the article). And by my reckoning, Northern Sami was only the 99th Wikipedia to reach 1,000. This is supported by the tables at Wikipedia:Milestone statistics (which I help maintain) and m:Wikimedia News#Wikipedias (which I mostly don't). (Note that the Venetian Wikipedia just broke 1,000... and 2,000 — it actually shot up from 150 to 3,500 articles in one day!) - dcljr (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  100 x 1000 

message: This section has gotten a bit large in the last months, so it would be kind of nice to break it up a bit.  How about into article milestones, user milestones, etc?  Ingoolemo talk 23:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the matter of article milestones, and since I haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere, we're going to hit one and a quarter million articles in the next day or so... Shimgray | talk | 11:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milestones 

message: I was expecting to read the executive summary of the User:HolyRomanEmperor death scandal, which was probably a major event in the world of English and Serbian Wikipedia this week. -lethe talk [ +] 04:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual, lack of coverage basically indicates that we could use more people helping out and writing stories. In this case, I'm guessing nobody who works on the Signpost can read Serbian, so that kind of inhibits us a bit. It also seems to be a particularly challenging incident in terms of sorting out what real facts can be reported. And given the appearances, it may be the sort of thing that responsible journalism would avoid covering unnecessarily, so as not to reward manipulative conduct with additional publicity. --Michael Snow 05:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can certainly appreciate that this is difficult to report on, because it's difficult to separate facts from rumors.  But given the massive response (mostly here on en:, in English), culminating in an OFFICE action by Danny, I thought a mention was obligatory.  Of course this is a wiki, so your response is a good one; if I think it should be there, then I should write it. -lethe talk [ +] 07:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what this is about, and HRE's talk pages don't help very much - did the user (or an imposter) claim that they were dead? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dont waste your time its not very interesting. I don't belive it should even be covered.  Here's a summary (from what I understand): Person A posted info that person B was dead. Person B happened to be in the middle of a request for admin. Much confusion ensued, person B showed back up and claimed that his "cousin" was the one who said he was dead. High ranking wikiperson C blocked B and asked him to verify his identity, person B has not done so and his writing style has changed, so it is still belived that person B had their account stolen by the person A. -Ravedave 18:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And then person B oppened an account D and claims that his account B was stolen and that he had nothing to do with that. ;-) --Dijxtra 20:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HRE not covered 

message: Wikipedia:Fair use criteria was amendment today, discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment/Consensus. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment/Consensus]] 

message: I'm not sure if this would be appropriate for the Signpost or not, but I think many readers would greatly appreciate some sort of report/summary of the more significant discussions of problems and policy from the wikien-l listserv.  There's definitely plenty of content for a regular slot, but it may be too personality-based for widespread consumption.--ragesoss 02:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should most likely go to the suggestion page. Thanks. ForestH2 t/c 23:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's fine to post it here.  The problem I've found with listserv discussions is they too often are glorified IRC banter (coming from someone who uses IRC regularly and reads listserv on a semi-regular basis).  When and if they lead to things on-wiki, we cover them (and you'll note that many of our articles on major events contain a link to a relevant listserv posting).  But it's hard to say what's relevant and what's just people saying "that's a great idea!" and then never implementing it.  If someone can come up with a decent-looking mockup of what an article would look like, I'll consider the issue, but it just seems to hard to decipher the content.  Ral315 (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: listserv reports 

message: I think it needs a bit of copyediting. How can this be done? Anchoress 17:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to some help, I figured out how to do it. Anchoress 20:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian Wiki article 

message: On the 20 Sept Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment passed the 100,000 article mark for assessed articles. It seems this might be a milestone worth reporting. --Salix alba (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1.0 Assessment 

message: Covered yet?  --  Zanimum 17:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out! For future reference, though, suggestions and tips are more appropriate on the suggestions page, as this makes it easier on all of us. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Spotlight]] 

message: The news/notes claims that Telugu (21,000) is the first to go 20+ for an Indian subcontinent language. The same page says that Marathi language is now at 35k - so there is a contradiction. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's 21,000 Telugu articles and 35,000 Marathi edits. - BanyanTree 13:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Marathi is 35,000 edits, meaning saved changes, and Telugu is counting articles. In other words, two different, but equally worthy, milestones. Thanks for pointing this out, though. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telugu and Marathi error 

message: As german Signpost :de:Wikipedia:Kurier wrote, there is a increasing number of german wikipedians who share their books on the LibraryThing group "Wikipedia-Bibliothek" (Wikipedia-Library). The group was created on Sept 27., and wikipedians added more than 2000 books yet, mostly german reference books and specialiced books. Purpose of the group is to give others fast access to information and  references they need for their articles. How about creating an english "Wikipedia-Library" group? There are quite a few wikipedians who librarything  -- 172.178.30.251 21:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While the group was created in german, it is accessible from the english version of LT: http://www.librarything.com/groups/wikipediabibliothek. Unlike Wikipedia, LT does not segregate between its language versions. Circeus 00:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Library Thing 

message: Hello. The article "Wales resigns chair position as reorganization in progress" was cited in the Wikisource News article "Jimbo Wales resigns amidst restructuring". In a previous discussion, Ral315 suggested a note here when we used Signpost content. Thank you. —[admin] Pathoschild 06:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for letting us know! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Material cited by Wikisource News

message: Would you consider running these cartoons weekly in Signpost? I think Greg is only going to keep contributing them if they are included or linked to from the English Wikipedia articles, so they might be in limited supply if things don't improve, but you can at least have six weeks worth in Signpost.  --  Zanimum 14:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are great, I vote to include them. I think they should run on the Sunday editions of the signpost. :) -Ravedave (help name my baby) 06:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you'll write 8-10 stories for a Sunday edition, I'll do it; otherwise, you'll have to settle for Monday :)  Ral315 (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe eventually we'll make it to publishing more than once a week, but we'd need a lot more people writing (hint, hint). In the meantime, good illustrations are welcome too. --Michael Snow 08:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I third the motion. Kaldari 07:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, those are excellent. Let's hope he can keep producing at least one a week at that standard. Go for it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if they appear less frequently than once a week, it's worth having. I just wish we could come up with a way of getting wider circulation for them.  As a way of inticing people to read articles they wouldn't usually consider, it's a sure-thing. We should look upon these in the same way that we look upon the "Did you know..." section on the front page.  They serve a similar purpose but in a more elegant way. SteveBaker 12:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:commons:category:WikiWorld_by_Greg_Williams|WikiWorld by Greg Williams]] 

message: In one of the most disgusting acts I've seen on Wikipedia, consensus was overturned by an admin who closed the 18th GNAA deletion early (after two days!) and then deleted it. A lesson learned: if you want something deleted badly enough, keep pushing to have it deleted. After the 18th or 19th attempt, you will finally have it done. Pity we can't have a Signpost article about this issue. I'm actually seriously considering whether this project is worth my time any more. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "GNAA" meaning...? - dcljr (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gay Nigger Association of America meltBanana 20:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank god. Finally some perspective. Rebecca 01:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's right. Perspective. Jimbo informs me in an offhand manner that it should have been speedied some time ago, 100% disagree (not many issues I disagree with him on). I suppose that nothing can be done though. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenty could be done, but only if that includes finding coverage in reliable references for all the material that would be in the article. Failing that, then no. I can't figure out what's so hard about that, why it's worth getting so worked up over, or why it took so long for people to reallize enforcing content policies applies to AFD too. - Taxman Talk 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  After 18 nominations, they finally got it. 

message: Keep an eye on the Spanish Wikipedia at 178,000 articles.  The Swedish one is at 198,000, and will be the ninth edition to break the 200K barrier; with the Spanish edition over 200K, that will make the nice round number 10.  Cheers, and keep up the good work. Karl Dickman talk 11:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At current growth rates that will be about the end of February for Spanish, and some time in March if the rate slows like many of the other larger projects have. The good people here at the Signpost rarely miss the milestones for the larger projects, but the heads up is always good. :) - Taxman Talk 20:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language milestone 

message: It seems that a Wikipedia in the News item was missed in the recent Signpost: the NOS, the Dutch public broadcaster, had a teletext article about  and meta:User:Jan-Bart being appointed on the Board of Trustees:  (second bullet). Translation: "Two Dutchmen have joined the board of web encyclopedia Wikipedia. They will take care of financial matters and projects. Wikipedia is being made by volunteers from all over the world." Not much, but this is afaik the first time they've written about wikipedia. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 15:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bring that to my attention. For non-English ITN items - I can only include them if they are here since I only search in english for ITN. --Trödel 18:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll keep an eye on wikipedia in the Dutch media for you. If I come across another mention, where should I post it? Here, on your talk page or somewhere else? Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 22:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here works great  Sorry I am on a different page than I thought I was - leave suggestions for stories at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions- I always check there several times a week, and always do again right before I mark the complete for the week. --Trödel 01:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia in Dutch news 

message: In Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-12-26/In the news, under "Jimmy Wales and New Projects", what exactly does "factually-riddled" mean? 68.39.174.238 17:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a strange phrasing, but I think it was meant to be an indication that the media coverage of that "project" has been riddled with inaccuracies and misleading hype. Wikia people say they aren't planning a major search initiative that would compete at the level of Google or Yahoo, and while they have tinkered with community-based ideas for search, "Wikiasari" is an old name that doesn't apply to any effort they might eventually make along those lines. --Michael Snow 17:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What exactly does this mean? 

message: As requested on the comment:
I fixed a small typo (Experanza -> Esperanza) which pointed to a redirect. --cesarb 15:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, although the page was intended to be left at Experanza.  Ral315 (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note about minor change on page 

message: Here something to put in the signpost:
WP London Transport has launched DiPTAC. It is a new section dedicated to improving the accessibility of our articles. Today it has launched a competition to design a new logo for DiPTAC intended to bring our members closer together. I think this is great and I hope other projects do something like this aswell. It is called DiPTAC as it is the name of the original Bus interior layout intended to improve accessibility. Unisouth 19:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DiPTAC

message: G'day all, once again. I saw this article in Australia's fairfax papers about Microsoft sponsored editing of Wikipedia, in case no-one's picked it up yet. Jpeob 01:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was mentioned on Slashdot today also.  SteveBaker 01:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft "tried to doctor Wikipedia" article 

message: ...are your columns only interested in the tendentious ones, or all of them? 68.39.174.238 01:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a valid point. During the election season, I used checkuser on government ranges regularly (to prevent any electioneering  on Wikipedia) and I would say 98+% of the edits coming from government ranges are totally legitimate. Raul654 01:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd say we're interested in the newsworthy ones. That probably wouldn't be "all of them", but if there are some more worth mentioning, I'd love to know. I did point out some of this other activity when reporting on the congressional staff edits last year. --Michael Snow 03:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then they go on VP/AN, as noone'll see them here. Anyway, the one that I know of seems to be perfectly legitimate, so I wont bring it up here. 68.39.174.238 23:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About edits by governments... 

message: It would be nice to have a wikilink on the WikiWorld comic page to the article it is based on so if one wants to read more one doesn't need to copy and paste or type manually the title of the article. It might make the most sense after the paragraph about Greg Williams, just saying "This week's comic is based on [{Foo]]. JoshuaZ 16:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually linked in the byline.  Ral315 » 19:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, for some reason I didn't notice that. Never mind. JoshuaZ 19:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But what about a permalink to the revision being quoted? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikinews only publishes news.  --  Zanimum 13:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiWorld comics suggestion 

message: The Wikipedia Signpost was recently sourced in a Wikinews article: Two Wikimedia employees announce resignations. 71.80.53.227 08:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You Got Sourced! 

message: Peer review is suffering -- a year and a half ago almost every article put up for peer-review got at least four comments, but now it seems like more than half don't get any.  How about sending your intrepid reporters through the bowels of WP:BACK and please let us, the Signpost reading community, know which backlogs are the worst?  Thanks as usual for your excellent work. James S. 01:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll start working on an article soon. Not sure if it will get into the 04/30 issue; if not then the 05/07 issue. -Phoenix 02:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a backlog improvement drive? 

message: Does the Signpost cover Wikimedia Foundation news? I think it covers the big WMF stories, but I'm not sure about the other stuff. The reason I was wondering was that a recent thread (possibly newsworthy in itself) showed confusion over Gregory Maxwell's role, and I raised this here, and after ferretting around the WMF wiki pages (not that well organised, but then they have more important things to do), wondered if the changes in staff and volunteers at WMF is covered by the Signpost? I've failed to find comprehensive coverage of staff/volunteer changes in the Signpost. Maybe someone could monitor the WMF WMF resolutions page and other appropriate pages, and there could be a regular entry on WMF news in the Signpost? If these sort of things are covered more widely, there might be less confusion in future. Carcharoth 13:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe many though not all of the staff changes have been covered, but I don't remember whether Chief Research Officer (now Coordinator) was, and it's a volunteer and not staff position at any rate. We did report the resignation a couple years ago of the first person to have that role, Erik Möller. But at the volunteer level, such as a lot of the chapter activity, it's beyond our capability to "comprehensively" cover all the comings and goings. And even in terms of paid staff, some things are newsworthy and some are more behind-the-scenes, and the dynamic will probably continue to change as the Foundation adds staff. Resolutions get mentioned periodically, although sometimes the resolutions themselves are pretty bare-bones and hard to make a story out of. --Michael Snow 18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Thanks. The CRO/CRC resolution is 11th February on that list, if that helps track down whether it was mentioned. Carcharoth 09:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimedia Foundation news 

message: The section about my unreferenced BLPs list seems to stipulate that I created my list as a result of the ongoing conversations that have been going on. While I was definitely aware of the situations OTRS persons have to deal with, I actually was unaware of such conversation until recently. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 15:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-23/News and notes 

message: Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-05-28/BLP%2C_DRV%2C_ARB%2C_IRC - Some questions for the editor/writer... Jenolen  speak it! 08:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about an article... 

message: there's a bad link here but I wasn't able to fix it easily because the actual content wasn't there. Mkultra72 12:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  templates are bad 

message: I think that the list of articles that were/are promoted to FA should be separated by semicolons, not commas. That would prevent any confusion with articles such as Erie, Pennsylvania, which, especially (or rather, only) in the email format, makes it confusing. 69.19.14.27 00:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's something I honestly hadn't considered; actually, what might be better is separating them differently in the e-mail format.  I'll try something out this time, let me know what you think.  Ral315 » 19:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article commas 

message: Again, some questions for the writer/editor... (not sure if this was noted before)
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-07-09/Board elections
Thanks,
Jenolen  speak it! 06:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about another article...  

message: I would fix this myself, but I am not sure how to word. On the bug review section, it says documentation on mediawiki's features is on meta. It should not be on meta, and this will encourage users to create it there. It should all be on mediawiki.org, where it is in the progress of being moved to. Could someone change this? Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, documentation on how to use the features (for users) is and ought to be on meta; see m:Help:Contents and Help:Contents (the local enwiki version, of which many pages are transwikied from Meta). Documentation on how to set up and run a wiki ought to be on mediawiki.org (although I appreciate that some of it is on meta by mistake). Compare m:Help:Reverting (correctly on Meta in my opinion) and mw:Manual:Edit token, for instance. The wording probably needs to be clarified further. ais523 10:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, see the user hub on mediawiki.org. User instructions etc should be on mediawiki.org, the reason it is not fully is the fact that the help namespace on mediawiki.org is PD. It is in progress of being moved over, just that dev stuff is a higher priority. Only wikimedia-wiki-specific information should be on meta. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgent issue 

message: A very interesting BBC article here on Wikipedia: 
"Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits
By Jonathan Fildes
Science and technology reporter, BBC News
An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organisations that edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the CIA was involved in editing entries.
Wikipedia Scanner allegedly shows that workers on the agency's computers made edits to the page of Iran's president.
It also purportedly shows that the Vatican has edited entries about Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams."
Hmm. Might be an explanation for the way articles relating to the Provisional Irish Republican Army and their activities get routinely sanitised... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the news 

message: I just wanted to draw your attention to the e-mail I sent to the various mailing lists:
----
Hi, some of you probably already noted that we are starting to work on the fundraiser. Over time you will see some requests for help here and I hope you will do so  :-)
At this stage there are two active tasks and one of it is the creation of the Buttons for the fundraiser.
Description:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2007/Buttons_and_banners_to_be_translated
First examples and translations:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2007/web_buttons
So if you have ideas to create buttons, banners etc: just do it :-)
Wishing you a creative and wonderful day!
Sabine 
----
If you have a way to get this out to people that would be great - thank you! -- 6 September 2007 Sabine  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.180.151.172 (talk) 09:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buttons for Fundraiser 2007 

message: No idea if thats appropriate here, but as I did not find a better place I'll mention it here: German Magazine Der Spiegel reports in his online edition about "strife in web lexicon" and "Wikipedia-founder not allowed to write" ("Wikipedia-Gründer darf nicht mitschreiben") , listing another four of the absurdest Wikipedia-Debates, including Vossstraße oder Voßstraße?. See also . No idea whether they put it in the print edition, too (out each Monday). -- Matthead discuß!     O       18:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:POST/N/S is probably the best place to post suggestions for things to cover, but it's likely this post will be seen here as well. --ais523 08:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, mentioned it there, too. -- Matthead discuß!     O       13:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the news: Spiegel 

message: Not sure where to stick this, so here goes:
From the latest b3ta newsletter:
>> Quopedia vandalism <<
"Hello b3ta Towers," blurps danbull45, "We
would like to divulge to you the following very
sinister secret. Using a variety of aliases and
cunning page edits, we have now subtly shopped
Status Quo into nearly 200 different photos on
Wikipedia. Our aim is for every image in
Wikipedia to have Teh Quo hidden somewhere
within it. We'd like to show you the fruits of
our labour, but for obvious reasons can't
reveal the location of each image - so here is
a taster of our handiwork. Perhaps your
newsletter's readers could aid us in our
glorious mission?"
There is a weblink in the original newsletter to a photo: the same photo is in the Notting Hill carnival (photo of the crowd) and is vandalised. 86.134.10.119 15:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For those of you without eagle eyes - Status Quo are about 4 oclock from the 'Kebabs Fish and Chips' sign at the left of the image, quite small so you'll have to squint 86.134.10.119 15:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Status Quo related Vandalism

message: I've finally completed a total rewrite of the article USA PATRIOT Act. Rather than do the editing on the main article and cause it to be in an unfinished state for long periods, I wrote a draft and polished it there. The draft can be found at Talk:USA PATRIOT Act/Draft. 
I have worked on this in sections. The edit history can be found at:
* Talk:USA PATRIOT Act/Draft/Lead
* Talk:USA PATRIOT Act/Draft/Background
* Talk:USA PATRIOT Act/Draft/History
* Talk:USA PATRIOT Act/Draft/Titles summary
* Talk:USA PATRIOT Act/Draft/Controversy
What I did, if anyone is interested, was to work backwards. Most people write the article and then create umbrella articles, however I did things differently. I read each of the titles in turn, and tried to summarise them into a usable form. Those articles are at varying degrees of quality. The articles are USA PATRIOT Act, Title I, USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, USA PATRIOT Act, Title IV, USA PATRIOT Act, Title V, USA PATRIOT Act, Title VI, USA PATRIOT Act, Title VII, USA PATRIOT Act, Title VIII, USA PATRIOT Act, Title IX and USA PATRIOT Act, Title X. Then I summarised these articles into a titles section. Before this, I wrote and researched the history of the Act and I hope that this is fairly comprehensive. 
The reason that I decided to undergo this mamoth task was because in 2004 Law Professor Orin Kerr wrote a highly critical blog entry about our article. This was then noted by slashdot, which is how I noticed his blog post. So I decided to have a read of the entry, then read the article itself, fully expecting to be outraged at how unfair the Professor was towards the project. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that the article really was that bad. It has remained in much the same state every since. 
I therefore decided that I would focus my attentions on this article. Precisely how hard could it be? Well, had I known the time and effort that this was to have taken me, I might have chosen an easier topic! There is information out there on the Partiot Act, but much of it is distorted or biased by either supporters or detractors. Another issue is that many of the titles just aren't documented, so I've read the entire Act on my own, aided by Patrick Leahy's section summary, CRS's summary and many other sources that do actually talk about the Act. This took me over two years to do, in which time I neglected editing other articles. 
Along the way, however, I've learned a lot. I have a better understanding of how the U.S. Government works, how laws are created, how the U.S. Code is put together and how to read Acts of Congress. I've also learned how to use THOMAS and that the U.S. has this great service call the Congressional Research Service, which does an invaluable job of summarising and providing info about U.S. legislation. 
So it's been fun! I do hope that people can get something useful out of this article now, as when I first read it I couldn't make heads nor tails of what the Act did, or why it was so controversial. There were also major gaps and inaccuracies in the article. It should be a lot better organized and informative now. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? In other circumstances I might have said "Well done!", but why mention it here..? --Kjoonlee 19:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was hoping that an editor would notice and write a signpost article. :-) Ta bu shi da yu 04:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Wanting to advertise a different way to edit? Carcharoth 01:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tell me that "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" being the full expansion of USA PATRIOT Act is a bad joke? They spent the time thinking up words to fit "patriot" that could have been spent, oh I don't know, gathering intelligence on terrorists? Carcharoth 01:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. Call your local member of Congress. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be Gordon Brown, member for the 51st state. Carcharoth 09:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, sorry. I'll do that :-) Ta bu shi da yu 10:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[USA PATRIOT Act]] rewrite completed 

message: If there is no other movie on earth citing wikipedia article, then this Indian Hindi langauge movie Bhool Bhulaiyaa is the first one to cite wikipedia article Shirley Mason although this article is changed since the date of shooting.
TRIRASH 16:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia article citation in movie 

message: Wikipedia page the latest status symbol
Quite an interesting article by Reuters on the process of notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. Ariel♥Gold 22:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia in the news 

message: Is there a link where we can see the total money in dollars raised in this drive in real time? • Lawrence Cohen 15:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I don't think so.  I've had to tally it by hand for this week's article...  Ral315 » 22:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's here: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en/node/22. I only found it due to a link on Talk:Main Page (in a comment by Eloquence). --ais523 13:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As of 2007-11-05 Amount of Contributions in USD is 390,829.74 with roughly 1000 contributors a day and 1000 dollars an hour; but to be exact, 27.80 dollars per contribution so far. WAS 4.250 17:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundraiser story 

message: I've been reading the candidate statements and I find it slightly odd that the categories for adminship, etc. are listed as "Local rights" and "Global rights". I know this sounds picky, but something like "duties" or "responsibilities" sounds a bit less demeaning to the rest of us, who are apparently not "more equal", as George Orwell would say. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 11:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it slightly because not all are rights, but strictly speaking, adminship, bureaucratship, etc. are considered rights within the software; that's where the terminology comes from.  To call them duties or responsibilities would not entirely be truthful -- there's nothing requiring an administrator to actually do anything.  I think "rights/positions" covers it best.  Ral315 » 03:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. (I thought becoming an administrator did have the expectation of responsibilities, but perhaps I misunderstand.) Awadewit | talk 05:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I certainly hope that we haven't given up at least paying lip service to the idea of admin responsibilities. Kaldari (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certainly there are expectations, but an administrator could conceivably become an administrator and then do nothing, with no repercussions.  Certainly there are requirements that one not act negatively with the rights, but administrators who leave the project, for example, do not lose the right for doing so, even though they've stopped helping out.  This is a bit off-topic anyway; I was trying to analyze the meaning of the words, not make a statement about administrators :)  Ral315 » 15:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidate statements 

message: A user wrote this on my talk page, posting here:
: Not sure if this counts as an "in the news" type of thing, but wikipedia was insulted in a recent episode of the Simpsons. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Simpsons 

message: Consider whether these discussions belong here or on the Signpost Tip Line.  -- SEWilco 21:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point; the tip line is a much better spot for many of these discussions -- they're more likely to be noticed and reported on there.  Ral315 21:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why isn't a highly visible link to the tip line added at the top of this discussion page? Badagnani (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think there should only be one page - because discussion about the Signpost and discussion about future content are usually somewhat intertwined. I suggest that we archive one of the two pages and redirect that to the other? enochlau (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tips or Signpost talk? 

message: I discovered the article Surface diffusion through WP:DYK. That article, less than a week old, contains numerous references, images created specifically for it, and other fantastic work. Can't we do something to celebrate creators of such great content, like User:Runningamok19? Adam Cuerden talk 08:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its its a signpost thing, thats up to Ral315.  But may I suggest your give Runningamok19 a day in his honor on the model of User:Phaedriel/Today/Archive and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_holidays? Mbisanz (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: I notice that Lir, who was banned in January 2005 as a result of the Snowspinner vs. Lir arbitration, saw his ban finally expire on Monday after almost three years.  I only make note of this fairly useless bit of information because the ban of Lir was the first item ever reported in "The Report On Lengthy Litigation", in Volume 1, Issue 1 of the Signpost on January 10, 2005.  Congrats on the milestone (such as it were)! --JayHenry (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice; I noticed the expiration, but not the connection to Volume 1, Issue 1.  I don't necessarily think we should cover it, though, in fairness to Lir.  Should Lir become a problem user, I'm sure we'll report on the ensuing community ban that I'm sure would occur; otherwise, if he's interested in editing constructively, I don't wish to call him out.  (The most likely possibility, of course, is that Lir won't edit again under that name, but that's another story).  Ral315 (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah I agree it's not worth covering.  I just wanted to share at WT:POST because I figured other hardcore Signpost fans (and writers and editors, of course) would get a kick out of it, as I did! --JayHenry (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The arbitration case says 1 year. Ah. I see. One of those frequently reset bans due to block evasion with sockpuppets. That should have been noted at the arbitration case page. But still, it's all in the block logs. Or maybe the checkusers got tired of checking. Carcharoth (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amusing milestone 

message: See http://thephoenix.com/Article.aspx?id=52864&page=1 Badagnani (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it reads like the slew of articles that came out about wikipedia in 2005, with a few grafs tucked here and there about recent complications. It sounds like the author and/or editors discovered wikipedia two months ago. ("Hey - anybody can edit; that's weird! Let's write about it.") - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's still refreshing that people can do human interest WIkipedia stories without going for the teacher or Seigenthaler angle. Circeus (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For next Signpost: one of the best articles ever written about WP 

message: I have placed a post on the above linked page explaining some of the rationale for the decision, and would be delighted to answer any additional questions that the signpost editors might wish to ask.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe UC meant to post this link Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Proposed decision#Case reasoning and guidance for other administrators Mbisanz (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, thanks. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This is an interesting post by UC (and I agree entirely with what he has said). It might be an idea if someone points this development out to the editor who writes the Arbitration report part of the Signpost. They might miss it here, or might only be looking at the tip line page. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That appears to be User:David.Mestel Mbisanz (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note left. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman 

message: I've noticed that many of the content and editor conduct RfC's posted lately haven't received much community participation.  Perhaps, in addition to the ArbCom case report, you might list the open RfC's with a brief description of each.  RfC participation is important because they are one of the most important steps in dispute resolution. Cla68 (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, there's just too many content Rfc's for me to cover. I think Jake should be able to help out next week; though, so maybe we could add something then? If you'd like to add the content/editor Rfc's to DRAMA you'll be welcomed with chocolate chip cookies. :D §hepTalk 22:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I'll try to help out with it. Cla68 (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue going out on the 23rd is just getting started at User:Stepshep/Signpost. If you'd like to add content to this week's edition that'd be the place for an eventual merge. The cookies are good. Promise. §hepTalk 23:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: Can you talk a bit about the Graphic Labs. That s an interesting graphic initiative, and we just openned a Map lab :] --Yug (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: What do you guys think about adding WP:UPDATE's monthly summary of guideline changes? If would have to be modified a bit to fit with the post's style, but it's very useful information just not widely publicized. I count that at the end of January it had about 40 or so hits for the January report for one page and less than 20 for another. The author might even agree to provide us one in the Posts' format if we ask nicely. Thoughts? §hepTalk 22:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could just a line in News and notes pointing readers to the summary in the issue after each new summary becomes available.  I don't see how these digests could be condensed much more, and there's no need to duplicate the effort by re-writing it all over again just to fit Signpost style when a link will do just fine.  Just a thought.--ragesoss (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Of course, if written in a form that works with the Signpost (i.e., more prose), I think running it as a monthly feature might work too.--ragesoss (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy with a single link in NN. I just thought that part of the project could use a flashlight. §hepTalk 00:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couple more things 

message: This is an excellent addition to the Signpost.  Too often, discussions go on with limited input simply because the majority of editors are unaware of them.  I think that this should be included every week.  I'd suggest following the example of the Lengthy Litigation page by including discussions from prior weeks.  Maybe have two sections:  One at the top:  Newly Listed Discussions and then underneath it, Previously Listed Discussions.  Once a discussion has been closed, drop it from the list.  Unschool 08:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion report 

message: Hi!  I'd like to draw your attention to a new working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial coordinators together so that projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate.  This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators. We are also planning a better coordinatopn among all projects and centralizing.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group.  If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. —  Delievered by §hepTalk on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 20:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinators' working group 

message: Would anyone be objected to going over to the Graphic Lab to see if anyone over there would be interested in carrying out WikiWorld. The comic artist seems to want to approve anything that uses "his" name of WikiWorld, but something similar maybe? Of course they'd have to go under the scrutiny of Ragesoss and others before they got okayed, but that always looked like a neat section that brought some light to obscure articles and a bit of humor which we could always use. Or maybe the project was discontinued here for a reason? Thanks, §hepTalk 00:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason it was discontinued was because Greg Williams stopped making new comics.  (Actually, the Signpost continued running repeats for a while when new comics were occasional and it was unclear whether Williams would pick it up again.)  I'd love to have new comics to run, but producing decent comics is no simple task, even for people with graphics skills and/or writing skills.--ragesoss (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some artists over there that seem to have a stream of FPs created. I'll see if anyone would have interest; then post back for you to review if some talent bites the bait. Thanks, §hepTalk 01:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Humorous wikipedia-culture cartoons are not necessarily out of the question. Fr:'s Rama has made some rather funny stuff. Circeus (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

text: No.  No you cannot ask why.--ragesoss (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  heh, I read it and thought "that sounds a lot like a similar article I read a while ago" but didn't catch the date :) Regardless, it's a good article! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comic 

message: The AJR article appears to be from this time, 2008. Can I ask why it was included? §hepTalk 21:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  No you cannot ask why.--ragesoss (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  heh, I read it and thought "that sounds a lot like a similar article I read a while ago" but didn't catch the date :) Regardless, it's a good article! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: In the news

message: Just to let you know we're setting up an "Other news" section for the article alerts (see WP:AAlerts/News). It's not live yet, but since you guys hound the 'pedia for news-related stuff, I thought I'd let you know. What would be acceptable in this (IMO) is anything that WikiProjects would have an interest in, and Signpost releases. I'm also letting you know so you can monitor the "new request page" so you can get ideas for the signpost coverage.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article alerts "news ticker". 

message: I think it might be useful to include in each issue a brief editing tip — the kind of stuff that a lot of editors might not know about. For example
* If you put stub templates after categories, the stub categories will appear at the end of the category list.
* You can link to a page that starts with a leading slash, such as :/dev/null, by including a leading colon in your link: :/dev/null.
* You can make a multi-paragraph bullet point by using  to separate the paragraphs: * Paragraph 1Paragraph 2.
Hesperian 23:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing tip of the week

message: It was great to see some unusual articles in this week's Signpost - love the followup on the Obama story, and really loved the bit about the researchers who analyzed the arb processes.
Well done, really interesting stuff.
- Philippe 02:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to second this btw. Last weeks issue was one of the best ever.  --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Love this week's... 

message: The title for Arbcom matters ("Report on Lengthy Litigation") might be better changed to "Arbitration activities" or "Arbitration cases and activities" or some such:
# Arbcom has for some time deprecated and discouraged words that have "real world" legal meaning such as "probation" and "litigation". They have potential to be assumed to have a similar meaning when quoted off wikipedia, leading to potential defamatory impact if reported using such terms.
# A lot of Arbcom activity isnt just "cases", and the section often reports (or would be improved by reporting) the committee's other major activities when there are such.
# It sounds pretentious. And nobody calls it anything like that :)
FT2 (Talk | email) 01:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: These come up in a quick search of the linked archives. 1, 2, 3, and 4. Past editor-in-chiefs have commented there. §hepTalk 01:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't sound very pretentious in the abbreviated form, which is actually the point :) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section title for Arbcom case reports 

message: The article says: "Larry Sanger posted an open letter to Jimmy Wales' talk page last week, outlining his dispute with Wales over the issue of who founded Wikipedia."
That's not how I would put it.  I did not outline the whole dispute, nor was my letter focused first and foremost on "the issue of who founded Wikipedia."  Rather, I took Jimmy Wales to task for his lies about me.  What inspired the letter was not a lack of agreement on the foundership issue, but instead, several specific lies and misrepresentations about me in the recent Hot Press interview, and in other public sources in the past.
Quite poor reporting on the subject altogether. --Larry Sanger (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, when Jimmy Wales appeared on German nationwide early-morning TV program Morgenmagazin on April 6, he was introduced by the moderator as "co-founder together with Larry Singer [sic]." The program's web page for that day states,  (Jimmy Wales, or Jimbo as he is called in the culture, founded the online encyclopedia jointly with Larry Sanger in the U.S. in 2001.) --Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  My open letter