Knowledge talk:Knowledge Signpost/Archive 15

443:, in that the Signpost should have been objective and NPOV-like, or it should should have been sticking up for the underdog and victim in the case, which was me. You don't have to accept that exactly, but it was specifically unfair and awful in ways that I could now argue better, starting with its subjective naming as being a case about me (which I disputed back then but, if space allowed, could argue better now)....which several Arbcom members naively argued would not affect their views, ignorantly and incorrectly disregarding selection bias that would affect who would and did come to give their opinions in the case). Another way it was unfair was that it put me on trial without representation (there is not a Knowledge-recognized right for such, but as a matter of human decency there should be)...I knew all along during the slow-motion Arbcom experience that I was not coming across great. I was totally unprepared and basically unable to participate constructively in my own defense... I knew that I needed representation...I decided back then that I was totally willing to pay $ 10,000 for legal/PR representation (a huge amount for me, but what I was willing to budget given how personally significant/intrusive the Arbcom case was going to be, and how important to myself I perceived my participation in Knowledge to have been), but there was no way to secure any such. About the Signpost coverage, I perceive(d) there was newsworthiness, some reason for Signpost to observe this was going on, but the Signpost plunged wrong in taking up one side, unfairly. I did appreciate those comments which I quote. I may add a bit more, but reconsidering this is painful even now. --Doncram ( 5462:(Wegweiser, in the Signpost Publishing Script, in Module:Signpost, and also in the SignpostTagger) all of which interact with the modules. For article pictures, since every image we want to use for an article doesn't come in a pretty correct-aspect-ratio version, this means we have to have a scaling factor, x offset, and y offset (in addition to image link, author name, and license text). Since I didn't want to do this gigantic ton of extra code twice (see, allowing different aspect ratios for images would require a scaling factor/X and Y offset for the 2:3 and also for the 1:1 and God forbid somebody wants a 3:2 portrait version!) -- I just said, you know, whatever, I will just have there be a single set of params for 1:1 images -- then on the main page for the Signpost we can just have text overlaying the bottom part of it so that, in actual practice, we are still dealing with a 3:2 or 16:9 or other landscape-ratio image (because this is what all of the news sites I looked at seem to have, and it looks pretty good) but we just have the lower part of the image less visible because of the overlay. Anyway, this was the idea at the time -- you can see the implementation is not perfect. 576:. What the OP links to as a "Signpost article" is not a news article. Signpost writes news articles about arbitration proceedings in its regular arbcom notes section. Those should be written neutrally in a straight news style. However, the piece linked in the OP isn't a news article or even in the arbcom notes section. It's a review. Reviews are not neutral, nor should they be. It's not a review of an arbcom case, it's a review of a paper. That the paper is also the subject of an arbcom case is not the Signpost's problem, or the reviewers problem. Of course reviews should give the opinion of the reviewer. That's the whole point of a review. Nobody did anything wrong by publishing a review even if some editors disagree with the review. The week prior, Signpost published another opinion piece about the same paper, that was also not neutral, and that's fine too. Ultimately, I'd like to see the Signpost draw clearer lines between news and opinion in its reporting, but the research review section is clearly opinion. And NPOV applies to mainspace articles, not to the Signpost. 1593:- While Signpost writers and editors all ought to do their best to be fair (and I'd recommend taking the SPJ to heart), there's no reason to force them to not talk about ArbCom cases. To expand on some of the thing said in this discussion, there's also no obvious bright line that would limit such a requirement being only for ArbCom cases. ArbCom cases may be serious, but they're simply a specific type of community-defined process to resolve issues. If they can't talk about active ArbCom cases because it somehow pollutes the ArbCom discussion, then that same argument would apply to ANI cases or RFCs or pretty much any process in which the community is having to make a decision between two or more competing opinions. If people widely think that the Signpost's voice is a proxy for Knowledge's official position, then the solution is to make that relationship clearer, not weaken its voice. 1038:

article. Yeah, I know several of the other parties from the war in Ukraine articles, and yes I have opinions about them. This is however irrelevant to my point here. The Signpost review started from the assumption that Grabowski's article was entirely factual. That was erroneous and morally wrong. It's completely against any ethical code of journalism I have ever encountered. Yet if it is to ever regain any pretention to objectivity (not that in my opinion it has even that at the moment) then Knowledge cannot get involved in legislating what it can cover. However, safe harbor only applies if it acts in accordance with the reasonable man rule after problems are brought to its attention. Knowledge shouldn't regulate it, but I also don't think it should host it either. If it wants to be Wikipediasucks or Wikipediocracy then let find another webhost.

498:

have just quoted). Again, you don't have to agree with me that I was entirely a victim in the Arbcom case (but the upshot of it was that one of the two principal opponents was desyssoped and banned from interaction with me, and both basically lost interest in editing in the NRHP area once they did not have me to harrass. I returned to the NRHP area a few years later and have contributed mightily, while they disappeared.). But it looks to me that I was absolutely a victim in the Signpost coverage, and I dunno which emotion to go with right now... sadness, disappointment, outrage...shame (about the Signpost's role, given that I feel I have supported and generally identify with the Signpost, and/or that I have not myself done more in the 10 years since to take action within/about the Signpost's coverage of arbcom affairs). --Doncram (

1078:

Some groups of editors try to fill gaps in processes. Editors collaborating on the Signpost are interested in one method of building community ties: delivering news items and commentary on a regular basis. Whether or not the community chooses to read the results is up to each user. I don't think the community is well-served by singling out one type of external item upon which the Signpost shouldn't comment. If the community feels there is a problem with the quality of commentary, I think it should first seek to remove the Signpost notices from the watchlist, as Bilorv suggests. The Signpost is only influential amongst those who are interested in letting it influence them, which is the same as for any editor who writes commentary, be it on a talk page, a Knowledge-space page, a user-space page, or elsewhere.

461:, to which I responded. With 10 years of perspective, right now I actually view the Signpost report as likely being somewhat interesting and relevant to potential readers, and fairly objective/balanced. My responses there which objected to the coverage, though, seem to me to be also valid back then and relevant now, including how I started "I don't think this coverage is professional or useful. Probably no coverage is what I would prefer, for any ongoing mediation or arbitration case." In my response I mentioned having seen the previous "clearing" (which was discussion about the drafted, not-yet-live Signpost article) and perceiving that my comments in that were essentially ignored. Looking at that "clearing" now, I am pretty shocked. I feel now like I had not been personally notified (but 5409:

a bunch of old accidental redirects from typos, unused shortcuts and the like; in January of this year I deleted one with no incoming links and no pageviews (the PrefixIndex being crammed with unused junk pages makes it harder for scripts and queries to work properly). But the speedy deletion was contested, and it was demanded that I go through a formal RfD discussion, which took an excruciating three months and was finally closed at the end of March. The discussion was eventually closed with a consensus to delete, but three months of time that I could have spent fixing stuff, I spent sitting on my butt doing nothing, because I had to wait for a formal committee process to approve it.

517:, I stated that the Signpost had garbled its coverage of one issue, and that "I didn't comment within this article's "clearing"; I feel my comments in the last Signpost's similar clearing didn't have useful effect" and that in my opinion "The Signpost coverage should not be open to editing by arbitration participants, including me. The Signpost coverage should not take a stance either way." The official response, which was from the editor who wrote all the arbitration coverage during that perioed, in its entirety was: "Please do not treat your personal opinion as fact. James (T • C) • 9:50pm • 10:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)" Which is infuriating to me as I read it now. --Doncram ( 2463:" - This is in regards to comment sections, and I'll respond to this one first. As I noted above, many online editions of traditional newspapers are closing down their comments sections, as there is very little benefit to be had in the sections that are rife with trolling, and few, if any, legitimate debates about the topic that can stay on course, as opposed to descending into vitriolic flamewars. If a Sp writer posts an Op.Ed. about an open ArbCom case, to what benefit is it to have an ArbCom party respond via the Sp comments section? That person is then not on equal footing with the Sp writer, something he would have at the case venue. 2148:(that is, signpost articles, not comments) as the original writers. Currently, the Signpost deadlines are fairly close to publication. I would suggest changing articles with substantive comments about another editor to work to an earlier deadline (perhaps, 3 days?), to allow fair comparison. The reasoning for this is primarily that the Signpost is one of the few cases where one editor will have a bully pulpit with a substantively different medium to anyone responding to them. Hopefully this could mitigate the issues we've seen without eliminating the ability to write about aspects that matter to many. 738:. It's a review of a paper and the response to it. It does take a side as to some things that happened on-wiki which were covered in that paper, but not about an arbcom case. That an arbcom case also emerged from that paper doesn't mean the paper becomes off limits for the Signpost. Should the Signpost take sides on editorial disputes covered in papers? Perhaps in exceptional cases only? But that's not what this RfC is asking, so what I think about it doesn't matter. I agree that the Signpost shouldn't take sides in an ongoing arbcom case, but again, that's not what happened. — 477:. I asked: "Is this a live article? I was notified of this article-in-progress. When does the article go live? I haven't yet posted much in the case." I specifically objected to one thing "The Ellen-of-roads quote is presented as a condemnation, when phrasing before and after the quoted text is left out that changes the meaning significantly. It is misleading as presented." There was no response, except for one person chiding me (I don't know if they were Signpost staff or not) with "Please take this to the arbitration page, this isn't the place for this discussion. 3902: 5403:, which allowed us to actually use the tagging system and module which had been developed most of the way to completion in 2014-15 and then abandoned. I was basically fine with nobody caring about most of this, because I was not doing it for the glory, just because it had to be done at some point. The newsroom display and the next-issue mockup is pretty much completely automated at this point, which eliminates the previously difficult-and-unreliable process of manually updating it. There are a lot of things like this, which I am pretty happy about. 5299: 473:

the Signpost should not let a bot make promises for it.) Because of that notification and/or because I might have recent contributions by the principal opponents to me in the Arbcom case, I arrived and saw the drafted Signpost article. I see that the two principal opponents to me in the Arbcom had been busy tailoring the Signpost coverage for their advantage and had achieved what they wanted, with two responses from the Signpost writer(s), and they thanked the writer(s) for having adopted their suggestions. What I said then can be seen in

4691:, a reminder that 1) the Signpost has been published bi-weekly or even weekly for much of its existence, 2) it doesn't have a pre-set number of stories to fill for every issue, 3) a big problem with the monthly schedule around 2022 or so were humongous 20+ story issues that were both hard for the average reader to digest (we only get subscribers' attention once for each issue) and actually presented more work to curate, fact-check and edit than two <10 story bi-weekly issues. Regards, 31: 1531:, the Signpost is a safe place to explore different opinions and points of view. Provided there is overall balance - and as has been pointed out, the previous issue contained an article on the same subject from the other side of the argument and nobody complained - and as long as there's a bit of distinction between "actual" news and opinion pieces like this one, then it's all good. Knowledge is not censored and the Signpost should be even less censored than the rest of the project. 2690:, I wonder: Is that how any of us treat the people we care about? I can't imagine you saying to anyone "Sorry, don't tell me how you're feeling about your parents' divorce. I'm only going to form my opinion on the basis of evidence presented in the case. If you have something to say about their dispute, then you should say it to the court, or the comment should not be made at all. Otherwise, your comment will be a hindrance to the goal of resolving the dispute fairly." 2204:

observations. If this were allowed to continue, new people might jump in, raising ideas of their own. Before we know it, dozens of people might be debating ideas. And of course, somebody new to the conversation will want to revisit the older discussions, and will probably want to reinterpret the whole thing, sparking an entirely new round of opinions, rebuttals, and replies. This could spread to other languages if we're not careful. It could really go on forever--for

2648:

presented in the case, not a partisan opinion piece in a venue that thinks of itself as, and attempts to be, a community newspaper. If someone has something to say about a dispute (rather than factual reporting of the ongoing resolution process) then either they should say it in the appropriate section of the arbitration case pages or in private to the committee via email. If neither of those would be appropriate then the comment should not be made at all.

1940:, I think you greatly overestimate the reach of the Signpost and who they claim to be writing these articles on behalf of (as was previously discussed with you at the recent AN(I?) discussion that led to this RFC). I know the writers like to think they're making a change in the wider world, but republication elsewhere is the rare event, so it's almost entirely and only wiki editors who get and care about what the Signpost has to say. 1058:. NPOV is about pages in article space, which the SignPost is not. The linked article is a review of a scholarly paper on Knowledge, which in the abstract, is a reasonable thing for the Signpost to cover, and which will intrinsically be at least somewhat subjective. I see that the linked article includes links and summaries of the responses to the paper which is probably the bare minimum required not to run afoul of 316:. ArbCom cases are difficult for all involved, including the Arbitration Committee. Pick any case you've participated in, or just scanned through. Tempers flare, accusations are made, and it can evolve into something vindictive after the case is closed. We elected the ArbCom committee to handle that difficult process. Signpost should not be a venue for one or more individuals to go around ArcCom and plead the case. 1467:- Signpost articles should strive to remain neutral on open Arbcom cases and case requests. Arbcom case itself is already a very stressful affair for the involved parties, adding non-neutral opinion pieces in the only "media" wikipedia has on top of it is simply not productive nor needed. If someone really urgently wants to opine on the topic, then that's exactly what actual Arbcom case pages are there for.-- 3880:(by toggling 'Desktop site'‡ button under the hamburger menu) it reflows the page and things usually look fine… even on the dumpster fire mobile web version. Also: within the Knowledge mobile apps, data comes off the Wikimedia API so, formatting is stripped, and images live on separate lines from text. Apps are buggy as all hell in their on right, however (often can't reply on this very page for example)… 2306:

Trek-like utopia you seem to think this will lead to, it would be more like a cross between the old IMDb messageboards and 4chan. Either way, it would not be what the Sp is now.) This is the part I find "silly". For any of kind back-and-forth discussion, editors, including Sp writers, should use any one of the numerous venues already in place, and just let the Signpost continue to be a "community

4434: 3931:. Files are displayed within tables – rendering engine of the browser tries to wedge those tables into a tiny viewport, instead of doing sensible wordwrapping. The two coupled together = pain and suffering… with WMF web developers doing the flogging… Also doesn't matter if JP makes markup changes on their posts, as the mobile version here overrides competent formatting or markup choices. -- 3225: 2187:. Sp writers can post their opinions there, just like everybody else, and the venue is already set-up for writers to respond to opinions that involve them. If it's not ArbCom, there are already user and article talk pages, WikiProjects and noticeboards where Sp writers can post comments abouts other editors. Hopefully this RfC will clear up just what the Signpost is, and isn't. - 1331:. Many ArbCom cases (like the current ADMINCOND case request) are pretty boring, but the Holocaust in Poland one is pretty crucial to how Knowledge exists and is perceived by the broader public. We should be taking advantage of the increased attention and focus on the issue to dive deeper into the case through Signpost articles, blog posts, etc., not shying away from it. 1780:. Is there no policy or guideline anywhere that even explains the terms under which it operates? If there aren't, I'd have to suggest that there should be. As it stands, it appears to be under the control of a self-appointed editorial team, who exercise control of content. Something that we wouldn't tolerate in any other Knowledge context that immediately comes to mind. 998:, I think that the concept of "personal attack" might not be the relevant one. We have a narrow idea of what constitutes a personal attack, largely meaning direct name-calling for an identifiable individual. But what we call a personal attack is not exactly the same thing as what makes people feel attacked, and I think it's the latter point that is relevant. 1013:). You can look superficially nice and still make someone feel hurt, excluded, or belittled. You can look superficially nice and still destroy communities. One of the questions here might be: Even if it's "legal" for The Signpost to amplify one POV of an open dispute, is that ultimately a behavior that builds up our community or that hurts us? 1997:, I'd make it short and sweet: a smallish editorial board elected for fixed terms by the community, with a mandate to adhere to the spirit of WP:NPOV, and specific instructions to avoid giving excessive weight to any content bearing on the alleged negative behaviour of named contributors currently under discussion by ArbCom, at ANI, or the like. 5037:? We have black text on black backgrounds (accessibility problem), overlapping images, and images that exceed the cell-like spaces that they are being put in. The large images are not aligned vertically when the captions are different lengths, and the images overlap some of the text. It has looked bad for a few months now. I tried to insert a 2705:

likely to hinder as arbcom is not a court and so is structured differently to divorce proceedings (at least how they are conducted in the UK), and these fundamental differences to legal processes are why a piece like this is more harmful to Knowledge than it would be to a court case - and yet it is court cases that have protections for

5421:

doing things that break stuff, or intiating gigantic timesink processes, and cause dozens of hours of pointless busywork, and they don't care, because my labor is worth $ 0 -- and I can't raise the price, or get people to stop buying it, so the only option I have is to stop selling it entirely, so I have mostly stopped doing technical

423:"It is not particularly appealing to have the signpost judge (even a part of) an ArbCom case before it has even been heard. It is also questionable whether it should report some of the more hyperbolic statements cited by parties, third hand. Two layers of selection bias is quite enough. Rich Farmbrough, 23:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC). 1680:, as a former Signpost writer, you've got to follow your gut. It's a brave piece, not one I might have written, but thought provoking, something I think all signpost writers have in the back of their mind. I always tended towards balancing, but there's a line where you can balance bias that you can argue this piece walks along. 1610:- Per Levivich. I have disagreed with a lot of stuff that the Signpost has published in the past, but journalism requires opinion pieces as well as neutral reporting. What I would prefer would be having them put in a disclaimer at the start of any article which is opinion or review; there I expect reliability over neutrality. 5069:

As long as everyone is complaining, I might as well voice my own gripe. In the good old days (yeah, former glory, wooden ships and iron men) the front page was a list of headlines, or rather sections and subsections. It was easy to read. This year, half the text is superimposed on a background photo.

2343:

Newspapers historically were just giant, if not outright flagrant, opinion pieces that provided no opportunity for rebuttal from the opposition. It was only post-Watergate that they really began to take on a perspective of quasi-objectivity. In that sense, the Signpost is not really operating too far

1883:

page in the 'Knowledge:' namespace. If (hypothetically) another group of contributors were to decide to appoint themselves as editors instead, would there be any recourse for the existing team to oppose them? As far as I can see, there appears to be nothing that could determine who the 'real editors'

1850:

The problem with that though is that 'behavioural guidelines and policies' don't seem to mandate a subgroup of contributors having exclusive control of a megaphone. Which is essentially what we see here. Guidelines and policies are built round consensus, not self-appointed editorial teams. In as much

1251:

seems to be based on real-world media coverage prejudicing real-world trials. However this is because potential jurors may read the media coverage and form an opinion of the case based on it rather than what they hear in the courtroom. ArbCom doesn't have jurors, so this doesn't apply. Nor do I think

1077:

The Signpost is essentially a WikiProject, which is to say it's a group of editors sharing a common interest collaborating together to support Knowledge, usually through some initiatives. Most WikiProjects are focused on articles related to a specific area. Some groups of editors implement processes.

1037:

I agree that the Signpost piece was poorly handled. I would like to think that the editorial team has taken on board the criticism that the review generated but I haven't seen a single response from them that wasn't *really* defensive. Disclosure: I was added to the case as a party after the Signpost

374:

I was unaware of this article and its controversy, but I fully agree with AndyTheGrump. From the point at which a case has been requested to the point at which it has concluded, i.e. the request has been declined, an accepted case has been closed or the complaint resolved by motion (with or without a

5408:

However, in the last few months, I have become convinced that fixing technical issues at the Signpost is not a really good use of my time, primarily because a gigantic proportion of said time is wasted on bureaucratic issues seemingly for no reason. For example, over the course of 2023, I cleaned up

5357:

On my screen, the opposite is true. If I narrow my browser window so that the content area is less than 700 pixels wide, I get the two-column view shown in JPxG's image. If I use my normal window width, I see the three overlapping columns of images. I have a 13-inch laptop screen, so my window width

2305:

the ArbCom case pages? A venue not only designed for that very purpose, but also set-up for direct rebuttal comments? (Instead of creating some kind of 3-day response windows before publication, as suggested above, or turning the Sp into a wide-open tit-for-tat opinion board... which unlike the Star

2203:

An opinion article, a rebuttal, a rebuttal to the rebuttal, a rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal... silly, indeed. It could go on and on and on, with people replying to each other, talking about each other's points, raising arguments and counterarguments, building on each other's knowledge and

834:

This is made especially clear by the objections raised prior to publication. This is evidence that the Signpost needs reform in regard to how it interacts with policies, and I think that the editors that wrote and published this should be given a formal warning for inappropriately casting aspersions

5429:

I'm aware that the front page design has some issues, e.g. it uses shadow instead of stroke or outline (because of browser compatibility issues iirc but maybe that's changed); opacity and padding need some work; I have a big page of notes on improvements I was planning to make some months ago. Most

5420:

In general, the impression I get is that the time I spend working on technical issues is considered worthless -- in fact, the more of it I do, the more worthless it's considered, because that means the amount of work I'm willing to do for free is even higher. This means that people feel comfortable

4760:

I really appreciate your attention, critique, and your speaking out, but this publication has always been precariously close to failing. If it ever did fail, I do not think anyone would ever overcome the barriers of establishing a new community publication. The mainstream news options are Wikimedia

2709:

reporting. Talk to your friends as much as you like, but do so responsibly which means not hosting your conversation over a megaphone in the market square, and don't then get surprised or upset when friends of the other party/parties complain that their only right of reply is in a footnote two-four

2226:

to me, I was simply going to say: "A 'free exchange of ideas' is one thing, a free exchange of bullshit is quite another. When you have to disingenuously misrepresent your opponent's position at the outset, you have already lost the argument.' But, I was edit conflicted by this... fantasy of yours,

1944:

If (hypothetically) another group of contributors were to decide to appoint themselves as editors instead, would there be any recourse for the existing team to oppose them? As far as I can see, there appears to be nothing that could determine who the 'real editors' were without inventing new policy

1484:

Some countries have very strict laws against commenting on cases that are being treated in the legal courts; you can be fined for doing so, because it is seen as an "outside" attempt to influence the courts. Other countries do not have such laws; you may comment to your heart's desire. I think we

472:

s editorial team" and falsely promised that Signpost would be providing coverage "in a non-partisan manner" and that my concerns, if any, "will be read by a member of the editorial team." (I say that was false because there was in fact no response by the editorial team to concerns I stated...maybe

159:

So in an attempt to avoid similar chaos next time this happens, please provide your view on whether Signpost articles on open ArbCom cases should be written in an NPOV manner, or whether a one-sided opinion piece is fine. Ideally without commenting on the specifics of this one current ArbCom case.

5664:

see yourself represented, then you have to find a way to represent yourself if it is to happen at all. I do not have any power to recruit journalists except that if they submit something publishable, then we can do the editorial processing. Best wishes and I regret that I do not have more to give.

5663:

because someone volunteers to write them. If you want a story covered of any kind then recruit a writer. It sometimes helps to start draft content and collect facts even if you feel that you will not be author. There is no staff labor here and there is hardly volunteer labor. Simply, if you do not

5416:

been forced to stop my cleanup efforts for several weeks because somebody objected to a couple speedy deletions, and demanded I file individual MfDs for each of the seventeen unused redirects and misnamed templates. So I did, and I waited, and they were all deleted: but I still had to stop working

2380:

would this take place? Does the Sp give the party advanced notice and an oppottunity to have a response included in the article? (not unlike traditional newspapers (TNPs), but the Sp is not that, it's an in-house newsletter.) Can the involved party write their own Sp article? (rare, but happens in

2182:

The Signpost is not for back-and-forth, battling of opinions. Say a Sp article posts opinions about an editor. Now a special "rebuttal section" in the next Sp gives said editor a venue to dispute these opinions? Then what? The Sp writer then rebuts the rebuttal? And then the editor strikes back at

1174:

the ArbCom case, just like everyone else. That way, the editors they're commenting about have the opportunity to respond in the same venue, to the same audience. It's not as if they can turn around and write their own Signpost articles, to rebut any opinions posted about them here, that's not what

974:

a personal attack, or harassment, or anything like that, not even close. Not by the letter of our policies, and not in their spirit, either. Someone writes in a journal criticizing Knowledge, and a reviewer reviews that journal paper, the reviewer is not thereby also criticizing Knowledge. Even if

497:

21:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC) And then the "clearing" was blanked to make way for discussion of the published Signpost piece. Looking at this now, I am pretty horrified about the Signpost's unfair treatment. I am re-experiencing it as pretty awful betrayal. (I will now notify the four editors I

408:

Perhaps it will help to consider another, simpler example of the Signpost entering into commenting on an open Arbcom case. I happen to know about one because the Signpost reporting about the Arbcom case against me in 2013 was part of a long and excruciating personal experience in my own Knowledge

4994:

The landing page has been very broken since the introduction of the new format a few issues ago, and it has not been fixed or reverted. I am in awe of the improvements that have been made to the Signpost infrastructure over the last year or so, but this change is definitely still in early beta. I

4648:

Have anyone here noticed that The Signpost's quality has downgraded since around last year? Articles on the Signpost now have clickbaity titles, AI-generated photos and no actual substance in its body, a far cry from its former glory. I would much rather have a monthly but quality Signpost rather

3908:

Thanks for letting me know that Browser's desktop mode fixes it, and I assume that is due to the fact that all elements (texts and images) appear to reduce in size in that mode allowing more space for complete words to appear. However, on the right you can see how a Signpost article with image in

2727:

I think some people may have different views of The Signpost, which might cause them to think of it more like a blog, or talking to their friends in their living room or the village square. Someone holding that view might draw the line in a different place. And, of course, not everyone seems to

1927:

The megaphone they otherwise do possess remains one that you, or anyone else, can participate in deciding what is said. Though, unless you (general) believe the issues to be so systemic as to need the same actions as that ancient precedent did, you must do so in good faith. For the most part, the

1095:

The Signpost is journalism. Sometimes journalism exposes unpleasant realities. Sometimes journalism is done poorly. The Signpost is internal journalism, sure, but who are we to demand editorial compliance with some vague party line? From an Arb's perspective, it would in fact be bad to stifle the

393:

I also believe strongly that, when commenting on such matters, Signpost must be neutral. When I first read the article in question I assumed it would have been intended to be neutral, given the sensitive nature of the topic. When I realized it was a one-sided POV piece I felt my trust in Signpost

4484:

In the current issue, it seems like each article's image is the same size but some articles' below-the-image text is one line whereas others are two. Because it appears to use automatic packing rather than fixed-height for the text or grid-layout for the entries, that means the items in adjacent

2573:. My initial comment specifically proposed a timeline for rebuttal - 3 days. Whether that is added to the initial article or as a separate article is one for the Signpost and the involved editors to decide, but while they're on a 2-week timetable, 3 days would seem to function as a fair balance. 1705:

are official Knowledge policy; those are wrong in the same way. Sure, the Signpost/Jimbo carry greater moral authority than the rest of us peons (or even than the average admin). Feel free to criticize those "established authorities" when they use their voice unwisely, or to attempt to establish

796:

or inflating the potential harm/damage from a (arguably) poorly written/pov piece in a non-mainspace article. Let Signpost maintain its editorial independence and accept the feedback that has been eloquently expressed. I know the Signpost editors are open to publishing rebuttal pieces as well as

426:

I have to agree with this comment - I don't know anything about the case myself here, but reporting it like this (with quotes from the people bringing the case and none from Doncram himself) seems like a bad idea. The Signpost should probably restrict itself to saying 'a new ArbCom case has been

4834:

Sorry, but over the years I have sometimes wondered why people volunteer for this publication. Nonetheless, if it matters, I thought the old one-page was easier to understand and get a sense of what I might want to click on through to, rather than the large pictures and the little words, whose

3421:

Honestly, Tony, this is totally an overreaction. That article really needed a copyedit, but like Headbomb said, he did restore most of the actual error-fixing edits you made. The rest of them were just changing the style of writing, which would be fine in article-space, but seems like pointless

2704:

There is a world of difference between a dispute on a website and a divorce, but writing partisan opinion pieces in the village newsletter about a friend's acrimonious divorce is definitely no more likely to help reach an amicable settlement than doing so about a Knowledge dispute is. It's less

1427:

Thanks for the quick reply. Just a suggestion, but perhaps adding a brief addendum to your opening post, clarifying your use of "npov", may help others to avoid forming incorrect arguments opposing this RfC based on the assumption that you were literally referring to the policy. (imho) Cheers -

2647:

that should be so protected, meaning everyone involved whether they are a party, a victim, a commentor (involved or otherwise), a failed peace-maker, an arbitrator, a bystander or just part of the wider community. Those forming opinions about a dispute should do so on the basis of the evidence

2621:

that prevent the media from saying that the reason they aren't reporting on _____ is because it's prohibited, rather than because it's not of public interest. He advocates in favor of limiting coverage until the ArbCom case is resolved. I see some American editors – where gag orders are more

2587:

Yes, I read it. But just because you suggested something, doesn't make it so and is no reason for me to not ask about it among several possibilities in a reply to someone else who purports to have actual answers. But as it is, I'm trying to address the actual OP of this RfC, but I'm not really

5398:

codebase, and fixing decade-old broken features, updating the indices, et cetera. I think I did have done pretty good job of most of it (e.g. the module actually works, articles have images, there's a frontend that shows working preview cards and allows Signpost articles to be linked on other

4886:

Hello I am interested in reviving the Wikiproject Report. I am very active within wikiprojects and most of my edits can be traced to either wikiproject television or wikiproject Doctor Who. I feel that WikiProjects are key to wikipedias growth and deserve more recognition. What steps would be

4377:

Is it just me, or are the black section headings above the white article titles incredibly hard to see? They are placed on top of predominantly dark images, doesn't just make them hard to read, some of them are nearly invisible. Couldn't they just be made a similar color to the article titles

2466:

The the idea that someone can write their own Sp article (is that open to anyone? At anytime? Regardless of the intended subject matter for the article? I don't think it matters. Again, there is the equal-footing issue. How much time will you give the responding editor to craft their response

1571:

like a WikiProject, where opinionated communication is both acceptable and, at times, encouraged. The Signpost could more clearly consider demarcating "news" and "opinion", but these research reviews have always clearly been opinion (and it didn't seem in this case like people had any trouble

2474:

As for the first bit about about advanced notice, I think that has been addressed in the second reply. And lastly, with everything that has been said here (in toto, thru-out this entire RfC) has anyone provided a reaasonable explanation as to why Sp writers can't (or won't) just simply write

1166:, Signpost articles should absolutely be required to be neutral when commenting on ArbCom cases. The Signpost is a WP project, and certainly has an appearance of representing Knowledge, (whether or not that is "officially" the case). The Signpost should not be a platform for editors to post 1142:

Thank you so is yours. I did put some thought into mine though: there is a very good argument to be made that it's actually a company newsletter, which would likely as not in fact contain tripe. If that's what it is, then fine, carry on, but let's not have any tears for the First Amendment.

5461:

you'll see that there isn't just one image for each article: there's a header image, which has the flattened landscape ratio, but also a sidebar thumbnail, which for each article is a 1:1 square. Adding any kind of metadata to articles requires a ton of extra code in four separate programs

4784:

A dedicated team of contributors is working hard to put this publication out every month, and from my perspective, there is some stability, consistency, and quality now that has not always been present. But please, I am begging, find help for this publication. Things are desperate and this

2756:

Hi! I noticed that your "meet the team" page indicates you don't have a writer for the "On The Bright Side" column. I'm interested in filling that position! Please let me know if this is not the appropriate place for this, or if you have any other questions/requirements I did not know of.

5425:

work unless it's strictly necessary to prevent things from breaking. I would very much appreciate if anybody was willing to help with this stuff -- I would be glad to give some guidance to anyone who wants to lend a hand, and there's a lot of difficult and tedious work that needs to get

2467:

article? Will you hold off releasing the next Sp editon until the article is ready? (or do they have to wait month to get their side heard?) And then what? The Sp writer responds, and then the editor again, and we end up with dueling columns... in a monthly newsletter.Again I ask

5070:

This degrades both the photo and the words, making them less easy and pleasant to read. It was a brave try, but it didn't work, at least for me and I'd like to click an option to show the old version, without pictures. Or words all below, above, or beside the picture; whatever.

1506:, along many lines of argument including Levivich, Bilorv, Rhododendrites, and CaptainEek, among others. Clearly marked and attributed editorial should not be restricted---it speaks in the author's voice and no one else's. NPOV applies only to articles. Arbcom members are not a 1977:

above. Show that you are interested in helping write the Signpost and then you might accrue the social capital to see something like that for yourself (imposition from outside is largely uncalled for, as I note above), if they do not produce one on their own before then.

3832:

from a Depths of Wiki tweet, and the leading words of the obituary are unreadable due to being broken into fragments across many lines as it is pushed to the left of the image that already takes up much of the space. It is reproducible with other Signpost articles too.

979:

committing a PA by talking about it. It's a review of a paper. That's not an "end run" around our policies. It's nonsensical to think this way. It would prevent us from reviewing papers about Knowledge if those papers are critical of Knowledge or Knowledge editors.

2956:" in these cases. As the article explains, it is "a unique and visually arresting string that is both easily seen in running text and easily searched for". A pre-publication script could be programmed to search for this string and throw an error if it is found. – 2381:

some TNPs), should there be a 'comments section' at the bottom of the article? (though found on some TNP's online editions, many are eliminating these.) or is there some other means that you propose that can provide both immediacy and equal visibility for all...?

1928:

rarity with which the community has pushed back on actions taken by those writing the Signpost indicates to me that it is not in such a systemic breach of our basic policies and guidelines and so any necessary regulation can indeed come in the form of the rare

1289:

is permissible, in the context of a publication that also includes bare-facts reporting or b) only the bare-facts reporting is permissible. Many RSes include opinion columns, editorials, and such, so did you mean option (A) is OK, in which case, status quo for

1447:

If this RfC is just about a non-specific "neutral point of view", then there's no policy or guideline about it, and NPOV becomes unenforceable. One person's "neutral commentary" is another's "blatant taking of sides". So my response to this RfC is still a No.

2029:

There's no exclusivity or self-appointedness about the Signpost team. The one thing that has always been consistent about the Signpost in all my time on Knowledge has been the open call for more volunteers to join the team. Such accusations are groundless.

1833:. It is rare, but it has happened. Certain? Signpost Knowledge editors around such times have discussed taking their ball elsewhere, but as you can see.... Editors working on the Signpost are also expected to observe our behavioral guidelines and policies. 5498:. When you click "previous comix" on the new one, it sends you back two comixes ago, and the second-most recent one does not link to the new one. I don't really know how to fix that, but I wanted to make editors that might know how to fix it aware! 1485:

should follow the first set; partly because "Knowledge-land" is a pretty small country, after all; we don't have millions of voices. An article in the Signpost can/will/may have an undue influence on "the courts" (=Arb.com), (In Signpost articles

2570:

Again, there is the equal-footing issue. How much time will you give the responding editor to craft their response article? Will you hold off releasing the next Sp editon until the article is ready? (or do they have to wait month to get their side

763:. It does not attempt to maintain NPOV: for instance, it is biased against things that put Knowledge's existence in jeopardy and celebrates its successes. A mainspace article about Knowledge shouldn't present Knowledge's existence as good or bad. 1965:

You separately seem to imply that there should no longer be some editor-in-chief. I suspect it would go a way to making your case if you were to suggest what might replace such a thing in the context of the Signpost rather than leaving the point

1096:

free exchange of ideas and information around a case. Further, if the Signposters wants to criticize ArbCom, that is their irrefutable right, and I fear any sort of rule like this would be used to clamp down on dissent. TLDR: press freedom good.

1223:

The Signpost is certainly the best read among Wikipedians, but there are plenty of other places and people who cover Knowledge in both mainstream outlets and in the blogosphere and social media. Nothing is stopping you from starting your own

704:: This would have been a better RfC if the question had been phrased as "must" rather than "should". Already we have at least one answer that says "should" without "must" and creating a coherent policy from the responses will be difficult. ☆ 2521:

on the comments section - you seem to be opposing an open discussion section, but also supporting arbcom processes, which include open comments sections. I won’t get into my opinions on the matter, but I think saying that arbcom can’t be a

1382:

I took the use of "NPOV" here to be shorthand for just that: a "neutral point of view". As in when the Signpost is writing about an active ArbCom case and/or the people involved, that they keep their commentary neutral, not that the actual

4420: 2625:

Maybe the resolution that I'd like to see is: We should all stop thinking of ArbCom cases as "a trial" and thinking of the ArbCom members as "jury members" who have to be protected from undue media influence while they debate their

5253:

The Big Pictures are a distracting, less than good (trying to say that gently) use of space requiring extra scrolling and making skimming very difficult, so the amt of time I care to spend on it is less- to un- informative, imo.

2292:

Oy, this creatively bereft reverse-puppeting thing you're doing is not at all constructive. Going back to the original point of this RfC, Sp writers posting opinionated comments about active ArbCom cases; the question here is

4000:

correctly, the Signpost hasn't had a watchlist notice since May. Is this a problem with the Signpost publishing script, or something else? Could it be fixed? This is the main way I was getting reminded to read the Signpost.

2143:

I concur with not limiting the Signpost's ability to write about cases as they see fit, subject to BLP. However, I do believe that editors the Signpost writes about deserve a chance to fairly respond and be included at the

141: 3258: 4943:), others will take a look to review and copy-edit it before publication. In case you want to solicit feedback in advance on e.g. your choice of WikiProject to cover, draft interview questions etc., you could post at 3383:

Thanks for the feedback, Tony. You have been around for longer than me, so maybe you can help me out here: do you have any pointers for how I might go about the task of preventing a situation like this in the future?

3648: 4004:

Is the Signpost still publishing bi-weekly? Was that a factor in watchlist notices getting declined? Personally I liked it when the Signpost published monthly instead of bi-weekly, so just throwing that out there.

1879:

Possibly I might, if I cared about such things. But meanwhile I'm more concerned with finding out the terms under which a self-appointed editorial team claims exclusive control of a specific particularly prominent

4080:. I would not say it was consistent or overwhelming, but if somebody wanted to get it started again, it would probably need some kind of approval. The "monthly only" dictum might have spawned from the closure of 1992:

The problem is though that when it came to contributors "participat in deciding what is said" in regards to recent controversial content, the majority of those participating appear to have been ignored. As for a

4713:--Huh? As for actual content, the current issue did have some interesting for me content. Of course, something was boring for me, but I admit I am not the only one reader and some will find it useful as well. - 3150:

Just a quick heads-up that User:Kipala passed away. His primary contributions were at Swahili Knowledge, but he also contributed here, and was a longtime leader particularly in the African Wikimedia community.

1994: 1970: 1915:

on the point), the Signpost accepts any contributors, and I expect that if someone wanted to join the project, they could. I also understand the Signpost, like most of what we do here, works under some basic

5196:

I too prefer the pictureless version. But only because the picture-full version is badly aligned and legibility is compromised. I'm not, in principle, opposed to pictures. But the layout needs improvement.

4030:

on my watchlist. The traffic on this talk page is low enough that nearly every time this page pops up on my watchlist, it's for a new issue. I think you can also get a notice delivered to your talk page. –

4453: 4422: 3909:

portrait mode looks like in mobile generally. Another way to view it would be to view it in landscape mode, but portrait mode should also work fine without needing to change mode or orientation. Thanks!

5163:

I think the only way to make the text accessible with arbitrary images is to separate it the text from the images. Black on translucent gray on an unknown image background is probably not accessible. –

1062:. That being said, I think the summary of their responses is sub-par, not even mentioning IceWhiz, which was central to both of their replies. However, that's an editorial issue, not a NPOV issue. ---- 4962: 2728:

think that producing an amicable settlement is work that everyone can contribute to. If you (i.e., they) see ArbCom as a legal proceeding, then they might feel powerless to affect the actual outcome.

3784:

Speaking of high/low contrast, what about including an option to switch from a light background to a dark one, and vice versa? Anyway, keep it up, because you've already done a great job so far! : )

4474: 1739:

exist in some policy-free zone where it's actions aren't constrained by anything specific at all, and merely acts the way it does because up to now, nobody has suggested that it needs constraining?

4523: 940:

The Signpost is neither of those. I don't care if they have video evidence of editor misconduct; the Signpost is not an appropriate place to repeat such accusations. In addition to circumventing

3781:, for example); secondly, I think the bold font used for the articles' headlines and paragraphs is a bit too hard on the eyes, since it appears to be in heavy contrast with everything else... 3703: 3640: 3630: 687:, per Levivich. Also I trust our arbitrators can manage to focus on active cases without being unduly influenced by articles in the Signpost. That is, after all, why we pay them the big bucks. 220:. So no, one-sided opinion pieces are not at all fine. Anyone is (within reasonable limits as established elsewhere) entitled to express an opinion regarding upcoming ArbCom cases. Handing the 3777:, but I just wanted to point out a few graphical issues I've encountered over there. Firstly, some of the pictures included in the articles look misplaced and tend to "invade" quotes (like on 5437:

When I was trying to figure out how to format images for article cards, I had a significant challenge with aspect ratios. Basically: if you go to a bunch of randomly selected news websites (

3326: 2724:

I like the description of "the village newsletter", and I agree with you about the possibility for doing damage. The village gossips managed to do that before paper was invented, after all.

3732:

on the discussion pages when making the change. You should definitely test on a single page that everything works (including the section edit and subscribe links) before letting AWB loose.

3290: 5453:

etc) you will see that they have a bunch of images for their articles. These have some landscape ratio (2:1, 3:2, 16:9, etc). That's all good and cool -- but if you look at, for example,

3713: 132:

Please comment on whether Signpost articles on open ArbCom cases should be NPOV, or whether one-sided opinion pieces are fine? The general question is sparked from the controversy around

5399:

websites, the scripts integrate a wider variety of information into the module which can be used freely, author and subheading metadata is saved and accessible, et cetera). I also wrote

3667: 5372:

My apologies; I didn't narrow the window far enough to see the two-column layout. Yes, there is a middle area where the blocks overlap. With a wider window size, they stop overlapping.

5182:

The latter version with more details as given by Bri is my preference. But either of these no-picture front page versions is better than what we've been getting the past couple months.

4988: 4355: 330:

I think we might get a bad decision on the back of this case, which was rather extreme and rather poorly handled. I think we should condemn the situation we saw here, but requiring the

87: 2588:

getting any direct answers, just general indignation and mostly off-topic rhetoric. If anyone has a specific answer - great, otherwise I don't really have anything else to add here. -

1735:

operates. Given the comments above, it might well be concluded that such policy/guidelines need amendment, but doing so would clearly require locating them in the first place. Or does

427:

opened', and allow those who want to know more to click the link and read it, rather than producing a summary vulnerable to partisan bias. Robofish (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

3644: 4556: 3448:

writers seem to. It's plain, simple English, and I don't appreciate my time being wasted (or even half-wasted) by a bad writer. Don't bother me again: this rag is not worth reading.

970:

There is no accusation made by the author of the Signpost review article. (If I'm wrong, quote what you're talking about.) A reviewer reviewing an accusation made by someone else is

4121: 1197:. Furthermore, unlike real life, where there exists a wide range of newspapers who can provide different POVs and attract different readerships as they may choose - The Signpost is 550:

editorial team. This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the editorial choices the team made here; I would have to dig into the situation more to be able to judge those.

4680:, say? Or else be more specific. (I'm not defending certain other recent low-effort stories and contorted insider humor pieces, but such a sweeping judgment isn't very actionable.) 2651:

As a former arbitrator, I would have found articles like the one that sparked this discussion and the controversy around it a hindrance to the goal of resolving a dispute fairly.

5296:

Can you post a screenshot of this? I tested it in a couple browsers when I wrote the styles for this page and it doesn't look like they overlap to me. Here is what I am seeing:

218:

maintain a commitment to neutrality in the same way that Knowledge articles do, but the magazine is nonetheless known, and aims to serve, as a balanced and impartial news source

171: 3848:

Mobile is fucked, desktop is fucked, and I don't think anyone understands how the stylesheets work. The good news is that I might, soon, and then I will do my best to fix it.

3699: 115: 3340:

for unknown reasons). The rest changed the flow of sentences (your hatred for commas), or introduced errors of their own (...do the hard work of collecting these for you and

2971: 590:

Note that this editor is a party to the ArbCom case in question, and wrote 12 comments under the Signpost article in question in directional support of its particular POV.

1851:

as the community hands over control to individuals, it does so in a regulated manner, after consultation (e.g. with the appointment of admins). That hasn't happened here.

379:

do its best to maintain impartiality regarding that case. There are no shortage of venues where involved editors can vent their opinions, The Signpost is not one of them.

137: 4835:

descriptions seem decidedly vague or puzzles to me, but YMMV. (I suppose someone can do a click through frequency analysis of the styles, should it interest anyone.) --

4316:

First two (2022-08-31 and 2022-09-30) link to each other because the name of the column was changed. Shouldn't similar links be added between 2023-01-01 and 2023-12-04?

5683: 514: 458: 410: 474: 417: 294:

I saw but did not participate in all the hoopla on this and my own feeling, based only on general principles, was that Signpost shouldn't have involved itself at all

5131:

I think, but I can't for the life of my find how the hell to adjust padding/margins so that things don't overlap with each other. I'd get rid of text shadows on the

3709: 2138: 4936: 4235:

at this project. I was already out as part of the team so I can't really speak to which issues EricPupper published. As I was a prior regime guy, I'll say no more.

3721: 1909:

The problem with that though is that 'behavioural guidelines and policies' don't seem to mandate a subgroup of contributors having exclusive control of a megaphone.

2549:

Perhaps give my comments a re-read, as you seem to have misconstrued or misunderstood them entirely. If you're not sure about a comment or position... just ask. -

4621: 3798: 1951:, as you admit, and thus not worth discussing. Should it happen, we can have a discussion then. I expect it would be a quick and sordid affair for those who were 4677: 3774: 3723: 2609:

I suspect that editors' views on these points have more to do with what's normal in their own country vs what's desirable in this specific venue. For example, @

2374:" - Right, how about you provide a diff that shows where and when I said exactly that, of strike it as an admitted disingenuous and deliberate misrepresentation? 2098: 1888:

decided back in 2005 that he'd appoint himself editor, but Knowledge has moved on a great deal since than, and it seems to me that something as important as the

598:

could consider whether he would have reacted differently had the only Signpost reviewer's opinion been strongly opposed to his POV, like in the example given by

133: 3333: 3094:..." newsletter every two weeks, but other than that, articles are published when the care has been taken to ensure that they are finished and properly vetted. 4932: 4669: 928:

I feel like you're nitpicking terms rather than addressing the point I'm trying to make. If an editor wants to make a case about a conduct issue, then they're

874:

an aspersion. A review that reviews someone else's evidenced accusation is not an aspersion, regardless of whether it agrees or disagrees with the accusation.

5454: 3793: 4931:

To your question: Just go ahead! I assume you might already be familiar with the section's usual format, but it can't hurt to take a look at earlier issues (

4367: 4232: 1726: 4873: 2532:

Usually not. The Signpost doesn’t do this for any article, so why is it relevant here? The original op-ed wouldn’t be awarded this kind of privilege either.

247: 4673: 4658: 4296: 4291: 4286: 3140: 591: 363: 5329:. Note text obscured by images, images that are not aligned, black-on-black text, images that overlap. This is in Firefox for Mac, the latest version. – 4859: 3828:

I'm sure not many people visit Signpost on mobile, but I've realised that the text wrap around images on Signpost articles isn't working well. I came to

2781: 1218: 4844: 771:), and the community can choose to emphasise or de-emphasise its prominence in internal pages (such as the watchlist notices) according to consensus. — 5541:

Do we still record pageviews for every issue? I'm curious to see how the various columns performed, especially the Special report (no pun intended)!

5279: 4801: 4356:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/the-times/iranian-cyber-army-blamed-as-wikipedia-deletes-atrocities/news-story/3947931532816bc4f1a9c5eca7df5f71

3055: 2793: 3574: 2932: 2123:

to interpret what community consensus about the issue is. It would not issue any binding requirements whatsoever; if you want to do that, go to MfD.

1576:

that the important thing is potential for "overall balance"; as long as no-one is being shut out of the article request process, I have no concerns.

1358:

and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.

4081: 3337: 3305: 1237: 5090: 4968: 4735: 3829: 3193: 3107: 856: 665: 3690: 747: 185:: Use of the term "NPOV" is intended as shorthand for "neutral point of view". It is not intended to refer to our article editing policy WP:NPOV. 3749: 1523: 938:

If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums.

4828: 2638: 2568:- I can only assume that either you didn't read the starting comment in this section or you are making a point for rhetorical effect, by saying 1602: 1438: 1415: 1185: 1072: 914:

says "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". Accusations about personal behavior that have evidence are not personal attacks.

729: 403: 369: 285: 259: 233: 194: 5263: 5248: 4345: 4281: 3122: 2598: 2582: 1669: 1656:

Use of the term "NPOV" is intended as shorthand for "neutral point of view". It is not intended to refer to our article editing policy WP:NPOV.

1640: 1401: 1377: 989: 965: 923: 905: 307: 5695: 5677: 5644: 5630: 4700: 4040: 3741: 3556: 2947: 2770: 2559: 2544: 2535:

And finally, it appears that you’re opposing any form of discussion outside of arbcom. I’m not sure this would be optimal and unbureaucratic.

2432: 2132: 2114: 2020: 1476: 1457: 1105: 5495: 5491: 5373: 5344: 5283: 5220: 4956: 4306: 4301: 4256: 4217: 4125: 3215: 2737: 2719: 2699: 2676: 2660: 2493: 2197: 1789: 1771: 1585: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1079: 806: 734:

Two problems with this RfC: First, and least importantly, NPOV is about representing sources neutrally, not refusing to take a side. Second,

430:

I am in agreement with the two above. The article left me with a bad taste in my mouth. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2013"

388: 4915: 4340: 4264: 4250: 2338: 2320: 2287: 2269: 2255: 2241: 2217: 2183:

the Sp writer, and on and on...? That's silly. If a Sp writer wants to say something about an editor, eg: one involved in an ArbCom case...

2157: 1901: 1874: 1824: 1806: 1697:

It should not be held to any stricter standards than usual talk page / user page content. Many people, on Knowledge or off Knowledge, might

1022: 883: 696: 652: 633: 585: 5291: 5275: 5047:

template after the first row of images to vertically align the next row, but it looks like the images are not set using divs or a table. –

4633: 4607: 4391: 4147: 4133: 4077: 4053: 3997: 2510: 2402: 2058: 1712: 1619: 1559: 1340: 1262: 827:

Created plausible deniability as those involved can just fall back on "it's a review piece" despite the clear targeting of specific editors

507: 452: 325: 72: 67: 59: 4414: 4225: 3818: 2965: 2844: 2816: 2274:

I disagree with Wolf and think sarcasm helps demonstrate the weakness in the argument that the Signpost publishing opposing viewpoints is

1689: 1498: 1152: 1137: 1123: 1087: 784: 5479: 5326: 5173: 5158: 5004: 4069: 2091: 1748: 1280: 1252:

there's any risk from prejudicing arbitrators, because they are exposed to lots of discussion about the dispute outside the case anyway.

1209:) and so carries a certain weight in the Knowledge community. Therefore it must be very careful to respect the due process of Knowledge. 5617:

One answer to your question is simply that there was not enough volunteer labor to write the article. Anyone can still cover the story.

5507: 5191: 5104: 4850:

I don't think people volunteering here is any stranger than volunteering for WP in general. I'm happy to enjoy the parts of SP I enjoy.

4213: 4197: 4138:

I see the delivery notice on the user talk page of several colleagues. That's plenty for me; no need to put it in the watchlist header.

4115: 4095: 3036: 2176: 2006: 1987: 1860: 1845: 1047: 568: 5611: 5557: 5381: 5367: 4944: 4020: 3842: 3728:

You'll have to be careful so that the headings don't get duplicated or removed anywhere, this can probably be done by wrapping them in

3005: 2363: 1510:

that needs to be protected from dangerous and influential ideas. Signpost is not state-run media, nor is it widely read enough to be a

715: 3182: 526: 5577: 5550: 5338: 4721: 3495: 3371: 2869: 677: 5122: 5056: 4583: 3977: 3941: 3918: 3895: 3401:

JP, I'm not sure there's a solution to unreasonable attitudes by writers to those who try to improve their prose. But you won't see

3076: 3020:

Maybe tell us what each section is about on the single issue edition intros. Of the four sections on the current page, I still have

2985: 2688:

Those forming opinions about a dispute should do so on the basis of the evidence presented in the case, not a partisan opinion piece

5028: 4620:

And in a quick Google search I didn't encounter anyone on the Internet using the term in this meaning apart from JPxG, so I opened

4563: 3860: 3635:

It appears that there are no edit links next to any of the "Discuss this story" section headers. This could be fixed by moving the

3459: 3431: 3160: 5530: 5352: 5320: 4517: 3963: 2105:

actually applies to Singpost, but not sure if that issue ever got fully clarified anywhere, or could it blow up again in future.--

5458: 5086: 5010: 4536: 4525: 3622: 3586: 3416: 3396: 2775: 5079: 4494: 3252: 1305: 4588:

i changed all instances of "aoomers" to "zoomers" last night not realizing it was intentional. TIL "aoomers" is a redirect lol

4209: 4057: 3103: 2227:

so I will add that if it were to happen, that could be cool, but it were to happen on the pages of the Signpost, that would be

5343:

The blocks overlap with narrower browser window widths (or increased zoom levels which effectively narrows the window width).

2622:

limited and generally offensive to national sentiment – taking the opposite view, and insisting that there be no restrictions.

2223: 239: 4940: 2388:, which is already set-up to give involved parties the opportunity to respond, on equal footing. The back-and-forth you seek 1361: 4350:

Here's an interesting article about alleged Iranian state interference with Knowledge content that might be of interest to

4076:

We got pushback from the community on using the watchlist notices when we made publication more frequent than monthly: see

1706:

yourself as another authority (on your user talk page, on an off-wp blog, by opening a competitor Knowledge newspaper...).

1701:

that the Signpost is Knowledge’s official voice, but those people are wrong. Many people also think that pronouncements on

127:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4855: 4181: 3513:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3051: 1722:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

5597: 4726:

Making the titles less sensationalist and making the content more professional would improve the Signpost significantly.

4643: 3517: 3188: 2376:

That aside, if a Sp writer posts commentary about an active ArbCom case that an involved party would like to respond to,

2483:

the active Arbcom cases? Especially given that ArbCom appears to be better set-up for any potential responses. (jmho) -

4444: 4426: 2879: 1068: 207: 3807:

at signpost.news looks pretty bad. Somehow it turned the gallery into a bulleted list of thumbnails (or something). ☆

5113:

that has been a problem for a few months. It can't possibly comply with our accessibility policies, for one thing. –

4439: 4164:@JPxG I emailed you an idea for a submission a few days ago but didn't hear back, even after after following up with 3137: 2938:

I would help, but I honestly don't know what dates to put. Also, I think this isn't the only time this has happened.

2011:

This is already the status quo. Much of Signpost "policy" occurs as talk page discussions that forms into consensus.

47: 17: 975:

the journal article has a PA (which it doesn't, it has a criticism, which is not the same as a PA), the reviewer is

4972: 2751: 1881: 1225: 1102: 1355: 1170:, non-neutral opinions about other editors. If a Signpost writer wants to comment on an ArbCom case... go do that 5394:

Over the course of the last year or so I put substantial effort into repairing some of the technical debt in the

1214: 4851: 3047: 888:

If it suits you, you can replace "aspersions" with "personal attacks". The problem is the way that it was done.

5207: 5145: 4618:

said i was going to bed but then when i was lying in bed it occurred to me that i needed to make this redirect.

4272: 4203: 3482: 3358: 3178: 3128: 2766: 1829:

It is not so laid down, and in the past the community has forced the Signpost to unpublish certain articles by

462: 3081: 522: 503: 448: 4100:

Perhaps the publishing script could be modified to only request a watchlist notice once every other issue. –

5485: 5110: 5034: 4869: 4817: 4781:

which have the backing of several hundred thousand dollars in annual development, and are much more stable.

4731: 4654: 4372: 4027: 3134: 3043: 824:

Exempted those involved from conduct policies, which apparently don't apply to the Signpost for some reason

2371:

Right, because back and forth has no place in a newspaper. A newspaper is no place for opinions or debate.

4905: 3959: 3613: 3547: 2409:

Does the Sp give the party advanced notice and an oppottunity to have a response included in the article?

1892:(I assume you see it as important, given the number of posts you've made above) needs formal regulation. 1794: 5568: 5521: 5470: 5311: 4574: 4508: 4465: 3823: 3099: 2822: 1210: 38: 3804: 792:. I personally did not think it was a wise idea to publish the piece, but we should avoid instruction 5259: 5242: 4840: 4601: 4454:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 11 § Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/Archives/Years

958: 898: 849: 3526: 3315:

again. It's now on my hit-list for stuff that's bad about en.WP. I'm scrubbing my subscription too.

2784:, is currently empty. Is there some manual update that needs to be made in order to make it work? – 2208:, people might be examining and re-examining each other's ideas. What would be the point of it all? 910:

Please quote one line in that Signpost review that constitutes a personal attack. Keep in mind that

767:

can run however its editorial board decide (subject to core policies/guidelines that do apply, like

4243: 3061:

I prefer mini-editions like this to waiting until you have a full plate, for news recency reasons.

2077: 4174:

on your talk page. Can you confirm that you saw my email and/or I'm following the right process?

3133:

When I was looking around in the Newsroom, I found something called "CommonsComix." What is this?

1567:- I agree with others that the question is somewhat malformed, but generally I favor treating the 5187: 5075: 4887:

required in order for me to join the Signpost Team. Some of the projects I wish to cover include

4865: 4742: 4727: 4650: 4143: 4110: 4015: 3695:

No objections from me. Note, however, that there are two templates that generate these headings:

3686: 3663: 3617: 3551: 3145: 2907: 1519: 1319:, who summed it up nicely. My favorite Signpost pieces are those that take a stand, for example, 814:: The issue is not an Arbcom case or an NPOV concern. The issue is that this was a venue to cast 416:

The comments from back then, which I think are perhaps the most relevant now, are in sequence in

313: 5135:

etc. sections, but that would mean playing with the live version since there's no CSS sandbox.

224:

megaphone to one individual is however entirely incompatible with 'balance' and 'impartiality'.

5672: 5625: 5536: 4923: 4911: 4796: 3031: 3015: 2853:

task, which I wrote some months ago, and am currently running manually. I need to complete the

2733: 2695: 2667: 2634: 2589: 2550: 2484: 2393: 2311: 2265: 2232: 2188: 2082: 2002: 1897: 1856: 1820: 1785: 1744: 1660: 1598: 1429: 1411: 1392: 1176: 1018: 725: 629: 607: 399: 281: 255: 229: 190: 167: 3563: 1005:

is that some modern English speakers believe it means behaviors that look superficially nice (

5128: 4881: 3095: 2578: 2153: 1920:

model, at least in deciding who is editor-in-chief if nothing else. So, no, they do not have

1702: 1636: 1453: 1373: 821:

Granted an elevated platform to cast aspersions with a wider audience compared to a talk page

513:

I see now that I did receive one "official" response from the Signpost. In my responding to

303: 109: 4402: 3681:, who added the section header to the "commentspage" template the day after New Year's Day. 1973:. You are welcome to attempt to influence the group to produce such a page, but I return to 5691: 5640: 5593: 5255: 5232: 4836: 4591: 4479: 4052:

To get a notification *only* about new issues without the talk page traffic, you can watch

3991: 3284:

Opinions expressed. I don't think anything positive results in keeping this thread open. -

2953: 2643:

It is not just arbitrators who should be protected from undue "media" influence, it is the

2618: 2540: 2428: 2128: 2110: 2016: 1955:

of the editors who work on the Signpost (you are welcome to be The One to bring balance to

1472: 1133: 949: 889: 840: 815: 337: 5635:

As someone who participated in the case, I don't believe I should be writing about it. ~~

4928:

seems nobody has gotten back to you on this yet, apologies on behalf of the Signpost team!

3901: 3422:

pushing of your style in a Signpost article that is supposed to be written by one person.

8: 5588:

Any reason why a recent arbcom case that resulted in a de-cratting got zero coverage? ~~

5546: 5363: 5334: 5282:. However with the current format, the items are overlapping each other within each row. 5169: 5118: 5052: 5000: 4900: 4717: 4410: 4387: 4363: 4237: 4036: 3885:‡ not to be confused with the 'Desktop'/'Mobile view' button at bottom of Wiki pages. -- 3789: 3737: 3196:

says it is a draft, but is linked from Signpost. There's also a typo of "Unites States".

2961: 2943: 2839: 2812: 2789: 2715: 2656: 1917: 1912: 1767: 1581: 1511: 1285:

This response, and some others, seem to leave it unclear whether a) opinion and analysis

941: 933: 863: 802: 740: 662:

I'd like to see the Signpost draw clearer lines between news and opinion in its reporting

384: 3233:

I see someone has removed the "draft" template - and I've BOLDly fixed the typo myself.

1884:

were without inventing new policy on the fly. Quite likely an acceptable situation when

5298: 5203: 5183: 5141: 5071: 4984: 4552: 4448: 4336: 4194: 4178: 4139: 4101: 4065: 4006: 3682: 3659: 3478: 3354: 3173: 3072: 2903: 2762: 2334: 2283: 2251: 2213: 2163:

This! Obviously, as any respectable newspapper. In other words: The Signpost must be a

1870: 1802: 1515: 1148: 1119: 1043: 985: 919: 879: 839:

the system. If we make this about an Arbcom case, then we're not addressing the issue.

692: 648: 581: 5417:

for a month. There is nobody I can send an invoice to for this. The time is just lost.

4864:

For the record, I would say that the 29 March 2024 issue is far better in my opinion.

4755:

Come up with any other idea than getting more out of the existing volunteer labor pool

4705:

Well the current frontpage is useless to find out what is the content of the artices.

3720:

When making my edits earlier this year, I had to add different markup in both places:

5665: 5618: 5358:

is not unusually large. Both sets of images show black text on a black background. –

5225:

agreed; i think pictures are good and well, but i also don't like that the text goes

4789: 3118: 3025: 2993: 2885: 2850: 2830: 2729: 2691: 2630: 2565: 2518: 2506: 2357: 2261: 2051: 1998: 1893: 1885: 1852: 1816: 1781: 1759: 1755: 1740: 1615: 1594: 1552: 1422: 1407: 1388: 1336: 1233: 1194: 1063: 1014: 721: 625: 619: 603: 518: 499: 444: 395: 353: 321: 277: 251: 225: 186: 163: 911: 5503: 5377: 5348: 5287: 5215: 5153: 4896: 4888: 4813: 4613: 4490: 4260: 4221: 4129: 3490: 3427: 3366: 3156: 3024:

what any of it is about, because it appears to be written on some sort of slang! -

2892:, the most recent featured content article contains an error: At the top, it says " 2574: 2149: 1685: 1648: 1632: 1507: 1494: 1449: 1369: 1083: 1006: 777: 350:

should absolutely get a right-of-reply before any such standards are put in place.

299: 272:

means that it does not reflect your own opinion. So, just ban opinion pieces from

104: 5687: 5651: 5636: 5605: 5589: 3955: 3939: 3893: 3609: 3543: 3454: 3411: 3321: 2920: 2826: 2536: 2424: 2172: 2124: 2106: 2012: 1952: 1815:

editorial team have exclusive control of a subset of the 'Knowledge:' namespace?

1468: 1316: 1276: 1175:

the Signpost is for. I really can't believe this is even a subject for debate. -

1129: 1097: 793: 673: 334:

to toe the party line on Arbcom seems like it could be a problem in future.Also,

243: 238:

I took a look at the history of the “About” statement quoted above. It was added

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

5573: 5542: 5526: 5475: 5359: 5330: 5316: 5211: 5165: 5149: 5114: 5048: 5041: 4996: 4952: 4892: 4714: 4696: 4629: 4579: 4513: 4470: 4406: 4398: 4379: 4359: 4122:

Knowledge talk:Knowledge Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 35 § Watchlist notifications

4047: 4032: 3928: 3856: 3785: 3733: 3676: 3582: 3486: 3392: 3362: 3304:

articles, I'm surprised to have my copy-editing of Headbomb's suboptimal prose

3243: 3206: 2957: 2939: 2889: 2865: 2854: 2834: 2829:

has yet to be updated. It looks like it's meant to be automatically updated by

2808: 2785: 2711: 2683: 2652: 2610: 1983: 1865:

You might want to have a word with the FAC coordinators, GA coordinators, etc.

1841: 1763: 1628: 1577: 1384: 836: 798: 756: 380: 5278:. One of the advertised methods to receive notifications for new issues is to 797:

reflecting on how not to make ARBCOM more stressfull than it already is. ~ 🦝

5656:

Excuse the late reply but the story could still be covered in the next issue.

5431: 5199: 5137: 5109:

I made a similar note above. The two pages that Bri linked to are fine. It's

5100: 5064: 5024: 4980: 4908: 4548: 4332: 4233:

EricPupper at the time) declared themselves to be EiC in a moment of turnover

4191: 4175: 4091: 4061: 3814: 3652: 3474: 3465: 3350: 3169: 3062: 2981: 2927: 2758: 2392:, the question is why deviate from it in a manner that can be problematic? - 2384:

Orrr, how about the Sp writer posts any comments about an active ArbCom case

2330: 2279: 2247: 2209: 2102: 1933: 1929: 1866: 1830: 1798: 1301: 1144: 1115: 1059: 1039: 995: 981: 915: 875: 768: 711: 688: 644: 615: 595: 577: 265: 3778: 2990:

It's ALWAYS either Month 1-15 or month 16-. My apologies, though, will fix.

1969:

Besides all that, maybe you weren't looking for it, but I'd welcome a basic

1406:

Yes, that’s right – shorthand for those four words, not our article policy.

4168: 4159: 3972: 3913: 3867: 3837: 3469: 3114: 2999: 2780:

The consolidated talk page for the new issue published about 12 hours ago,

2502: 2346: 2164: 2031: 1707: 1611: 1573: 1532: 1332: 1268: 1255: 1229: 945: 929: 599: 594:

piece, was descriptive and did not provide any views in wikivoice. Perhaps

486: 359: 345: 317: 3595:

there was a page for this, but couldn't immediately find it. Thanks, HB. ―

2530:

Will you hold off releasing the next Sp editon until the article is ready?

1009:), but historically it referred to behaviors that built up civilizations ( 5499: 5412:

This wasn't even the first time this had happened: in January 2023 I had

5127:

I'm trying to improve the layout/readability. I got something decent ish

4822: 4812:

Please be my guest and pitch in to improve the quality of the Signpost. (

4486: 3423: 3152: 1681: 1490: 1348:: NPOV applies to article space and deals with the treatment of sources: 1010: 772: 4769: 1364:). It's unclear how this would apply to project space in general and to 439:

I recall experiencing the Signpost coverage as awful, as something like

248:

overhaul of the Signpost information pages discussed in this talk thread

3947: 3932: 3886: 3704:

Knowledge:Signpost/Templates/Signpost-article-comments-end/commentspage

3596: 3530: 3449: 3406: 3378: 3316: 2706: 2617:

that prevent newspapers from speaking about open court cases, and even

2614: 2168: 1836:

But those qualities make it no different from the average WikiProject.

1731:

I can't find any obvious links to policy and/or guidelines under which

1387:

be applied to their commentary. But I could be wrong, so maybe the OP,

1272: 669: 5400: 5610:

Can you draft an article? Can you find anyone who can? Post notes to

5583: 5562: 5515: 5464: 5305: 4948: 4711:

Plus, naughty politicians, Federal judge not a fan, UFOs and beavers.

4692: 4625: 4568: 4532: 4502: 4459: 4187: 3924: 3850: 3759: 3578: 3468:. You were blocked for it before, I'm more than happy to take you to 3386: 3286: 3234: 3197: 3167: 3166:

Thanks, Risker. Wikimedia Tanzania has posted a tribute on Facebook:

2859: 2807:. Is some part of the publishing process or checklist not working? – 2804: 1979: 1837: 1776:

I'm aware of that. I was more interested in specifics concerning the

556: 413:. With perspective of 10 years(!), I will try to comment a bit now. 3872:

IDK what browser you're using but, if you increase the size of your

3714:

Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/Templates/Signpost-article-comments-end

3259:

I am now terminating my subscription and will not speak well of the

1489:

about cases at Arb.com/AE etc: I think we can dispence with NPOV),

5095: 5019: 4086: 3873: 3809: 2976: 2913: 2800: 1296: 1202: 1002: 706: 5446: 5438: 5280:

put Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/Templates/Issue on your watchlist

4937:

Knowledge:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Resources#WikiProject_report

4788:

If there is anything you want to talk through, then ask anything.

4451:. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at 2899:"Featured content" report covers material promoted from through . 2421:

should there be a 'comments section' at the bottom of the article?

4785:

publication can only be healthy with more volunteer organization.

4255:

My mistake; I forgot (or didn't know about?) the account rename.

3877: 3527:

https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/12912/11332

1206: 870:

accusation. An accusation with evidence that isn't convincing is

480: 4774: 4545:

Can we compete with social media? Will aoomers forget Knowledge?

4649:

than this steaming bi-weekly pile of sensationalist reporting.

1572:

identifying the article as the author's opinion). I agree with

4963:

Are there plans for using "piccy" in archives of The Signpost?

4752:

Fundraise, so we can hire someone to support more contributors

4433: 4212:: is there a new former editor-in-chief who doesn't appear in 3700:

Knowledge talk:Knowledge Signpost/2009-11-02/Conference report

3567: 2972:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2023

2821:

If I'm not mistaken, the issue is arising from the fact that

2260:

I agree with Wolf, and do not think sarcasm is helpful here.

492: 4485:

columns lower down the page are misaligned with each other.

1128:

Your contribution to this discussion is truly high quality.

3090:

operated on a rolling basis? There'd be a "What's new with

1936:, such as this one. Regarding the specific use of the word 1911:

Like any other WikiProject existing today (because we have

154:"it is one editor's opinion. Not the voice of the SignPost" 88:

RfC: Should Signpost Articles on Open ArbCom Cases be NPOV?

5450: 5442: 4973:

the 13 February 2024 issue looked like on the landing page

4277:

As far as I can tell, six "Comix" columns were published:

3631:

No edit links next to "Discuss this story" section headers

736:

that Signpost review doesn't take a side on an arbcom case

515:

Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2013-01-21/Arbitration report

459:

Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2013-01-21/Arbitration report

411:

Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2013-01-14/Arbitration report

4979:

template parameters into the archives of The Signpost? —⁠

3763: 3762:

Hello, I just wanted to thank you again for implementing

3710:

Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2009-11-02/Conference report

3570:

of items to cover in the next issue of "Recent research".

3334:

especially since I restored about half of your copy edits

1631:, it applies to Knowledge articles and not to signposts. 1329:

Shit I cannot believe we had to fucking write this month

4707:

If you say it loud enough the views will come your way!

3573:

PS: We have a dedicated page for suggestions like this

3464:

I don't care what you do in your own time, but do mind

2099:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others

5686:

that he plans to cover the case in the next issue. ~~

5434:

posted looks pretty good and I think it would be nice.

4933:

Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/Series/WikiProject report

3946:

MediaWiki doesn't use tables for images. Editors do. —

1354:

means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of

1350:

Achieving what the Knowledge community understands as

312:

Signpost should be neutral, and avoid appearing to be

5430:

crucially, it looks kind of ass on mobile. The thing

4935:); there is also some potentially useful material at 4214:

Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/About § Editors in chief

148:, suggested that the review prior to publication was 4939:. Once your have posted your draft report (e.g. via 4447:

to determine whether its use and function meets the

4297:

Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2023-01-01/CommonsComix

4292:

Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2022-11-28/CommonsComix

4287:

Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2022-09-30/CommonsComix

3277:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

2857:

and start running it from the server automatically.

102:

to make any change in the policies on the Signpost.

5513:Bizarre but true -- fixed now, thanks for the tip. 2782:

Knowledge talk:Knowledge Signpost/Single/2023-05-08

4124:is where the last discussion on this can be seen. 3113:Interesting idea that modernizes the publication! 2501:Well said. More rebuttals in the Signpost please! 2415:Can the involved party write their own Sp article? 2329:. A newspaper is no place for opinions or debate. 409:life. I am now looking at Signpost reporting at 144:, which was opened on the basis that the article 5091:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/Archives/2024-04-25 5033:Can we please revert to the previous layout for 4969:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/Archives/2024-02-13 4319:2023-12-24 links to 2023-12-04 at the bottom as 3830:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2023-07-17/Obituary 3194:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2023-07-17/Obituary 2325:Right, because back and forth has no place in a 624:since this probably should have been disclosed. 5556:Yeah, they are all in the header at the top of 4764: 4056:. For anyone who wants them, subscriptions are 2344:out of the realm of what a newspaper would be. 4282:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2022-08-31/Humour 3773:I don't know if you already saw my comment on 3566:this from WikiResearch, and it will go on our 2297:...? Why can't Sp writers post their comments 5490:Hiya! I noticed that the second-most recent " 4664:Could you explain in more detail why you see 4307:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2023-12-24/Comix 4302:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2023-12-04/Comix 3280:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 5276:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/Templates/Issue 4535:, it seems that there is a typo in the page 4078:MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages/Archive 12 4054:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/Templates/Issue 3998:MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages/Archive 12 2952:I recommend to Signpost editors the use of " 5327:File:Screen Shot 2024-05-13 at 5.51.36 .png 4995:don't think I have the skills to fix it. – 4440:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/Archives/Years 4423:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/Archives/Years 4346:Iranian state interference with WP content? 2799:This page is still not populating. Pinging 1811:And where exactly is it laid down that the 1653:in the intro, the OP specifically stated: " 1362:Knowledge:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation 948:, it creates an immediate power imbalance. 5612:Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom 5558:Knowledge talk:Knowledge Signpost/Newsroom 4945:Knowledge talk:Knowledge Signpost/Newsroom 1953:intending to disrupt the normal operations 152:and was left up roughly on the basis that 5017:presentation of the table of contents. ☆ 3647:and then adding the section header below 2629:I don't know if that's possible, though. 2613:lives in a country that is notorious for 2471:, when ArbCom is already set up for this? 5297: 3900: 818:against specific editors in a way that: 5087:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2024-04-25 5011:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2024-02-13 4975:. Are there any plans to integrate the 4537:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2024-03-29 4526:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2024-03-29 2185:that's what the ArbCom case page is for 543:editorial policy should be left to the 140:. In particular, see the WP:ANI thread 14: 4323:. But 2023-12-04 doesn't link back as 1995:WP:Knowledge Signpost/Editorial policy 1971:WP:Knowledge Signpost/Editorial policy 668:and the Signpost should lead the way. 264:I wonder how you would have an actual 150:"the most ever for any Signpost piece" 146:"prejudges an active Arbitration case" 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4971:looks very different compared to how 4770:https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/ 3968:So, is there some solution for this? 3086:what if, instead of print deadlines, 3271:The following discussion is closed. 2776:Consolidated talk page not populated 2246:Just the ideas we agree with, then? 1249:prejudges an active Arbitration case 123:The following discussion is closed. 25: 3770:: it definitely has got potential! 3641:transcluded "commentspage" template 3042:If possible, I'd like the items at 1514:. This RFC is a storm in a teacup. 759:applies to mainspace articles, not 23: 643:?! I would have reacted the same. 208:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/About 24: 5713: 4749:Help to recruit more contributors 3300:Having written or co-written 260 2081:is virtually meaningless here. - 1762:for non mainspace policies. ~ 🦝 1001:One of the interesting points in 375:case being opened), the Signpost 94:NO CONSENSUS TO CHANGE THE POLICY 18:Knowledge talk:Knowledge Signpost 4761:Foundation publications such as 4644:Signpost has degraded in quality 4432: 3649:all 3,110 previous transclusions 3509:The discussion above is closed. 3311:I won't ever bother to help the 3223: 3189:Draft linked as obit - with typo 2101:raising arguments about whether 1718:The discussion above is closed. 932:in a certain way. As it says at 29: 4457:until a consensus is reached. 4401:Completely agreed! I raised it 3405:around again, that's for sure. 3344:you..., instead of the correct 3046:to include number of comments. 2880:Typo in recent featured content 1325:Wikimedians are rightfully wary 1247:the idea that an opinion piece 136:, much of which can be seen at 3964:11:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC) 3799:Gallery issue at signpost.news 3794:09:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC) 3742:15:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC) 3691:14:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC) 3623:18:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC) 3587:09:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC) 3557:07:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC) 3332:Talk about an overreaction... 2119:This RfC is merely a poll for 1321:The Athena Project: being bold 465:had informed me "On behalf of 13: 1: 5274:Another place to consider is 4916:00:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC) 4775:https://twitter.com/Wikipedia 4562:Zoomers are all like 25 now, 4524:Aoomers vs Zoomers – typo in 4518:06:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC) 4495:05:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC) 4475:05:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC) 4392:14:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC) 4327:. This just seems like a bug. 3668:17:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC) 2752:Interested in writing for TSP 2386:at the the active Arbcom case 1947:I find this line of argument 610:) 06:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 5111:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost 5035:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost 4415:13:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC) 4368:12:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC) 4265:02:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC) 4251:02:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC) 4226:02:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC) 4198:16:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC) 4182:16:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC) 4070:12:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC) 4028:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost 3750:A few suggestions about the 3044:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost 1962:to the Signpost, of course). 1201:Knowledge Newspaper (again, 510:--00:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC) 362:. Currently celebrating his 7: 4912:Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 4765:https://diff.wikimedia.org/ 4341:15:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC) 4273:Links between Comix columns 4204:New former editor-in-chief? 4148:11:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC) 4134:17:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC) 4116:16:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC) 4096:16:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC) 4041:16:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC) 4021:16:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC) 3978:16:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC) 3942:08:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC) 3919:07:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC) 3896:07:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC) 3861:04:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC) 3843:23:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC) 3819:18:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC) 3698:On a discussion page, e.g. 3496:06:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC) 3291:08:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC) 3129:Question about CommonsComix 1795:Knowledge:Project namespace 1391:, can claify that point? - 602:above from many years ago. 10: 5718: 5645:03:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC) 5631:15:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 5598:15:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 5494:" is not connected to the 5057:14:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 4957:01:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC) 4860:10:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC) 4845:19:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC) 4829:00:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC) 4802:13:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC) 4736:12:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC) 4722:20:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC) 4701:19:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC) 4659:12:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC) 4634:19:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC) 4608:19:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC) 4584:16:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC) 4557:14:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC) 3651:(which could be done with 3460:11:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC) 3432:08:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC) 3221: 3082:Suggestion - rolling basis 2970:Can we figure it out from 2738:19:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC) 2720:10:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC) 2700:02:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC) 2677:01:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC) 2661:23:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 2639:19:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 2511:17:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC) 2321:22:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC) 2288:06:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC) 2278:or otherwise a bad thing. 2270:06:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC) 2256:05:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC) 2242:05:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC) 2218:05:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC) 2198:01:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC) 2177:22:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC) 2158:12:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC) 2021:02:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC) 2007:20:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 1988:20:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 1902:19:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 1875:19:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 1861:19:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 1846:19:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 1825:19:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 1807:18:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 1790:18:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 1772:16:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 1749:23:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC) 1713:17:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 1690:12:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 1670:16:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 1641:09:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 1620:06:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC) 1341:17:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC) 1306:23:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC) 1281:22:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC) 1263:19:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC) 1238:17:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC) 1219:09:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC) 1186:00:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC) 1112:The Signpost is journalism 1106:23:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 1088:21:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 1073:19:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 1048:04:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC) 1023:19:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 990:19:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 966:19:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 924:18:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 906:17:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 884:17:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 857:17:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 807:16:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 785:16:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 748:04:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 730:02:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 716:22:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC) 697:21:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC) 653:06:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 634:06:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 586:17:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC) 569:16:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC) 527:00:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC) 508:23:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC) 453:22:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC) 404:19:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC) 389:11:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC) 370:15:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC) 326:00:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC) 308:23:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC) 286:18:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 260:22:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 234:15:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC) 172:15:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC) 116:09:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC) 5486:Navigation bugged, Comix? 5029:18:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 5005:16:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC) 4989:14:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC) 4874:13:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC) 4373:Color of section headings 3905:Issue on Chrome (Android) 3708:On an article page, e.g. 3417:01:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC) 3397:19:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC) 3372:04:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC) 3327:04:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC) 3253:10:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 3216:09:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 3183:06:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 3161:01:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 3108:17:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC) 2599:22:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC) 2583:09:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC) 2560:15:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC) 2545:15:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC) 2494:03:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC) 2433:01:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC) 2403:02:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC) 2364:18:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC) 2339:11:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC) 2133:21:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC) 2115:20:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC) 2092:12:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC) 2059:10:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC) 1603:03:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC) 1586:13:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC) 1560:10:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC) 1524:04:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC) 1499:20:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC) 1477:20:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC) 1458:18:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC) 1439:06:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC) 1416:06:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC) 1402:03:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC) 1378:19:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC) 1153:05:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC) 1138:04:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC) 1124:04:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC) 678:02:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC) 195:08:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC) 5696:01:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC) 5678:19:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC) 5578:03:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC) 5551:14:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC) 5531:04:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC) 5508:18:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 5480:06:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC) 5382:14:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC) 5368:13:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC) 5353:05:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC) 5339:12:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC) 5321:06:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC) 4500:Indeed. It's not great. 4445:redirects for discussion 4427:Redirects for discussion 3775:the announcement article 3637:== Discuss this story == 3511:Please do not modify it. 3274:Please do not modify it. 3141:13:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC) 3123:03:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC) 3077:16:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC) 3056:15:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC) 3037:07:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC) 3006:18:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 2986:14:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 2966:13:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 2948:11:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 2933:11:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 2870:13:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 2845:13:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC) 2817:13:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC) 2771:18:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC) 2222:Before you deleted your 2139:Fair chance for rebuttal 1720:Please do not modify it. 666:That's a common problem, 592:The prior "In the media" 125:Please do not modify it. 5292:23:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC) 5264:22:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC) 5249:22:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC) 5221:20:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC) 5192:09:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC) 5174:17:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC) 5159:03:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC) 5123:00:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC) 5105:23:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC) 5080:23:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC) 4566:are where it's at ;-), 3927:being shit and full of 3824:Text wrap around images 2794:16:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 1924:control of a megaphone. 1267:The Signpost must be a 1228:that covers Knowledge! 457:A week later there was 5302: 4543:for the Op-Ed. Quote: 4208:I'm a bit confused by 3923:It's primarily due to 3906: 2998:Has about 8.4% of all 2301:an active Arbcom case 358:Has about 8.2% of all 298:the open Arbcom case. 5301: 5089:? Or more like this: 4331:What do you think? —⁠ 3904: 3653:AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) 2423:this already exists. 1703:User talk:Jimbo Wales 1211:Tomorrow and tomorrow 463:this bot notification 134:this Signpost article 42:of past discussions. 5009:Not to mention that 4614:made by JPxG himself 4231:That editor (called 3146:User:Kipala has died 2479:active ArbCom cases 2460:this already exists. 1727:A question on policy 268:that is impartial. 5537:View stats for 20-7 4689:monthly but quality 4666:no actual substance 4539:. In the parameter 4449:redirect guidelines 4443:has been listed at 3764:an official website 3016:Suggestion - intros 2833:, but hasn't been. 2524:vitriolic flamewars 1627:. Although NPOV is 1512:newspaper of record 98:There is obviously 5303: 4882:Wikiproject Report 4866:CactiStaccingCrane 4852:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 4743:CactiStaccingCrane 4728:CactiStaccingCrane 4651:CactiStaccingCrane 4321:← Previous "Comix" 3907: 3803:Featured pictures 3730:<noinclude: --> 3518:Research for next 3048:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 1287:identified as such 835:and attempting to 720:No, per Levivich. 126: 5659:Stories exist in 5240: 4941:the Newsroom page 4924:OlifanofmrTennant 4599: 4480:Front-page layout 4114: 4019: 3992:Watchlist notices 3740: 3181: 2931: 2924: 2917: 2851:User:WegweiserBot 2831:User:WegweiserBot 2619:super-injunctions 2361: 2078:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 2056: 1913:ancient precedent 1886:User:Michael Snow 1688: 1557: 1368:in particular. -- 1195:User:Thewolfchild 964: 930:expected to do so 904: 855: 636: 566: 554: 496: 197: 124: 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5709: 5675: 5670: 5655: 5628: 5623: 5609: 5247: 5245: 5238: 5235: 5219: 5157: 5098: 5046: 5040: 5022: 4978: 4927: 4825: 4799: 4794: 4746: 4668:in this issue's 4606: 4604: 4597: 4594: 4542: 4442: 4436: 4384: 4249: 4246: 4240: 4173: 4167: 4108: 4106: 4089: 4051: 4013: 4011: 3976: 3951: 3937: 3917: 3891: 3871: 3841: 3812: 3736: 3731: 3712:, it comes from 3702:, it comes from 3680: 3645:preload template 3639:markup from the 3638: 3621: 3604: 3555: 3538: 3494: 3457: 3414: 3382: 3370: 3324: 3276: 3250: 3241: 3227: 3226: 3213: 3204: 3176: 3172: 3096:theleekycauldron 3069: 3004: 2979: 2925: 2918: 2911: 2689: 2679: 2674: 2672: 2596: 2594: 2557: 2555: 2491: 2489: 2400: 2398: 2355: 2350: 2318: 2316: 2239: 2237: 2195: 2193: 2089: 2087: 2080: 2052: 1710: 1684: 1672: 1667: 1665: 1652: 1553: 1508:sequestered jury 1436: 1434: 1426: 1399: 1397: 1356:reliable sources 1299: 1258: 1183: 1181: 1114:: Is it though. 1007:bless your heart 961: 956: 954: 901: 896: 894: 852: 847: 845: 780: 745: 743: 709: 623: 611: 567: 564: 563: 561: 552: 549: 542: 489: 483: 478: 471: 368: 349: 341: 240:here in May 2018 181: 112: 107: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5717: 5716: 5712: 5711: 5710: 5708: 5707: 5706: 5682:JPxG indicated 5673: 5666: 5649: 5626: 5619: 5614:to get started. 5603: 5586: 5539: 5496:most recent one 5488: 5256:Alanscottwalker 5243: 5233: 5230: 5198: 5136: 5094: 5067: 5044: 5038: 5018: 4976: 4965: 4921: 4884: 4837:Alanscottwalker 4823: 4797: 4790: 4740: 4678:Recent research 4646: 4602: 4592: 4589: 4540: 4530: 4482: 4438: 4430: 4380: 4375: 4348: 4312:Two questions: 4275: 4244: 4238: 4236: 4206: 4171: 4165: 4162: 4102: 4085: 4045: 4007: 3996:If I'm reading 3994: 3969: 3949: 3933: 3910: 3887: 3865: 3834: 3826: 3808: 3801: 3756: 3729: 3674: 3636: 3633: 3607: 3598: 3562:Thanks! I just 3541: 3532: 3524: 3515: 3514: 3473: 3455: 3440:style. I don't 3412: 3376: 3349: 3322: 3298: 3272: 3265: 3244: 3235: 3230: 3229: 3224: 3207: 3198: 3191: 3174: 3148: 3131: 3084: 3063: 3018: 3003: 2991: 2975: 2882: 2843: 2827:Module:Signpost 2823:this index page 2778: 2754: 2687: 2670: 2668: 2665: 2592: 2590: 2553: 2551: 2487: 2485: 2396: 2394: 2348: 2314: 2312: 2235: 2233: 2191: 2189: 2165:reliable source 2141: 2085: 2083: 2076: 1729: 1724: 1723: 1708: 1663: 1661: 1646: 1645: 1432: 1430: 1420: 1395: 1393: 1295: 1269:reliable source 1256: 1179: 1177: 1071: 959: 952:Thebiguglyalien 950: 899: 892:Thebiguglyalien 890: 850: 843:Thebiguglyalien 841: 778: 741: 739: 705: 613: 557: 555: 551: 547: 540: 487: 481: 469: 367: 351: 343: 338:Volunteer Marek 335: 129: 120: 119: 118: 110: 105: 95: 90: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5715: 5705: 5704: 5703: 5702: 5701: 5700: 5699: 5698: 5657: 5615: 5585: 5582: 5581: 5580: 5538: 5535: 5534: 5533: 5487: 5484: 5483: 5482: 5443:sacramento bee 5435: 5427: 5418: 5410: 5406: 5405: 5404: 5392: 5391: 5390: 5389: 5388: 5387: 5386: 5385: 5384: 5341: 5272: 5271: 5270: 5269: 5268: 5267: 5266: 5251: 5180: 5179: 5178: 5177: 5176: 5066: 5063: 5062: 5061: 5060: 5059: 5007: 4964: 4961: 4960: 4959: 4929: 4883: 4880: 4879: 4878: 4877: 4876: 4832: 4831: 4810: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4805: 4804: 4786: 4782: 4779: 4778: 4777: 4772: 4767: 4758: 4757: 4756: 4753: 4750: 4681: 4670:News and notes 4645: 4642: 4641: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4636: 4529: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4481: 4478: 4429: 4419: 4418: 4417: 4405:as well. ~ 🦝 4374: 4371: 4354:contributors: 4347: 4344: 4329: 4328: 4325:Next "Comix" → 4317: 4310: 4309: 4304: 4299: 4294: 4289: 4284: 4274: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4239:Chris Troutman 4205: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4161: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4074: 4073: 4072: 3993: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3929:technical debt 3883: 3881: 3863: 3825: 3822: 3800: 3797: 3755: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3726: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3706: 3658:Any thoughts? 3632: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3571: 3523: 3516: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3444:my writing as 3374: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3267: 3266: 3264: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3231: 3222: 3190: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3147: 3144: 3130: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3083: 3080: 3059: 3058: 3017: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 2997: 2968: 2881: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2837: 2777: 2774: 2767:what I've done 2753: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2725: 2686:, when I read 2680: 2649: 2627: 2623: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2533: 2527: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2418: 2412: 2390:already exists 2180: 2179: 2140: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2117: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 1967: 1963: 1941: 1925: 1923: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1834: 1728: 1725: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1692: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1622: 1605: 1588: 1562: 1526: 1501: 1479: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1343: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1265: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1188: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1090: 1075: 1067: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 999: 859: 832: 830: 829: 828: 825: 822: 809: 787: 750: 742:Rhododendrites 732: 718: 699: 682: 681: 680: 658: 657: 656: 655: 571: 531: 530: 529: 511: 455: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 431: 406: 391: 372: 357: 328: 310: 292: 291: 290: 289: 288: 246:as part of an 203: 202: 201: 200: 199: 198: 130: 121: 97: 96: 93: 92: 91: 89: 86: 83: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5714: 5697: 5693: 5689: 5685: 5681: 5680: 5679: 5676: 5671: 5669: 5668:Bluerasberry 5662: 5658: 5653: 5648: 5647: 5646: 5642: 5638: 5634: 5633: 5632: 5629: 5624: 5622: 5621:Bluerasberry 5616: 5613: 5607: 5602: 5601: 5600: 5599: 5595: 5591: 5579: 5576: 5575: 5572: 5571: 5566: 5565: 5559: 5555: 5554: 5553: 5552: 5548: 5544: 5532: 5529: 5528: 5525: 5524: 5519: 5518: 5512: 5511: 5510: 5509: 5505: 5501: 5497: 5493: 5481: 5478: 5477: 5474: 5473: 5468: 5467: 5460: 5456: 5452: 5448: 5447:the telegraph 5444: 5440: 5436: 5433: 5428: 5424: 5419: 5415: 5411: 5407: 5402: 5397: 5393: 5383: 5379: 5375: 5371: 5370: 5369: 5365: 5361: 5356: 5355: 5354: 5350: 5346: 5342: 5340: 5336: 5332: 5328: 5324: 5323: 5322: 5319: 5318: 5315: 5314: 5309: 5308: 5300: 5295: 5294: 5293: 5289: 5285: 5281: 5277: 5273: 5265: 5261: 5257: 5252: 5250: 5246: 5236: 5228: 5224: 5223: 5222: 5217: 5213: 5209: 5205: 5201: 5195: 5194: 5193: 5189: 5185: 5184:Jim.henderson 5181: 5175: 5171: 5167: 5162: 5161: 5160: 5155: 5151: 5147: 5143: 5139: 5134: 5130: 5126: 5125: 5124: 5120: 5116: 5112: 5108: 5107: 5106: 5102: 5097: 5092: 5088: 5084: 5083: 5082: 5081: 5077: 5073: 5072:Jim.henderson 5058: 5054: 5050: 5043: 5036: 5032: 5031: 5030: 5026: 5021: 5016: 5012: 5008: 5006: 5002: 4998: 4993: 4992: 4991: 4990: 4986: 4982: 4974: 4970: 4958: 4954: 4950: 4946: 4942: 4938: 4934: 4930: 4925: 4920: 4919: 4918: 4917: 4914: 4913: 4910: 4907: 4902: 4898: 4894: 4890: 4875: 4871: 4867: 4863: 4862: 4861: 4857: 4853: 4849: 4848: 4847: 4846: 4842: 4838: 4830: 4827: 4826: 4819: 4815: 4811: 4803: 4800: 4795: 4793: 4792:Bluerasberry 4787: 4783: 4780: 4776: 4773: 4771: 4768: 4766: 4763: 4762: 4759: 4754: 4751: 4748: 4747: 4744: 4739: 4738: 4737: 4733: 4729: 4725: 4724: 4723: 4720: 4716: 4712: 4709:-oh, really? 4708: 4704: 4703: 4702: 4698: 4694: 4690: 4686: 4682: 4679: 4675: 4671: 4667: 4663: 4662: 4661: 4660: 4656: 4652: 4635: 4631: 4627: 4623: 4619: 4615: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4605: 4595: 4587: 4586: 4585: 4582: 4581: 4578: 4577: 4572: 4571: 4565: 4561: 4560: 4559: 4558: 4554: 4550: 4546: 4538: 4534: 4527: 4519: 4516: 4515: 4512: 4511: 4506: 4505: 4499: 4498: 4497: 4496: 4492: 4488: 4477: 4476: 4473: 4472: 4469: 4468: 4463: 4462: 4456: 4455: 4450: 4446: 4441: 4437:The redirect 4435: 4428: 4424: 4416: 4412: 4408: 4404: 4400: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4389: 4385: 4383: 4370: 4369: 4365: 4361: 4357: 4353: 4343: 4342: 4338: 4334: 4326: 4322: 4318: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4308: 4305: 4303: 4300: 4298: 4295: 4293: 4290: 4288: 4285: 4283: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4266: 4262: 4258: 4254: 4253: 4252: 4247: 4241: 4234: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4223: 4219: 4215: 4211: 4199: 4196: 4193: 4189: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4180: 4177: 4170: 4149: 4145: 4141: 4140:Jim.henderson 4137: 4136: 4135: 4131: 4127: 4123: 4120:For context, 4119: 4118: 4117: 4112: 4107: 4105: 4104:Novem Linguae 4099: 4098: 4097: 4093: 4088: 4083: 4079: 4075: 4071: 4067: 4063: 4059: 4055: 4049: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4038: 4034: 4029: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4017: 4012: 4010: 4009:Novem Linguae 4002: 3999: 3979: 3975: 3974: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3961: 3957: 3953: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3940: 3938: 3936: 3930: 3926: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3916: 3915: 3903: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3894: 3892: 3890: 3884: 3882: 3879: 3875: 3869: 3864: 3862: 3859: 3858: 3853: 3852: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3840: 3839: 3831: 3821: 3820: 3816: 3811: 3806: 3796: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3782: 3780: 3776: 3771: 3769: 3765: 3761: 3753: 3743: 3739: 3735: 3727: 3724: 3722: 3719: 3715: 3711: 3707: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3696: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3683:GeoffreyT2000 3678: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3665: 3661: 3660:GeoffreyT2000 3656: 3654: 3650: 3646: 3642: 3624: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3606: 3602: 3594: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3584: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3569: 3565: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3553: 3549: 3545: 3540: 3536: 3528: 3521: 3512: 3497: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3480: 3476: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3458: 3453: 3452: 3447: 3443: 3439: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3429: 3425: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3415: 3410: 3409: 3404: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3395: 3394: 3389: 3388: 3380: 3375: 3373: 3368: 3364: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3338:then reverted 3335: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3325: 3320: 3319: 3314: 3309: 3307: 3303: 3292: 3289: 3288: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3278: 3275: 3269: 3268: 3262: 3254: 3251: 3249: 3248: 3242: 3240: 3239: 3232: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3214: 3212: 3211: 3205: 3203: 3202: 3195: 3184: 3180: 3177: 3171: 3168: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3143: 3142: 3139: 3136: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3079: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3068: 3067: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3035: 3034: 3030: 3028: 3023: 3007: 3001: 2996: 2995: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2983: 2978: 2973: 2969: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2929: 2922: 2915: 2909: 2905: 2904:MyCatIsAChonk 2901: 2900: 2896: 2891: 2887: 2871: 2868: 2867: 2862: 2861: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2841: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2783: 2773: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2726: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2710:weeks later. 2708: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2697: 2693: 2685: 2681: 2678: 2675: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2608: 2600: 2597: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2567: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2558: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2531: 2528: 2526:is a stretch. 2525: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2492: 2482: 2478: 2472: 2470: 2464: 2462: 2461: 2456:@EricPupper: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2419: 2416: 2413: 2410: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2401: 2391: 2387: 2382: 2379: 2378:where and how 2373: 2372: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2362: 2359: 2352: 2351: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2319: 2309: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2240: 2230: 2225: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2196: 2186: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2090: 2079: 2060: 2057: 2055: 2050: 2049: 2046: 2043: 2040: 2037: 2034: 2028: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1961: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1926: 1921: 1919: 1914: 1910: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1882: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1832: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1721: 1714: 1711: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1693: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1676: 1671: 1668: 1658: 1657: 1650: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1623: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1606: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1589: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1570: 1566: 1563: 1561: 1558: 1556: 1551: 1550: 1547: 1544: 1541: 1538: 1535: 1530: 1527: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1516:Axem Titanium 1513: 1509: 1505: 1502: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1483: 1480: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1446: 1440: 1437: 1424: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1400: 1390: 1386: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1357: 1351: 1347: 1344: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1298: 1293: 1288: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1264: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1250: 1246: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1189: 1187: 1184: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1162: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1104: 1101: 1100: 1094: 1091: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1076: 1074: 1070: 1069:contributions 1065: 1061: 1057: 1054: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1036: 1035: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1000: 997: 993: 992: 991: 987: 983: 978: 973: 969: 968: 967: 962: 955: 953: 947: 943: 939: 935: 931: 927: 926: 925: 921: 917: 913: 912:WP:NPA#WHATIS 909: 908: 907: 902: 895: 893: 887: 886: 885: 881: 877: 873: 869: 865: 861: 860: 858: 853: 846: 844: 838: 833: 831: 826: 823: 820: 819: 817: 816:WP:ASPERSIONS 813: 810: 808: 804: 800: 795: 791: 788: 786: 782: 781: 774: 770: 766: 762: 758: 754: 751: 749: 744: 737: 733: 731: 727: 723: 719: 717: 713: 708: 703: 700: 698: 694: 690: 686: 683: 679: 675: 671: 667: 663: 660: 659: 654: 650: 646: 642: 638: 637: 635: 631: 627: 621: 617: 612:Also pinging 609: 605: 601: 597: 593: 589: 588: 587: 583: 579: 575: 572: 570: 562: 560: 546: 539: 535: 532: 528: 524: 520: 516: 512: 509: 505: 501: 494: 490: 484: 476: 468: 464: 460: 456: 454: 450: 446: 442: 438: 429: 428: 425: 424: 422: 421: 419: 415: 414: 412: 407: 405: 401: 397: 392: 390: 386: 382: 378: 373: 371: 365: 361: 356: 355: 347: 339: 333: 329: 327: 323: 319: 315: 314:wikilawyering 311: 309: 305: 301: 297: 293: 287: 283: 279: 275: 271: 267: 266:opinion piece 263: 262: 261: 257: 253: 249: 245: 241: 237: 236: 235: 231: 227: 223: 219: 217: 213: 209: 205: 204: 196: 192: 188: 184: 183:Clarification 180: 179: 178: 177: 176: 175: 174: 173: 169: 165: 161: 157: 155: 151: 147: 143: 139: 138:its talk page 135: 128: 117: 114: 113: 108: 101: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5667: 5661:The Signpost 5660: 5620: 5587: 5569: 5563: 5561: 5540: 5522: 5516: 5514: 5489: 5471: 5465: 5463: 5422: 5413: 5395: 5312: 5306: 5304: 5226: 5133:In the media 5132: 5068: 5014: 4966: 4904: 4901:WP:AUSTRALIA 4893:WP:Knowledge 4885: 4833: 4821: 4791: 4710: 4706: 4688: 4685:former glory 4684: 4674:In the media 4665: 4647: 4617: 4575: 4569: 4567: 4544: 4531: 4509: 4503: 4501: 4483: 4466: 4460: 4458: 4452: 4431: 4425:" listed at 4381: 4378:themselves? 4376: 4351: 4349: 4330: 4324: 4320: 4311: 4276: 4207: 4163: 4103: 4082:this request 4008: 4003: 3995: 3971: 3934: 3912: 3888: 3855: 3849: 3836: 3827: 3802: 3783: 3772: 3767: 3757: 3751: 3657: 3634: 3600: 3592: 3534: 3525: 3519: 3510: 3450: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3407: 3402: 3391: 3385: 3345: 3341: 3317: 3312: 3310: 3301: 3299: 3285: 3279: 3273: 3270: 3260: 3246: 3245: 3237: 3236: 3209: 3208: 3200: 3199: 3192: 3149: 3132: 3106:) (she/her) 3092:The Signpost 3091: 3088:The Signpost 3087: 3085: 3065: 3064: 3060: 3032: 3026: 3021: 3019: 2994:Adam Cuerden 2992: 2898: 2894: 2893: 2886:Adam Cuerden 2883: 2864: 2858: 2779: 2755: 2730:WhatamIdoing 2692:WhatamIdoing 2644: 2631:WhatamIdoing 2569: 2566:Thewolfchild 2529: 2523: 2519:Thewolfchild 2480: 2476: 2473: 2468: 2465: 2459: 2457: 2455: 2420: 2414: 2408: 2389: 2385: 2383: 2377: 2375: 2370: 2369: 2354: 2345: 2326: 2310:". (jmho) - 2307: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2275: 2262:Onceinawhile 2228: 2205: 2184: 2181: 2145: 2142: 2121:The Signpost 2120: 2075: 2053: 2047: 2044: 2041: 2038: 2035: 2032: 1999:AndyTheGrump 1974: 1959: 1956: 1949:hypothetical 1948: 1943: 1937: 1918:WP:Consensus 1908: 1894:AndyTheGrump 1889: 1853:AndyTheGrump 1817:AndyTheGrump 1812: 1782:AndyTheGrump 1777: 1756:AndyTheGrump 1741:AndyTheGrump 1736: 1732: 1730: 1719: 1698: 1694: 1677: 1655: 1654: 1624: 1607: 1595:CoffeeCrumbs 1590: 1574:User:Waggers 1568: 1564: 1554: 1548: 1545: 1542: 1539: 1536: 1533: 1528: 1503: 1486: 1481: 1464: 1423:Onceinawhile 1408:Onceinawhile 1389:Onceinawhile 1366:The Signpost 1365: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1315:largely per 1312: 1292:The Signpost 1291: 1286: 1254: 1253: 1248: 1244: 1198: 1190: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1111: 1098: 1092: 1064:Patar knight 1055: 1015:WhatamIdoing 976: 971: 951: 942:WP:ASPERSION 937: 934:WP:ASPERSION 891: 871: 867: 864:WP:ASPERSION 842: 811: 789: 776: 765:The Signpost 764: 761:The Signpost 760: 752: 735: 722:Schierbecker 701: 684: 664:Definitely. 661: 640: 626:Onceinawhile 620:Schierbecker 604:Onceinawhile 573: 558: 544: 537: 533: 467:The Signpost 466: 440: 396:Onceinawhile 376: 354:Adam Cuerden 352: 331: 295: 278:WhatamIdoing 274:The Signpost 273: 270:Impartiality 269: 252:Onceinawhile 226:AndyTheGrump 221: 216:specifically 215: 212:The Signpost 211: 210: 187:Onceinawhile 182: 164:Onceinawhile 162: 158: 153: 149: 145: 131: 122: 103: 100:no consensus 99: 78: 43: 37: 5085:Like this: 4947:. Regards, 4624:. Regards, 4612:A redirect 4026:I just put 3577:. Regards, 3564:(re)tweeted 3336:(which you 2921:also not me 2575:Nosebagbear 2368:@Levivich " 2349:WaltClipper 2206:generations 2150:Nosebagbear 2097:I remember 1966:half-baked. 1945:on the fly. 1649:ParadaJulio 1633:ParadaJulio 1450:K.e.coffman 1385:NPOV policy 1370:K.e.coffman 1168:wide-spread 1011:Golden Rule 868:unevidenced 394:disappear. 300:Selfstudier 106:Vanjagenije 36:This is an 5688:Jessintime 5652:Jessintime 5637:Jessintime 5606:Jessintime 5590:Jessintime 5455:an article 5065:Front page 4906:Questions? 4409:(he/him • 4190:fix ping 3568:to-do list 2849:This is a 2707:sub judice 2626:"verdict". 2615:gag orders 2537:EpicPupper 2425:EpicPupper 2224:last reply 2146:same level 2125:EpicPupper 2107:Staberinde 2013:EpicPupper 1975:good faith 1960:the Matrix 1766:(he/him • 1760:WP:NOTPART 1659:" - fyi - 1469:Staberinde 1352:neutrality 1317:CaptainEek 1130:EpicPupper 1099:CaptainEek 801:(he/him • 296:because of 244:Zarasophos 79:Archive 15 73:Archive 14 68:Archive 13 60:Archive 10 5543:Oltrepier 5401:Wegweiser 5360:Jonesey95 5331:Jonesey95 5166:Jonesey95 5115:Jonesey95 5049:Jonesey95 4997:Jonesey95 4977:|piccy-*= 4897:WP:DISNEY 4889:WP:COMICS 4715:Altenmann 4407:Shushugah 4399:Toadspike 4382:Toadspike 4360:The Anome 4210:this edit 4160:Ping JPxG 4048:Jonesey95 4033:Jonesey95 3925:MediaWiki 3786:Oltrepier 3779:this page 3734:Matma Rex 3677:Matma Rex 3135:Chameleon 2958:Jonesey95 2940:QuicoleJR 2897:Signpost 2890:QuicoleJR 2835:Aidan9382 2809:Jonesey95 2786:Jonesey95 2712:Thryduulf 2684:Thryduulf 2653:Thryduulf 2611:Thryduulf 2327:newspaper 2308:newspaper 1957:the Force 1938:megaphone 1922:exclusive 1764:Shushugah 1578:Suriname0 799:Shushugah 475:this diff 418:this diff 381:Thryduulf 214:does not 5451:le monde 5432:Headbomb 5423:Signpost 5396:Signpost 5200:Headbomb 5138:Headbomb 4981:andrybak 4616:when he 4549:andrybak 4352:Signpost 4333:andrybak 4192:RoySmith 4176:RoySmith 4062:Graham87 4058:thataway 3960:contribs 3874:viewport 3768:Signpost 3766:for the 3752:Signpost 3673:Pinging 3597:Justin ( 3531:Justin ( 3520:Signpost 3475:Headbomb 3472:again. 3446:Signpost 3351:Headbomb 3313:Signpost 3306:reverted 3302:Signpost 3261:Signpost 3228:Resolved 3104:contribs 3066:Sandizer 2928:still no 2825:used by 2763:need me? 2666:This. - 2331:Levivich 2280:Levivich 2248:Levivich 2210:Levivich 1890:Signpost 1867:Levivich 1813:Signpost 1799:Levivich 1778:Signpost 1737:Signpost 1733:Signpost 1569:Signpost 1203:de facto 1145:Elinruby 1116:Elinruby 1040:Elinruby 1003:Civility 996:Levivich 982:Levivich 916:Levivich 876:Levivich 794:WP:CREEP 689:Ajpolino 645:Levivich 639:My God, 616:Ajpolino 596:Levivich 578:Levivich 545:Signpost 538:Signpost 523:contribs 504:contribs 449:contribs 441:betrayal 332:Signpost 318:— Maile 222:Signpost 5239:he/they 4683:As for 4598:he/they 4564:aoomers 3973:CX Zoom 3914:CX Zoom 3878:Firefox 3876:within 3868:CX Zoom 3838:CX Zoom 3805:gallery 3754:website 3643:to the 3170:Andreas 3115:Frostly 3022:no idea 2571:heard?) 2503:Legoktm 1709:Tigraan 1612:Ciridae 1360:(From: 1333:Legoktm 1257:Hut 8.5 1230:Legoktm 1207:de jure 1205:if not 837:WP:GAME 812:Comment 702:Comment 600:Doncram 346:Piotrus 39:archive 5674:(talk) 5627:(talk) 5584:Arbcom 5500:EdoAug 5374:isaacl 5345:isaacl 5284:isaacl 5234:sawyer 5229:them. 4899:, and 4824:buidhe 4798:(talk) 4593:sawyer 4487:DMacks 4257:isaacl 4218:isaacl 4195:(talk) 4179:(talk) 4126:isaacl 3466:WP:NPA 3456:(talk) 3424:AryKun 3413:(talk) 3342:giving 3323:(talk) 3153:Risker 2914:not me 2103:WP:BLP 1831:WP:MFD 1682:Hiding 1629:policy 1491:Huldra 1080:isaacl 1060:WP:BLP 866:is an 773:Bilorv 536:. The 364:600 FP 111:(talk) 5492:Comix 5426:done. 5042:clear 5015:third 5013:is a 4967:Page 4718:: --> 4622:a RfD 4541:|sub= 3935:dsprc 3889:dsprc 3522:issue 3470:WP:AN 3379:Tony1 3263:again 3138:Gamer 2888:and @ 2477:about 2299:about 2276:silly 2229:silly 2169:Nabla 1699:think 1273:Nabla 946:WP:DR 670:DFlhb 491:) · 206:From 16:< 5692:talk 5684:here 5641:talk 5594:talk 5547:talk 5504:talk 5439:wapo 5414:also 5378:talk 5364:talk 5349:talk 5335:talk 5325:See 5288:talk 5260:talk 5244:talk 5231:... 5227:over 5188:talk 5170:talk 5129:here 5119:talk 5101:talk 5093:? ☆ 5076:talk 5053:talk 5025:talk 5001:talk 4985:talk 4953:talk 4949:HaeB 4909:four 4870:talk 4856:talk 4841:talk 4732:talk 4719:talk 4697:talk 4693:HaeB 4687:and 4655:talk 4630:talk 4626:HaeB 4603:talk 4590:... 4553:talk 4533:JPxG 4491:talk 4411:talk 4403:here 4388:talk 4364:talk 4337:talk 4261:talk 4245:talk 4222:talk 4188:JPxG 4144:talk 4130:talk 4111:talk 4092:talk 4084:. ☆ 4066:talk 4037:talk 4016:talk 3956:talk 3815:talk 3790:talk 3760:JPxG 3738:talk 3687:talk 3664:talk 3655:). 3593:knew 3583:talk 3579:HaeB 3575:here 3451:Tony 3436:Not 3428:talk 3408:Tony 3348:). 3346:give 3318:Tony 3287:jc37 3157:talk 3119:talk 3100:talk 3073:talk 3052:talk 3027:Roxy 2982:talk 2974:? ☆ 2962:talk 2954:TKTK 2944:talk 2908:talk 2895:This 2855:BRFA 2840:talk 2813:talk 2805:JPxG 2803:and 2790:talk 2734:talk 2716:talk 2696:talk 2657:talk 2645:case 2635:talk 2579:talk 2541:talk 2507:talk 2429:talk 2358:talk 2335:talk 2284:talk 2266:talk 2252:talk 2231:. - 2214:talk 2173:talk 2167:. - 2154:talk 2129:talk 2111:talk 2054:TALK 2017:talk 2003:talk 1984:talk 1980:Izno 1898:talk 1871:talk 1857:talk 1842:talk 1838:Izno 1821:talk 1803:talk 1786:talk 1768:talk 1758:see 1745:talk 1637:talk 1616:talk 1599:talk 1582:talk 1555:TALK 1520:talk 1495:talk 1473:talk 1454:talk 1412:talk 1374:talk 1337:talk 1323:vs. 1302:talk 1294:? ☆ 1277:talk 1271:. - 1234:talk 1226:blog 1215:talk 1193:per 1149:talk 1134:talk 1120:talk 1084:talk 1044:talk 1019:talk 986:talk 960:talk 944:and 920:talk 900:talk 880:talk 851:talk 803:talk 779:talk 757:NPOV 726:talk 712:talk 693:talk 674:talk 649:talk 630:talk 618:and 608:talk 582:talk 559:Sdkb 553:{{u| 519:talk 500:talk 493:@953 488:talk 445:talk 400:talk 385:talk 377:must 342:and 322:talk 304:talk 282:talk 256:talk 230:talk 191:talk 168:talk 142:here 5574:🗯️ 5527:🗯️ 5476:🗯️ 5459:two 5457:or 5317:🗯️ 5096:Bri 5020:Bri 4903:. 4676:or 4580:🗯️ 4514:🗯️ 4471:🗯️ 4169:ygm 4087:Bri 3810:Bri 3442:own 3238:Pam 3201:Pam 3179:466 3033:dog 3029:the 3000:FPs 2977:Bri 2801:Bri 2765:) ( 2759:Dil 2469:why 2417:yes 2411:yes 2295:why 1934:MFD 1932:or 1930:RFC 1487:not 1482:Yes 1465:Yes 1327:or 1297:Bri 1199:the 1191:Yes 1164:Yes 1110:Re 1066:- / 977:not 972:not 872:not 862:An 769:BLP 746:\\ 707:Bri 360:FPs 242:by 156:. 5694:) 5643:) 5596:) 5564:jp 5560:. 5549:) 5517:jp 5506:) 5466:jp 5449:, 5445:, 5441:, 5380:) 5366:) 5351:) 5337:) 5307:jp 5290:) 5262:) 5241:* 5237:* 5214:· 5210:· 5206:· 5190:) 5172:) 5152:· 5148:· 5144:· 5121:) 5103:) 5078:) 5055:) 5045:}} 5039:{{ 5027:) 5003:) 4987:) 4955:) 4895:, 4891:, 4872:) 4858:) 4843:) 4820:) 4816:· 4734:) 4699:) 4672:, 4657:) 4632:) 4600:* 4596:* 4570:jp 4555:) 4547:—⁠ 4504:jp 4493:) 4461:jp 4413:) 4390:) 4366:) 4358:— 4339:) 4263:) 4224:) 4216:? 4172:}} 4166:{{ 4146:) 4132:) 4094:) 4068:) 4060:. 4039:) 3962:) 3958:• 3952:DJ 3948:Th 3851:jp 3817:) 3792:) 3689:) 3666:) 3603:vf 3599:ko 3591:I 3585:) 3537:vf 3533:ko 3489:· 3485:· 3481:· 3438:my 3430:) 3403:me 3387:jp 3365:· 3361:· 3357:· 3308:. 3175:JN 3159:) 3121:) 3102:• 3075:) 3054:) 2984:) 2964:) 2946:) 2910:) 2902:" 2860:jp 2815:) 2792:) 2769:) 2736:) 2718:) 2698:) 2673:lf 2659:) 2637:) 2595:lf 2581:) 2556:lf 2543:) 2509:) 2490:lf 2481:at 2431:) 2399:lf 2347:⛵ 2337:) 2317:lf 2303:at 2286:) 2268:) 2254:) 2238:lf 2216:) 2194:lf 2175:) 2156:) 2131:) 2113:) 2088:lf 2042:ge 2019:) 2005:) 1986:) 1900:) 1873:) 1859:) 1844:) 1823:) 1805:) 1797:. 1788:) 1770:) 1747:) 1695:No 1678:No 1666:lf 1639:) 1625:No 1618:) 1608:No 1601:) 1591:No 1584:) 1565:No 1543:ge 1529:No 1522:) 1504:No 1497:) 1475:) 1456:) 1448:-- 1435:lf 1414:) 1398:lf 1376:) 1346:No 1339:) 1313:No 1304:) 1279:) 1245:No 1236:) 1217:) 1182:lf 1172:at 1151:) 1136:) 1122:) 1093:No 1086:) 1056:No 1046:) 1021:) 988:) 936:: 922:) 882:) 805:) 790:No 783:) 755:. 753:No 728:) 714:) 695:) 685:No 676:) 651:) 641:12 632:) 584:) 574:No 565:}} 548:'s 541:'s 534:No 525:) 506:) 495:· 485:· 482:X! 451:) 420:: 402:) 387:) 324:) 306:) 284:) 276:? 258:) 250:. 232:) 193:) 170:) 64:← 5690:( 5654:: 5650:@ 5639:( 5608:: 5604:@ 5592:( 5570:g 5567:× 5545:( 5523:g 5520:× 5502:( 5472:g 5469:× 5376:( 5362:( 5347:( 5333:( 5313:g 5310:× 5286:( 5258:( 5218:} 5216:b 5212:p 5208:c 5204:t 5202:{ 5186:( 5168:( 5156:} 5154:b 5150:p 5146:c 5142:t 5140:{ 5117:( 5099:( 5074:( 5051:( 5023:( 4999:( 4983:( 4951:( 4926:: 4922:@ 4868:( 4854:( 4839:( 4818:c 4814:t 4745:: 4741:@ 4730:( 4695:( 4653:( 4628:( 4576:g 4573:× 4551:( 4528:? 4510:g 4507:× 4489:( 4467:g 4464:× 4421:" 4397:@ 4386:( 4362:( 4335:( 4259:( 4248:) 4242:( 4220:( 4142:( 4128:( 4113:) 4109:( 4090:( 4064:( 4050:: 4046:@ 4035:( 4018:) 4014:( 4005:– 3970:— 3954:( 3950:e 3911:— 3870:: 3866:@ 3857:g 3854:× 3835:— 3813:( 3788:( 3758:@ 3725:. 3685:( 3679:: 3675:@ 3662:( 3620:☯ 3618:M 3616:☺ 3614:C 3612:☮ 3610:T 3608:❤ 3605:) 3601:a 3581:( 3554:☯ 3552:M 3550:☺ 3548:C 3546:☮ 3544:T 3542:❤ 3539:) 3535:a 3529:― 3493:} 3491:b 3487:p 3483:c 3479:t 3477:{ 3426:( 3393:g 3390:× 3381:: 3377:@ 3369:} 3367:b 3363:p 3359:c 3355:t 3353:{ 3247:D 3210:D 3155:( 3117:( 3098:( 3071:( 3050:( 3002:. 2980:( 2960:( 2942:( 2930:) 2926:( 2923:) 2919:( 2916:) 2912:( 2906:( 2884:@ 2866:g 2863:× 2842:) 2838:( 2811:( 2788:( 2761:( 2732:( 2714:( 2694:( 2682:@ 2671:o 2669:w 2655:( 2633:( 2593:o 2591:w 2577:( 2564:@ 2554:o 2552:w 2539:( 2517:@ 2505:( 2488:o 2486:w 2458:" 2427:( 2397:o 2395:w 2360:) 2356:( 2353:- 2333:( 2315:o 2313:w 2282:( 2264:( 2250:( 2236:o 2234:w 2212:( 2192:o 2190:w 2171:( 2152:( 2127:( 2109:( 2086:o 2084:w 2048:s 2045:r 2039:g 2036:a 2033:W 2015:( 2001:( 1982:( 1896:( 1869:( 1855:( 1840:( 1819:( 1801:( 1784:( 1754:@ 1743:( 1686:T 1664:o 1662:w 1651:: 1647:@ 1635:( 1614:( 1597:( 1580:( 1549:s 1546:r 1540:g 1537:a 1534:W 1518:( 1493:( 1471:( 1452:( 1433:o 1431:w 1425:: 1421:@ 1410:( 1396:o 1394:w 1372:( 1335:( 1300:( 1275:( 1232:( 1213:( 1180:o 1178:w 1147:( 1132:( 1118:( 1103:⚓ 1082:( 1042:( 1017:( 994:@ 984:( 963:) 957:( 918:( 903:) 897:( 878:( 854:) 848:( 775:( 724:( 710:( 691:( 672:( 647:( 628:( 622:: 614:@ 606:( 580:( 521:, 502:, 479:( 470:' 447:, 398:( 383:( 366:! 348:: 344:@ 340:: 336:@ 320:( 302:( 280:( 254:( 228:( 189:( 166:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.