At the Signpost, reader feedback is taken seriously as a way of improving the quality of our news service to the English Wikipedia and the broader Wikimedia movement. We value readers' continuing support and welcome critical comments. Here is a list of the remarks over the past 18 months that we've found most useful (diffs available on request):
"wannabe journalists … couldn't write their way out of a wet paper bag"
"utterly lacking any research, or displaying one iota of journalistic integrity"
"those shitheads at the Signpost."
"a rotting load of holier-than-thou tripe"
"a little poison-pen vendetta"
"where's the vote to close that damn rag down?"
"trying to drum up some sort of moral panic on English Wikipedia"
"a fount of hate"
"This article is horrible. I expected better of The Signpost."
"you just screwed up and have no good arguments and has no guts to apologize"
"salacious muckraking, unsourced quotes, opinions asserted as facts"
"This whole piece sounds like a troll wrote it"
"ongoing campaign of harassment"
"barely concealed contempt"
"has no place in the Foundation's family"
"The only other thing I'll settle for is their editing privileges being removed. Permanently."
"tired little vendetta"
"If The Signpost has any intent to be a credible source of wiki-related news, you'd sack him."
"appalling 'yellow journalism' "
"random salacious images"
"one sided editorializing"
"you failed utterly in terms of acting as journalists … An apology is in order"
"seems mostly to foster an us vs them mentality then anything else"
"a breach of basic journalistic ethics"
"I expect better than this."
"The Signpost should be closed down"
"an highly misleading and unbalanced article"
"It should prompt some soul-searching, yes, but primarily among the producers of the Signpost. So far I do not see much sign of this."
"a sneak attack"
"it is counterproductive for the Wikipedia Signpost to jump on a moral high horse whenever someone is unhappy with how some issue is being handled on another project"
"poison-pen little clique"
"actively working against the Wikimedia Foundation"
"fawning adulation for Wikipedia"
"salacious and horribly biased"
"sensationalism and unconcealed scandal-mongering"
"People have complained about the bong image (Multiple times in other sections)."
"we're looking at POV in the rear view mirror here"
"This is a bad article, ... I now doubt it was motivated by good faith."
"a pretty good hatchet job. Tabloid news all the way, with all the speculation and unfounded accusations therein."
"It is not up to The Signpost's standards."
"a responsibility to not embarrass Wikipedia or its users by representing the project with this kind of yellow tabloidism."
"Honestly, I never even thought the author would stoop that low"
"what you do when a periodical publishes a bad article is that you retract that article, in its entirety. … a public acknowledgment that editorial standards were not met."
"I'm extremely disappointed with this article, and expected much better from the Signpost."
"the trolls came out in force, determined to prove that they were clueless."
"Having 'reliable sources' doesn't stop something from being a hatchet job based on scandal and intrigue."
" 'Hatchet job' is about the level of this."
“this brave piece of journalism"
"Thanks to the Signpost, the only semblance of independent thinking in all this mishmash, for providing the only source of information about WMF, WMC etc. Otherwise, I wouldn't have a clue about what's going on."
IMPORTANT NOTICE—WHERE TO UPLOAD YOUR FILES: This user strongly encourages editors to upload image, video, and sound files onto the English Wikipedia, and not onto Commons, which has multiple structural and management issues, and a tangle of serious inter-jurisdictional problems. Your files are safer at the English Wikipedia.
Seasons are in lower case (her last summer; the winter solstice; spring fever), except in personifications or in proper names for periods or events (Old Man Winter; the team had great success on the Spring Circuit). Avoid references to seasons that are ambiguous due to differences in seasons between hemispheres.
"Prior to" is a perfectly acceptable English construction, and there is no need to change it to either "before" or "Until". If you want to simplify writing so that any fool can read it, go edit Simple English Wikipedia. BMK (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I find your heading gratuitous and your tone rather discourteous. A simple "1900 Galveston hurricane" as heading would have been largely sufficient. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I must admit BMK I like "before" or "until" - on its own, not a huge deal but it is about making a whole piece of text as smooth as possible...so, yeah, I would have changed it as well if I were copyediting it, though I would not have edit-warred over it. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Probably uniquely, plain language in English is elegant per se. This is in marked contrast with other European languages, in which children are drummed through school on the line that if you write simple, plain language, people think you're stupid; and that making your writing elaborate (=difficult to read) is a way of gaining status. Sorry, anglophone societies might not generally be as sophisticated as those European societies, but on this point we are distinctly more advanced. Please do not persist with your attempts to change simple Germanic English into elaborate Latinate expressions. Tony(talk) 13:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
(belatedly) one of my bosses insisted on "utilize" for "use"....I had to keep quiet on that one.....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
If the ugly version, surely "utilise". Tony(talk) 04:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
As a talk page stalker, may I say that I'm charmed by BMK's "heck". It takes me back decades. (In his/its place I'd have used "fuck". I wonder how Ohconfucius would then have rephrased his message: "fucking discourteous", perhaps?) ¶ BMK's right: it's a perfectly acceptable English construction. I nevertheless dislike it. However, I've occasionally wondered about this dislike. It's only a single syllable longer than "before", so it's hardly "elaborate". Justifiably or otherwise, I associate "prior to" with the prepared statements made to TV cameras by politicians purporting to explain the need for or success of some recent or current military adventure that they've caused. -- Hoary (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
@Hoary: It was out of shock that BMK reacted in that way to something that could have gone either way without anyone batting an eyelid. That construction of mine would have held, being an English understatement to start with. ;-) Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I reviewed your script edits for March, and did some hopefully uncontroversial cleanup after them. You can find my edits in my contributions, with time stamps from 17:23 to 18:30 7 March. Also, someone else made this fix, assuming that what's important there is consistent capitalization, one way or the other, rather than uncapitalizing half the list. Art LaPella (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Did you really want references like the first one in that article, 1. ^ www.benjaminqjones.org/. www.benjaminqjones.org/ (December 14, 2009).? Or even 5. ^ WonderCon Anaheim 2013: Animation Domination High-Def ('ADHD'). Wonderconanaheim2013.sched.org (March 30, 2013).? See MOS:LINK#Link titles: "Generally, URLs are ugly and uninformative ..." Art LaPella (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Oops, no biggie: I thought it was your script doing that! Art LaPella (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. It was lazy of me – I just ran Reflinks and my script on it and left. Now fixed. ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)