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.
A subset term identifies a set of members of a larger class. Common subset terms are including, such as, and among.
Don't use redundant subset terms (so avoid constructions like these: Among the most well-known members of the fraternity are included two members of the Onassis family; The elements in stars include hydrogen, helium and iron, etc.).
Don't use including to introduce a complete list, where comprising, consisting of, or composed of would be more accurate.
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)