Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-11-20/From the editor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikipediaSignpostIcon.svg

Back to From the editor
  • "Circulation" doesn't technically count me. I keep a link to the signpost in an email I send myself each week with other links in it. That way my talk page doesn't get cluttered. Some weeks I take so long to get around to reading I end up having to go to the archive. I did work my way back through the archives to the very first one.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Re In the Media - we could definitely use a few more editors to help write up stories on a weekly basis. As I am sure many have noticed, this section is hit-or-miss week-to-week due to the fact that all four of us have been incredibly busy in real life lately ... we would love to make every week a "hit". Thanks! Go Phightins! 17:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I am more than willing to write for the Signpost. Please consider this a request. Just directed here from a Signpost article asking for new writers.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I was a one time contributor to the sign post. I spent several hours working on an article about a feminist organization working on an improvement drive. I uploaded it to the appropriate spot and felt pleased with the contribution. When the signpost went live, literally one sentence was used. Apparently another editor or group of editors was duplicating the same effort on Google docs.
How am I supposed to meaningfully contribute if editing is not done in a place accessible to all, ie the wiki? It certainly felt like my contribution was a waste of time. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I love the signpost. Wincent77 (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm mildly interested in helping out with the featured content feature. But, to be honest, I feel that it could use a bit of a shake up. The Traffic Report, with its lighter style and nice list-style formatting is so much easier (and more fun) to read. So I'd push for the featured content articles to be a bit more like that. At the very least, I'd write summaries that were just a little playful. I'm sure someone will reply to this comment with a dozen well-reasoned arguements against this, and fair enough. I'm totally new to this part of Wikipedia, and I have no right to tell the old veterans how to do their bizness. Just thought I'd let you know what I was thinking. Bobnorwal (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I've been keeping the FA summaries short, so there's room for more ... give it a shot :) - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)