User talk:MurderByDeadcopy

"Nothing strengthens authority as much as silence." Leonardo da Vinci

You're a star!

Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar

Alll those deletionists can go fuck themselves! Magnus bjerg (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Anatole Krasnyansky‎‎, you may be blocked from editing. Disruption to make a WP:POINT not allowed here. Page blanking an article at WP:AFD is not allowed. If you continue in this manner you will likely loose your editing privileges for a time. Jbh^Talk 19:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You can hound, attack, and harass me all over Wikipedia, but stay off my talk page.''' And it was you that wanted it cut, not me! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 20:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You need to be able to back up accusations of hounding - this is the third personal attack you have made against me, not including the attacks you have made against others. I strongly suggest you strike it. I have interacted with you at Anatole Krasnyansky‎‎ and its AfD. No one asked you to blank that page, there was a discussion about sourcing and notability going on between several editors. You opened a discussion about an edit I made at Misogyny. This warning template is standard for someone who does page blanking. So back off and calm down. I will not comment further here unless you address me here or to leave required template messages. Jbh^Talk 20:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2016

Hello, I'm Mrfrobinson. I noticed that you removed a Biographies of Living Persons PROD, from Lali Kandelaki, and I wanted to let you know that I have replaced it. Please don't remove these Biographies of Living Persons PRODs from articles unless they contain at least one reliable source or were created before 18 March 2010. If you oppose the deletion of an article under this process, please consider adding reliable sources to the article or commenting at the respective talk page. Thank you. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Of course, I know you. You enjoy following editors around. I'm apparently lucky enough to be one of those editors! I especially love this recent gift that you've given me. It will remain prominently on talk page forever. I look forward to many more such gifts! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 05:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you kindly!

Thank you for the barnstar honor! I was wandering WikiProject Virginia and cleaning up. -- econterms (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you from me as well. It's always nice to get some positive feedback.--Mojo Hand (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Notifications

At first, I assumed you were not being serious (considering your userpages) but if you actually want to follow our article nominations, simply go through the deletion sortings (all are listed Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Flat), I usually hang around the Bands and musicians, Actors and filmmakers, Business, Businesspeople, etc. so most of my nominations are there and, for DGG, he's not as swift with AfD nominations as I, so you can simply watch his contributions for his most recent AfDs. BTW, if you ever wonder if we're "deletionists", we've actually never been explicit about that, we simply both like to take care of troubled articles that seem to have no improvement and should've gotten attention long ago. SwisterTwister talk 20:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• My page is this way not because I want it to be this way, but because I've been heavily harassed on Wikipedia. Whether Wikipedia admits it or not, it is a battlefield here. And AfD is the front line! What I'm asking for is when you notify DGG of any AfD"s between the two of you that I also get a notification from you as well. It shouldn't be any extra work, just copy and paste! Thanks!!! FYI - As for whether you are (or are not) a deletionists, the evidence speaks for itself. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 16:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Let's share a falafel to fight against the Deletion-nazis...! Waka waka1509 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the snack...

...I like to chip in sometimes with a helpful comment, but please don't take that as meaning that I totally agree with your recent stance on Wikipedia matters. Sure, there are some trigger-happy people about, and new editors should be treated with every consideration; but to me this doesn't mean we accept any self-publicity, trivia or opinionated diatribes they care to post. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not like social media websites where they eagerly accept any & all user-generated content. So it may appear "hostile" to those whose expectations are formed in using those other websites. To reduce the chances that a new user will have a bad experience, it would be better to argue for measures to let them know, before they post their contributions, that we do in fact have limits to what we accept and do demand scads of references. That, and educating new page patrollers and restricting new or clueless users from doing patrolling. Sorry, yes, limits and restrictions, and not because we're loveless police but because restrictions and limits are necessary to maintain our project as a usable, credible and valuable resource for the world's readers. For my money this "inclusionist/deletionist" polarity is just daft. Thanks for your work and hope to see you around: Noyster (talk), 13:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think your response to User:Noyster comment is rather tasteless and is borderline a personal attack.Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• And I think you ought to stop following me! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 20:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Here we go, anytime anyone disagrees with you or remarked about how uncivil you are you come out with accusations. Next will be I am bullying you I assume. Stop being uncivil, stop with the accusations and stop with the personal attacks. Mrfrobinson (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• GO AWAY! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 23:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable opinion

Thank you for coming to the defense of the Henry Flynt and the Insurrections article. It is your vote more than any that will probably save the article from unnecessary destruction. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

My Deleted Article

Thanks, friend. Happy holidays to you.Czolgolz (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for coming to the defense of the articles against deletionists. I thank you very much. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

proposed GNG change

This is unnecessary: [1]. WP:N specifically states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Not the plural "sources"; later, it further explains multiple sources are required: ""Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."

No need for your change; it's already covered. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that the above is about as clear as mud! It is, however, one terrific way to game sources, notability, and deletion hard!!! Especially since I see a ton of deleting based on "don't like' or "don't understand." Granted, were I you, I wouldn't "see" any problem with the current situation either since the sports notability is set up to include a wide berth. Once the system benefits you, there's zero need to "fix' it! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

MBD, I just saw this. One thing I have learned in my last year of AfD participation is that the general notability guideline standards for "significant coverage" vary widely from subject area to subject area, which usually implies a different cast of participants. No conspiracy, just different standards that have evolved among different participants in different subject areas. That said, and contrary to your implication above, sports-related AfD discussions usually have among the weaker standards for "significant coverage". I've been trying to change that, especially in light of the extremely very permissive "one game" rule that is the prevalent SNG for MLB baseball, NBA basketball, NFL football, NHL hockey, and major match cricket players, and professional association football players of all levels. As for the second half of your comment above, you would do well to assume good faith in my case; I am one of the strongest advocates you will find for a consistent interpretation of GNG -- and significant coverage in particular -- across all subject areas. My "agenda" is simply to see a more consistent standard, consistently applied. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• My point is that I don't see you participating in AfD's in area's I care about. In fact, from what I've discovered editor's who were most active in those area's left about 5-6 years ago. As for the sports area, it's just much easier for most editor's to clearly see what passes in an AfD. In other areas, it becomes more of a rough guess based on the knowledge each individual editor brings to an AfD and what is found on Google. Sure, I know you've said that sources don't need to be in English or on the net, however, that isn't really the norm of what's happening at most AfD's. I'd also say reliable sources are changing fast. Newspapers are folding. And unfortunately, I don't believe Wikipedia is adjusting quickly enough to keep up with all these new changes. This place seems rather stuck in the past. Granted some of that has to do with the thinking that Wikipedia needs to be exactly like Encyclopædia Britannica! Doubt Wikipedia will ever be very consistent, but it is an admirable goal.
  

I'd also like to see an article only being sent to AfD three times. It's a ridiculous amount of time sink. And after the third time, it really shouldn't happen again.

FYI - Happy Holiday's & hope you were around when going to Skeeter's Home of the Big Biscuit was there! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 04:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• I attended Florida for undergraduate school in the '80s and returned for grad and professional school in the early '90s. I knew Skeeter's well; not a fan of the Big Biscuit, but I ate more than my share of Asher Specials at 3:00 a.m. I still get a craving from time to time for sunny-side-up eggs over crispy hash browns with a sprinkle of shredded cheddar. Merry Christmas. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

An Article help

Tradeo aticle is speeded even though it has links from reuters etc.. Please let me know if you can help. Always :) (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 24:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Christmas Wishes

Christmas wishes Always :) (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Some advice (take it or leave it)

Hi, I appreciate what you are doing, participating at AFDs, it isn't the most glamorous of jobs here. However, if you really want to make a difference, I suggest going more in-depth in your responses to better sway who decides whether an article stays or is sacked. Decisions are made by the quality, not quantity, of opinions, so admins can just ignore your response if it isn't well-thought-out. Don't just say "keep" just because your belief is AFDs are a way of revenge (sometimes they are, mostly they are not), sometimes you have to accept an article isn't notable. You can say what you want about this, but this was just advice. I'm not trying to stop your little "crusade" you got going on here, but if you want to be taken seriously, follow some of the points I made. Best of luck.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. I just noticed what you said on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoo Art Fair, in response to Deb, who invited you to help improve an article--your response is, basically, "no I don't want to do anything, I just want to complain". Cullen328 also commented in that discussion, and had some arguments to make. Your AfD comments are typically worth nothing to a closing admin since they don't present policy-based arguments and/or lack evidence, nor do they--and this is what TheGracefulSlick is getting at--seem to convince anyone that some article is worth keeping. Drmies (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, since I was pinged by Drmies, I will chime in here. The style of your user page and talk page motivates me to bring you an olive branch. Please take a look at the current improved state of Zoo Art Fair, which is my little gift to you. I decided to check it out based on your "keep" comment at AfD. I expanded the article and added four references, three of them independent. Then, please do me a favor and take a look at the section on my user page called "Found at Articles for Deletion, and helped to keep by improving". That is a list of over 90 articles once listed at AfD that I decided to try to save. And so far, my success rate is 100%. Here's my strategy: I spend as little time as possible moaning and groaning and complaining about the editors who support deletion. Instead, I find reliable sources, add them to the article, and then use those sources to expand the article. If necessary, I rewrite the text to the NPOV. Then, I report what I have done at the AfD debate. It works every time, so far at least. Give it a try! Thank you for your kind attention to these points I have made, and Happy New Year! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• That's a pretty nice little gift there, Cullen. Happy new year to you too! Drmies (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, now I'm none to sure which AfD TheGracefulSlick is discussing but I do know that for Zoo Art Fair my view was that it didn't have a hope of making it which is why I only commented on it rather then actually state "keep". It's a habit I got into after seeing editors following me just to vote "delete" after me. What really soured me with AfD's is my experience with Anatole Krasnyansky. (And to a lesser degree Barbara Bly.) I'd seen other editors save articles, however, my attempt was meet with ridicule and repugnancy as though I was committing some crime against humanity. That's when I realized those other editors had been around for years and had the clout to save an article. I did not have that clout and it was fair game to bully me off any article that I might attempt saving.

I see a lot of issues with AfD's. One of the biggest is just how effective it is at running off new editors. Regrettably, I don't see any fix for that. Most of the rules here are merely guidelines open to a wide berth of interpretation. But then, I've come to secretly believe that were it not for Google's influence Wikipedia wouldn't be where it is right now which is what's mostly likely enabling Wikipedia to safely continue with a skeletal crew. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 21:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I predict that Zoo Art Fair will be kept, and thank you for commenting. Pretty much any article for which significant coverage in independent, reliable sources exist can be saved from deletion, simply by adding the sources to the article and pointing that out at AfD. Improving the article is "AfD gold", as I learned as a very new editor. I always got thanks for that and never once criticism. Most of the time, simply providing a link to the significant coverage in the AfD debate is enough to save the article. As for the "skeletal crew", English Wikipedia has well over 3000 highly active editors (over 100 edits a month) and that number is growing. We also have about 30,000 moderately active editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• My personal experience has differed greatly from your's in this area. The truly oddest part of this situation is that the more cynical I became about AfD's, the better I seem to have become at saving article's at AfD's. All I can think is that there must be some backfire effect combined with zero sum game going within the AfD environment. (Or, perhaps, it's just that old saying of expect nothing and be surprised?!) Because I'm now truly surprised whenever anything that I'm involved in over at AfD gets saved there! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 22:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the reason you are surprised is that your approach was based on a misconception in the first place. You seem to have taken an isolated incident and focused on it to the exclusion of all else. It's not like you've created a whole lot of articles that have been deleted or even nominated - the personal experience of which you speak is actually quite limited. Deb (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• I am, however, quite the lurker and (I believe) I have the ability to empathize when I read about others in similar situations!
  

FYI - My original approach was to add reliable sources to articles up for AfD's so where did I go wrong? Because that seems to be what everyone here is ascribing that I do to succeed when the fact remains that is the plan that failed me. It didn't just fail for me, it complete agony. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 00:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, sometimes you just have to accept when an article isn't notable. It isn't a common occurrence and any user can create articles that stay here. For example, I have written 157 articles since I started here a year ago with 0 being deleted, so it isn't a difficult task. But overall my point is cynicism at AFDs make 0 difference to an outcome, and may actually hinder its stay sometimes. Articles that are borderline could be saved if you wrote a thorough and accurate reason as to why it should stay. However, when they are deleted do not think it is because editors are evil or it was a "gotcha" moment. If we kept every article here and disregarded notability to not hurt people's feeling, Wikipedia would be a complete joke.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

If you are sincerely convinced that a topic is notable, but the article is in danger of being deleted, drop me a note at any time, and I will do my best to help. By the way, the AfD debate for Zoo Art Fair has been closed as "Keep". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• The funniest part in all of this is that doing it "wrong" actually saved the article so... now believe I finally did it correctly! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 22:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

AfD's I did wrong.

• Robin Haley
• Gail Leven Pollock
• Khesrau Hayat Kakakhel
• Gia DeSantis
• List of birds on stamps
• Complykaro A fav since I offered to fix this article!
• Dave Taylor
• Nigma Talib
• Andrew Osta
  

AND my personal Biggest epic failure ever where I kept finding additional reliable sources so the only option deletionists had was to hound me off the article. Was also accused of all sorts of things even though I didn't create the article and had barely added anything to said article!

• Anatole Krasnyansky

Lindsay Tait

Hello. I see you removed personal info from Lindsay Tait and mentioned it was requested it be removed. Do you know where this was requested? Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is not working

Hello. Thanks for your contribution to the debate. Biscuittin (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement

Just wanted to offer you my thanks. While it's only at best a stub, I'd still hate to see the work go to waste :) FiReSTaRT (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

List?

What "list" am I on? Are you annoyed with me because someone said I'd thanked them for reverting an incorrect edit of yours? That isn't bullying either. I know you don't like rules, but we have them partly to stop bullying. There are also rules saying that we shouldn't make threats or accuse people of things they haven't done. I'm glad you feel passionately about making this place work better, but calling everyone bullies really doesn't help. Burninthruthesky (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• From what I can gather you've decided you can read my mind. So after having a good laugh behind my back about me, you ran to my talk page to bully me about one cryptic summary I made which you've chosen to misconstrue. Well, all I can add at this point is that I'd prefer never engaging with you anymore on any level. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 21:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate you bringing the matter of one specific editor to my attention. I have offered that editor my personal greeting and my offer of help. If, in your view, I could have done better, please let me know. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

I'd just like to thank you for summing up the misconduct of Bondegezou and NewsAndEventsGuy nicely. I've copied your comment to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents to thank you there too as they have decided to escalate their conduct. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

I have some insight into the background of Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz's case I just posted on User:HighInBC's Talk page (don't want to retype it so if you want to read it, you can go there). But you are correct, he is being mob bullied. I wish I'd seen the ANI sooner and I might have tried to help intervene before it got to this point. I'm traveling at the moment and posting from an iPad so can't help out - I posted a quick note in the ANI, though. Thanks for tackling this. LavaBaron (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For sticking-up for a new editor being bullied.LavaBaron (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Goodbye

To whom it may concern: I'm quitting Wikipedia due to misbehavior, bullying, gaslighting and other harassment by NewsAndEventsGuy and Bondegezou (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LavaBaron#80.25_likely_I_just_quit._Make_that_90.25. for details, noting they filed a bad-faith ANI action trying to get me blocked out of spite as well as their IP vandalism to my talk page). Today the only thing I'm doing is closing down my involvement with one or two pages so nobody expects me to respond to anything.

So long, and thanks for all the fish! Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not surprised. Not only have I personally experienced being bullied myself here on this site, I've seen it played out multiples since creating my account. I have decided that those on Wikipedia who choose to be silent about bullying are just as bad as the bullies themselves, I just cannot comprehend why they remain silent. I refuse to become a bully or remain silent, and it certainly has altered my opinion of Wikipedia is really all about considerably! All the best to you! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I support you

I really like how you are fighting for change here. I especially respect your nerve to stand up to the "big wig" editors and admins who think they are all that just because they can throw some policies at others. While I don't 100% agree with all your viewpoints, and I don't believe you will be the user who leads to noticeable change, I think this is a step to ending the harassment and lack of good faith I see here. If you need any help, I'd be glad to lend a hand if possible. Best of luck.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia builds character

Thank you for the beer. The badges and the scars on my talk page are equally welcome -- when balanced. And you have helped with the balance. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Your comment at ANI about the SEO editor

So... i brought that case, and I feel like your comment .... de-humanized me. I reviewed your talk/user/sandboxes and i get it that you feel pretty burned and have seen some bad things and been treated badly, but still. I am not writing to you to stomp my foot or make drama, i just want to talk a bit. Are you willing? Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• You've got my ear, talk. I will add that I did not check into who started that ANI, only who it was against and that it had to do with COI. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

M thanks for replying and welcoming the discussion! Well hm. I first got interested in COI issues because I am a science-based editor and delete a lot of crap that people add to articles about medicine (and formerly about other topics that I cannot discuss) and I have been accused many, many, MANY times of being an industry shill. And still am.

I used to work in academia and interacted with the conflicts of interest office a lot while I did; I understand deeply why COI management is important, how it is done well and how it is done poorly, and how people react to discussions of it. I decided that COI work in WP needed help. People didn't really know what to do when they came across what they thought was conflicted editing, and conflicted editors didn't know very well what they should do, to be here more or less peaceably. My approach is to just try to talk everybody like the people they actually are - I describe it here on my user page.

If you look at the Talk page of the editor we just banned for using WP in his SEO business, you will see that I tried to explain last July what the deal is with COI in WP, why it matters, and what we do to try to manage it, and how various parts of the community react to conflicted editors. You can see that here. I try to be simple, polite, and direct, as (I hope) you can see there, and tailor the discussion to the person and their situation. (In Tony's case, him being a PR guy who gives talks and writes articles in PR magazines about how to use WP in your PR business, and had no clue about COI in WP when we started talking, he was in an especially deep hole to start with, especially with the history of wiki-PR etc here). If you are not familiar with the history of PR firms abusing WP, please see the article Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia which describes the major scandals of the past, and please see Wikipedia:Statement_on_Wikipedia_from_participating_communications_firms from some firms that at least say they "get it" and don't want to be part of the problem.

Generally this approach works really well - I have had editors with a COI thank me for teaching them how things work here. here is one. There are a bunch more but I have not kept track of them (I guess I should). Conversations have also gone badly. Sometimes that is my fault, sometimes the other editor's, and sometimes both of us mis-step... everybody is human and this is an especially messy thing to deal with. And as I acknowledged in the ANI, I did come down on Tony too harshly when I found out he had blown off everything I had tried to teach him and had gone back to writing crappy articles to promote his clients. That was my bad. But we should have banned him. He wrote crappy articles. (you can check them if you don't believe me). So banning him was a good thing - the only thing that matters here at the end of the day, is how good the content is. The purpose of managing COI is to stem the tide of crap content added by conflicted editors (note I am not saying that conflicted editors always add crap content, but if you start engaging in COI-management work here you will see that the way we detect conflicted editors, is by their crap edits. Which makes sense - they are not here to write good articles that comply with policy - they are here to promote their clients or themselves and they tend to write puffery and use no sources, or poor sources like press releases.) (And I'll just add, since it is often brought up in these context, that advocacy-driven editors also harm WP a lot too by adding crap content. I don't know which problem is worse; nobody does. But discussions about COI-driven editing are distinct from discussions about advocacy-driven editing; they are a clearly-definable subset of discussions about advocacy).

Anyway, I hope that helps you understand where I at least come from. I do know there are a lot of people here who are really cruel to editors they even believe have a COI. Those people are not good Wikipedians in my view; I would say they are probably not good people but that would be too a big leap. This place is a laboratory of human behavior though.

Anyway, thanks for entertaining this. Sorry if it was too long. And I am happy to hear anything you have to say in response. Jytdog (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• The issue I'm having here with disclosing the COI is that is patently incorrect. No one on Wikipedia discloses COI except those who are paid . . . or those who other Wikipedians believe are paid. (Which could be wrong, but who cares since I've found Wikipedians will always believe the worst, not necessarily the truth.) That label is then attached to any editor here that any other editor here chooses to accuse. It can be a lie. Doesn't matter. Meanwhile, I can love potatoes all I want and write glowingly about that subject. Or despise peanut nut and trash that subject so long as I don't get paid for doing so.

The only effect I see happening with all these labels thrown on editors is just another pre-approved sanctioned Wikipedia harassment project. If proper rules are created that all Wikipedia editors follow (instead of just a few) the whole site would be better. Now, to top it off, not only are COI labels approved, but there is a movement occurring to OUT editors. Hell, why not just go to those editors living quarters and torch the place?

As for the second part peer review all I can say is, there is no peer review on Wikipedia! And if you believe AfC is peer reviewed, well I'm sorry, but I would never consider those doing that work my peer. I'm slightly entertained by the fact that were Wikipedia editors paid, Wikipedia would probably be the number one company in the USA in violation of child labor laws. On top of which, Wikipedia is now demanding wholly completed articles, and not articles began by one individual while worked on by the masses. So . . . while Wikipedia initially rejected Nupedia and the experts, there is now an attempt to turn Wikipedia into Nupedia? Or . . . at least the pretense of an attempt?!!!

I also find Wikipedia's use of templates to be the most useless, unfriendliest, lamest concepts around. (Although, I do advocate a cheerful bot "Welcome" with clearly defined rules. Doubt Wikipedia has the wherewithal to create that however. Especially since they can't even be bothered with kerning their logos!) Best part about templates here is any fool can use them. I can go to any other editors page, slap multiple warnings in it, back them into a corner and hopefully they'll say something offensive to me so I can get them banned. But, then, the majority of editors don't even bother to place a Welcome to Wikipedia on that of any suspected COI's talk page. Why Welcome an editor when it's more fun running them off.

Then there's the concept that all this is improving Wikipedia. Except that it is also eliminating the good editors. Editors who would work on making an article more neutral, instead just leave. I've met a lot of writers and very few of them would enjoy or endure this brand of hostility. (With the possible exception of Sorken.) I, myself, don't touch certain articles due to the fear that they will be sent to AfD or I might be called COI . . . again.

COI is a minor problem made big because no one here wants to deal with fixing the big problems. Were those big problems fixed, the COI issue would vanish. Fortunately, as long as Google keeps placing Wikipedia at the top of their searches, everyone gets to pretend everythings honky-dory. Google and Jimbo have been ballin' off Wikipedia for years . . . that's the real COI issue. Not those peons that you're squashing in their meager attempts to put food on their table --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 23:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC).

Hm. I read everything you wrote there, twice. My first reaction, is that you don't seem to have read what I actually wrote. I made it clear that I am aware that many people in WP use "COI" claims as a cudgel in content disputes, and that I have been the target of a bunch of that. I also made it clear that I am well aware that unpaid advocacy is a huge problem. (the cudgeling and advocacy are often coming from the same people). So I don't know what you are actually responding to.

It is clear that you have very strong opinions on the topic of COI in WP and perhaps this was a good opportunity for you to vent and let off some rhetorical fireworks and make some grand statements (and statements unsupportable with data, like "COI is a minor problem" - no one has any data to say if is a major or minor problem). If at some point you do want to actually talk with me like I am a person (where we respond to one another) I would be happy to do that. I really don't know how to respond to what you've written though, which is less like a conversation between adults and more like an internet chatboard flame. I have no interest in that.... Anyway let me know if you want to talk. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• DITTO! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 00:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I do want to talk. That is why I opened the discussion. Because of your comment about the posting I made at ANI, i wanted to explain to you why I opened the case and what I had done before i opened it. Do you have anything that you would like to say to me, in particular? Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, this is correct, you want to talk, however, based on the above evidence, I don't see you wanting to have an actual conversation with me. You wanted me to fall obediently in line with your way of thinking. Well, I'm nobody's "yes" man! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No i don't expect you to agree with me at all. i did hope you would respond to me. To me, and what i actually wrote. I do appreciate you telling me your thoughts about how people deal with COI generally, though. And I heard that. Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• I believe that in your zealous desire to push this ideology that "all COI is bad", you have been overlooking the negative fallout that's being left behind in it's wake. This includes harassment, bullying, and the running off of innocent editors. And, to me, those are Wikipedia's major problems. The reader's of Wikipedia couldn't care less about all this COI kerfunkle. Reader's don't go to talk pages so the adding of editors as possibly having a COI is only used by other editors to harass them. That's why most of those editors once they are list leave. Or start a new account. And, finally, savvy readers realize humans are biased so they would expect articles to be biased anyways. Therefore, It would be way more logical to work on making edits neutral, not on harassing editors. Because there is no such thing as an unbiased editor. Of course, if one were truly concerned about eliminating bias, one would figure out a way to increase the numbers of minorities and women on Wikipedia, since right now, all we've got is a bunch of articles white men relate to! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 00:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks For Your Comment

	Duck and cover
	For being bold at ANI with your comment about editors with COI. You could also mention that it pushes such editors deeper underground and makes it tougher to find articles that need reviewed for NPOV. Wikipedia needs more people like you if it plans to retain editors. CNMall41 (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Best use of the word "Duck" that I've seen on Wikipedia! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You are braver than I. After being accused of being a shill based on that same thread, I evaluated if I really wanted to stay. I see now why people leave the project. Good luck to you! --CNMall41 (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of being a shill and I have said repeatedly that my question to you on your Talk page (not in the ANI thread) had nothing to do with your post at the ANI thread. I understand that you continue to believe it does. There is nothing I can do about that. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Can I say that I have often said things in a vague way to not put the blame onto someone only to have someone else believe I was referring to them. Just something to consider. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 02:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Kitten shortage

Gosh thanks! I don't have any kittens to spare, so here is a picture of the beautiful town of Levoča. Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• What??? Shouldn't we notify the authorities? Thanks for the gorgeous pic! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I heard about the shortage. Be good to the kitty.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Whew! For a second there, I was worried!!! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Major cricket - possible merge

Hi. Given the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major cricket (2nd nomination) as non-consensus I'd like to consider a possible merge of the Major cricket article to History of cricket - see the discussion I've started at Talk:Major cricket. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting at my RfA, and your support for WP:NOBIGDEAL. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You may not care, but…

You may not care, but it doesn't do your reputation any good to screw around (as Floquenbeam put it), first on Hawkeye's RFA, so much so that the 'crat clerk felt impelled to remove bits of several of your posts, and now on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 2/Bureaucrat chat. It's not witty. Please stop. Bishonen | talk 18:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC).

• So my guess is that you prefer suppression through silence? If I didn't care, I would be wasting my time here at all. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • I also want to add that Bishonen did not go to Hallward's Ghost's page even though they are the one who followed me and started the whole issue Bishonen is referring to here. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	L.O.V.E. your attitude, humor, frankness and honesty. Wow, so refreshing. Natalie.Desautels (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Multilingual help offered

I sent you a barnstar in admiration for your ...everything I've read on your talk page. Love your userboxes too. My purpose is not to just compliment you, but to offer my help, if ever needed. I am a proud Polyglot, with 3 mother tongues, (English, French and Spanish), a few degrees, and a few other languages. Feel free, anytime and I'll respond. Merci pour tes tripes! --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Your comments at the cratchat talk

Hi. For better or for worse, Wikipedia does not treat RfX as a straight-up vote where a numerical percentage suffices. To use a strange analogy, there is supposed to be flavor an texture to the discussion, and when the discussion gets murky enough, 'crats are supposed to taste the soup and determine if the support flavor appears clear, or is it too muddled. Two sets of 68% may taste different. In this case, my opinion (as I wrote) is that the opposition was more effective in their case as their concerns were laser focused on the essence of RfX. Hawk had lost the tools for cause, and the opposition was pretty clear that they did not see sufficient rehabilitation. The supports were less adamant about their trust in Hawk's rehabilitation and had a significant proportion of second chance even without certainty of Hawk's change. That was probably the key element in why I felt the soup was did taste strongly enough of support. In another hypothetical case, where the opposes are less concentrated, more spread out over areas (so section A of oppose may actually support in the issues bothering section B), the oppose flavor may be too diffuse to counteract the support. I apologize for the gastronomic analogy, but perhaps that helps explain how we act and that it really isn't arbitrary (at least we hope so!). Thank you for the feedback! -- Avi (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• This answer appears to more about defending your position for why the RfX failed as opposed to addressing some of my points. Believe me, I understand why that is. It still seems to me, that the supposed moving around of percentages, that recently happened, was a complete waste of time. Since, clearly, RfX's with these low percentages were able to pass in the past without such nonsense.

I just have huge concerns about impartially amongst the 'crats. I believe their decision to not promote was based on their own biases. Once that occurs, new 'crats are needed. Especially with 'crats moving goal posts on how to correctly vote in an adminship. The restructuring of how one's suppose to actually vote, yet no one was specifically notified about these changes. For instance, had I been aware of these newest changes, I would have stated, "Strong Support - I TRUST THAT THIS EDITOR WILL NOT USE THE ADMINSHIP TOOLS IMPROPERLY!!! Instead, I just feel betrayed. But then I guess the 'crats didn't betray the core in-crowd which I believe was the true goal. Which makes sense since those are the individuals that voted them in, and there is no such thing as a reelection here. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 23:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

"Women are wonderful" effect

Hi, I noticed the dispute at "Women are wonderful" effect due to the level of editing - a tool called Pushipedia flagged it up (it "pushes" notifications of high-edit articles) in Recent changes (whoops, mixed up). I thought some advice may help: 1. I see you proposed a merge, but you didn't open a discussion. I have fixed the tag to direct to the talk section opened an IP editor to oppose the merge. Please add a succinct explanation of why this topic is best dealt with as part of Ambivalent sexism rather than as a standalone topic. Please also place a brief and neutrally worded note at Talk:Ambivalent sexism and at the relevant WikiProjects so interested editors can find the discussion. 2. Try to avoid discussing the motives of other editors and labels such as MRA. A focus on the sources and what they say keeps the emotional level down. 3. Avoid over-tagging in content disputes. How are "might" and "possibility" weasel words? For the "women are wonderful when" part, a look on Google Scholar shows it has been only Laurie Rudman et al. who have made that point, so "some" can be replaced with "Rudman et al." Fences&Windows 12:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

p.s. Template:Edit conflict is for when there are clashes in editing and to be used on talk pages. It is not the same as edit warring. If you feel that edit warring is happening, it is best to stop editing and keep talking. Fences&Windows 12:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't comment here to warn you off: I saw the lack of justification for the merge and gave some additional advice. I am trying to help resolve the dispute. As well as posting to WikiProjects, you can also gain help at WP:NPOV/N. You say "they repeatedly attempted to hide info" - can you explain this, provide diffs? If this IP is a "civil POV pusher", the last thing you want to do is lose your temper. Stay calm, and get more eyes on this. Fences&Windows 01:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

After re-reading your comment - MRA I know, I took my a while to work out TRP though I have heard of The Red Pill. I hold no brief for those ideas, and I have no favouritism to any side of that article. The topic involves scholarly work, so focus on how that is best represented in Wikipedia. As well as WP:NPOV/N, the fringe theories noticeboard may also be of assistance. Fences&Windows 01:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Fences and windows: Because of the constant personal attacks about me by this IP, I would love more eyes on the subject. However, I don't see much interest in this subject except from the outside by the MRA & Terps/TRP group. There is no interest in an explanation of the term, just the term. The interest in this article is only to omitting info and/or classifying anything they don't like as "controversial." Doing these two things turns any article into a propaganda piece.
  

The hiding I'm referring to is stuff like this. On 07:49, 6 February 2016 the IP created this subject titled, MurderByDeadcopy overwhelming bias and deception. Then later the same IP on 02:23, 7 February 2016 hid that info. Again on 04:49, 7 February 2016 along with multiple other times, Why this was being done is so that the IP could then brazenly claim all these exact issues about me. That, even though I had wanted to work on consensus in the first place, and the IP lied about me, once they believed they had the upper hand, the IP mysteriously changed their tune. This could be because more than one individual is doing the writing on that IP. The tell here is in the comments Removed off topic comment, let us know when you want to contribute

These are the reasons why I didn't understand that while the IP was clearly attacking me, you decided to show up only on my talk page. That's the favoritism/disparity I was referring to, not the article itself. I'd never heard of that article's subject before making this account and it's clearly given too much WP:UNDUE by a few fringe groups, while most WP editors have little interest in it. My guess is that most sociologists are more interested in the dynamics of Wikipedia itself rather than the horrible inaccuracies WP creates with the sociology/psychology subjects written here. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 22:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I've explained that I primarily commented here because you made a merge request that you did not provide any justification for. My comments were intended as advice not admonishment. Another editor has now commented and restored the merge tag, but you still need to add a comment on the talk page to argue for a merge. You should also add a note at Talk:Ambivalent sexism to direct readers to the merge discussion and probably at the WikiProjects to alert interested editors.

I have advised the IP editor to follow talk page guidelines after they removed your comments etc. There is a lot of talk and I missed some of the issues with their edits before. The IP editor has also had two of their talk page comments removed, once by another editor and once by you, probably inadvertently. You say they were trying to hide information when they changed the heading to "Misleading language", but their edit was accompanied by an apology and the original heading was not in accordance with talk page guidelines as it was an attack on you and not neutrally worded (they apologised and themselves changed the title, so there is no need for me to warn them unless this recurs). To take some heat out of this talk page, I have again changed the section heading to "Neutrality dispute" with the original title commented out. Using "us" is not by itself evidence of a shared account (by "us" they probably just mean editors reading the talk page) and they'd have to be using the same computer to have the same IP.

The IP editor may well have an agenda and may have come from Reddit, but it is possible for editors with competing agendas and no agenda alike to work together. Not all of their first series of edits were wrong: the paragraph they removed beginning "In contemporary research..." was too close in wording to the source text and one of the references was misattributed, for example. This dispute is only a week old and they're discussing the edits, even if some of their understanding of reliable sourcing guidelines is sketchy. Fyddlestiks is involved again, so stay calm and keep discussing the merge and sourcing. There is a risk of improper synthesis on this topic because it is so specific and there are relatively few sources directly discussing this effect in detail; a merge to Ambivalent sexism might better put this content into context.

UNDUE is about the weight given to content within an article, not the existence of articles or the attention editors give to them. I hope these comments are of some help. Fences&Windows 14:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Fences and windows: I'm going to stop explaining myself to you because I believe this discussion as fallen into, "No, what I meant was," and, I'm not sure it matters all that much at this point. Also, I'm actually feeling more as the odd man out now, then I did before your last comments, so I'd rather quit while only 10% behind rather than 90% behind. Or, before it devolves into whether or not I can comprehend three syllable words! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 21:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

• From the editors: Help wanted

• Special report: Board chair and new trustee speak with the Signpost

• In focus: The Knight Foundation grant: a timeline and an email to the board

• Op-ed: So, what’s a knowledge engine anyway?

• News and notes: Harassment survey 2015; Luis Villa to leave WMF; knowledge engine background

• Arbitration report: Catching up on arbitration

• Traffic report: Bowled

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

• Special report: New internal documents raise questions about the origins of the Knowledge Engine

• In focus: An in-depth look at the special report's newly revealed documents

• News and notes: Another WMF departure

• In the media: Jeb Bush swings at Wikipedia and connects

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Traffic report: A river of revilement

• Blog: Wikimedia Foundation removes The Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law requirements

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Article Proofread

HI @MurderByDeadCopy

Hope you are doing well. Okay so we have done a lot of work on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Harvey_Boulter entry. Can I possibly ask that you have a look at the entry to see if it looks okay?

Would really appreciate it. Might help me not getting beaten up again :-)

Regards CB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccboshoff (talk • contribs) 10:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

• Special report: Search and destroy: the Knowledge Engine and the undoing of Lila Tretikov

• Op-ed: Shit I cannot believe we had to fucking write this month

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Traffic report: Super Bowling

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Blog: Antonin Scalia and the editor tracking his legacy

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

• Special report: WMF in limbo as decision on Tretikov nears

• Op-ed: Backward the Foundation

• Traffic report: Of Dead Pools and Dead Judges

• Blog: Wiki Loves Africa brings the continent’s fashion to the world

• Arbitration report: Arbitration motion regarding CheckUser & Oversight inactivity

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

• News and notes: Tretikov resigns, WMF in transition

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Traffic report: Brawling

• Recent research: Wikipedia and paid labour; Swedish gender gap; how verifiable is "verifiable"?

• Blog: Wikimedia Foundation details requests to alter or remove content in new transparency report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

• News and notes: Katherine Maher named interim head of WMF; Wales email re-sparks Heilman controversy; draft WMF strategy posted

• In the media: Wikipedian is break-out star of International Women's Day; dinosaur art; Wikipedia's new iOS app and its fight for market share

• Op-ed: A modest proposal for Wikimedia’s future

• Featured content: Five articles, four lists, a topic, and five images were promoted this week.

• Technology report: Wikimedia wikis will temporarily go into read-only mode on several occasions in the coming weeks

• WikiCup report: First round of the WikiCup finishes

• Blog: The new alchemy: turning online harassment into Wikipedia articles on women scientists

• Systemic bias: Revenge of "I can’t believe we didn’t have an article on ..."

• Traffic report: All business like show business

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

• News and notes: Wikipedia Zero: Orange mobile partnership in Africa ends; the evolution of privacy loss in Wikipedia

• In the media: Wales at SXSW; lawsuit over Wikipedia PR editing

• Op-ed: Hard work needed to address Wikimedia’s leadership challenges

• Discussion report: Is an interim WMF executive director inherently notable?

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Technology report: Watchlists, watchlists, watchlists!

• Traffic report: Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States

• Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #119: The Foundation and the departure of Lila Tretikov

• Blog: It “revolutionized the way German-speaking people inform themselves about the world”: Fifteen years of the German Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

• Interview: Exclusive: interview with interim ED Katherine Maher

• News and notes: Lila Tretikov a Young Global Leader; Wikipediocracy blog post sparks indefinite blocks

• In the media: Angolan file sharers cause trouble for Wikipedia Zero; the 3D printer edit war; a culture based on change and turmoil

• Traffic report: Be weary on the Ides of March

• Editorial: "God damn it, you've got to be kind."

• Featured content: Watch out! A slave trader, a live mascot and a crested serpent awaits!

• Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel article 3 case amended

• Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #120: Status of Wikimania 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

• News and notes: Trump/Wales 2016

• In the media: Saskatoon police delete Wikipedia content about police brutality

• WikiProject report: Why should the Devil have all the good music? An interview with WikiProject Christian music

• Traffic report: Donald v Daredevil

• Featured content: A slow, slow week

• Technology report: Browse Wikipedia in safety? Use Telnet!

• Recent research: "Employing Wikipedia for good not evil" in education; using eyetracking to find out how readers read articles

• Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #121: How April Fools went down

• Blog: Growing hashtags: Expanding outreach on Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

• Op-ed: Should prison inmates be permitted to edit Wikipedia?

• News and notes: Denny Vrandečić resigns from Wikimedia Foundation board

• In the media: Wikimedia Sweden loses copyright case; Tex Watson; AI assistants; David Jolly biography

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Traffic report: A welcome return to pop culture and death

• Arbitration report: The first case of 2016—Wikicology

• Gallery: A history lesson

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

• News and notes: Lunar project; steering group formed to search for next executive director

• Op-ed: Knowledge Engine and the Wales–Heilman emails

• Special report: Update on EranBot, our new copyright violation detection bot

• Traffic report: Two for the price of one

• Featured content: The double-sized edition

• Arbitration report: Amendments made to the Race and intelligence case

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

• News and notes: Wikimedia Switzerland's board and paid-editing firm; passing of Ed Dravecky

• In the media: Wikipedia Zero piracy in Bangladesh; bureaucracy; chilling effects; too few cooks; translation gaps

• Traffic report: Purple

• Featured content: The best ... from the past two weeks

• Arbitration report: Two editors unbanned; Wikicology case enters workshop phase; Gamaliel restricted from Gamergate at his own request

• Recent research: The eight roles of Wikipedians; do edit histories expose social relations among editors?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

• News and notes: Affiliates' nomination of WMF trustees announced; FDC's straight talking to WMF

• Op-ed: Swiss chapter in turmoil

• In the media: Wikimedia's Dario Taraborelli quoted on Google's Knowledge Graph in The Washington Post

• Featured content: Two weeks for the prize of one

• Traffic report: Oh behave, Beyhive / Underdogs

• Arbitration report: "Wikicology" ends in site ban; evidence and workshop phases concluded for "Gamaliel and others"

• Wikicup: That's it for WikiCup Round 2!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

• News and notes: Upcoming Wikimedia conferences in the US and India; May Metrics and Activities Meeting

• Special report: Compensation paid to Sue Gardner increased by almost 50 percent after she stepped down as executive director

• In the media: The perils of Wikipedia's monopoly; Wikipedians' fragility; Street Sharks hoax

• Featured content: Eight articles, three lists and five pictures

• Op-ed: Journey of a Wikipedian

• Arbitration report: Gamaliel resigns from the arbitration committee

• Recent research: English as Wikipedia's Lingua Franca; deletion rationales; schizophrenia controversies

• Traffic report: Splitting (musical) airs / Slow Ride

• Blog: Freely licensed magic at Eurovision

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

• News and notes: WMF cuts budget for 2016-17 as scope tightens

• In the media: Jimmy Wales on net neutrality—"It's complicated"—and his $100m fundraising challenge

• Featured content: Overwhelmed ... by pictures

• Traffic report: Pop goes the culture, again.

• Arbitration report: ArbCom case "Gamaliel and others" concludes

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Video Games

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

• News and notes: Clarifications on status and compensation of outgoing executive directors Sue Gardner and Lila Tretikov

• Special report: Wikiversity Journal—A new user group

• Featured content: From the crème de la crème

• In the media: Biography disputes; Craig Newmark donation; PR editing

• Op-ed: Commons Picture of the Year; Wikidata licensing

• Traffic report: Another one with sports; Knockout, brief candle

• Blog: Why I proofread poetry at Wikisource

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

• News and notes: Board unanimously appoints Katherine Maher as new WMF executive director; Wikimedia lawsuits in France and Germany

• Op-ed: Two policies in conflict?

• In the media: Terrorism database cites Wikipedia as a source

• Featured content: Triple fun of featured content

• Traffic report: Goalposts; Oy vexit

• Blog: Jimmy Wales names Emily Temple-Wood and Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight as Wikipedians of the Year

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

• News and notes: Board faces diversity and skill-base issues in new FDC appointments

• Discussion report: Busy month for discussions

• In the media: Women in science editathon gets national press; Wikipedia "shockingly biased"

• Featured content: A wide variety from the best

• Traffic report: Sports and esports

• Arbitration report: Script writers appointed for clerks

• Recent research: Using deep learning to predict article quality

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

• Editorial: Wikipedia policy suppresses sharing of information

• News and notes: Foundation presents results of harassment research, plans for automated identification; Wikiconference submissions open

• In the media: Paid editing service announced; Commercial exploitation of free images; Wikipedia as a crystal ball; Librarians to counter systemic bias

• Obituary: Kevin Gorman, who took on Wikipedia's gender gap and undisclosed paid advocacy, dies at 24

• Traffic report: Summer of Pokémon, Trump, and Hillary

• Featured content: Women and Hawaii

• Recent research: Easier navigation via better wikilinks

• Blog: All-new notifications page helps Wikimedians focus on what matters most

• Technology report: User script report (January to July 2016, part 1)

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

• News and notes: Focus on India—WikiConference produces new apps; state government adopts free licenses

• Special report: Engaging diverse communities to profile women of Antarctica

• In the media: The ugly, the bad, the playful, and the promising

• Featured content: Simply the best ... from the last two weeks

• Traffic report: Olympic views

• Technology report: User script report (January–July 2016, part 2)

• Arbitration report: The Michael Hardy case

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

• News and notes: AffCom still grappling with WMF Board's criteria for new chapters

• Special report: Olympics readership depended on language

• In the media: Librarians, Wikipedians, and a library of Wikipedia coverage

• WikiProject report: Watching Wikipedia

• Featured content: Entertainment, sport, and something else in-between

• Traffic report: From Phelps to Bolt to Reddit

• Technology report: Wikimedia mobile sites now don't load images if the user doesn't see them

• Recent research: Ethics of machine-created articles and fighting vandalism

• Blog: Upload of free photos from Swiss library underway

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to let you know

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)please ping me

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

• News and notes: Wikipedia Education Program case study published; and a longtime Wikimedian has made his final edit

• In the media: Wikipedia in the news

• Featured content: Three weeks in the land of featured content

• Arbitration report: Arbcom looking for new checkusers and oversight appointees while another case opens

• Traffic report: From Gene Wilder to JonBenét

• Technology report: Category sorting and template parameters

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

• News and notes: Fundraising, flora and fauna

• Discussion report: Cultivating leadership: Wikimedia Foundation seeks input

• In the media: A news columnist on the frustrations of tweaking his Wikipedia bio

• Technology report: Upcoming tech projects for 2017

• Featured content: Variety is the spice of life

• Traffic report: Debates and escapes

• Recent research: A 2011 study resurfaces in a media report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

• News and notes: Finally, a new CTO; trustee joins Quora; copyright upgrade impending

• In the media: Washington Post continues in-depth Wikipedia coverage

• Wikicup: WikiCup winners

• Discussion report: What's on your tech wishlist for the coming year?

• Technology report: New guideline for technical collaboration; citation templates now flag open access content

• Featured content: Cream of the crop

• Traffic report: Un-presidential politics

• Arbitration report: Recapping October's activities

• Recent research: Why women edit less, and where they are overrepresented; article importance and quality; predicting elections from Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MurderByDeadcopy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

• News and notes: Arbitration Committee elections commence

• In the media: Roundup of news related to U.S. presidential election and more

• Blog: The top fifteen winning photos from Wiki Loves Earth

• Gallery: Around the world with Wiki Loves Monuments 2016

• Featured content: Featured mix

• Special report: Taking stock of the Good Article backlog

• Op-ed: Fundraising data should be more transparent

• Traffic report: President-elect Trump

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

• Year in review: Looking back on 2016

• News and notes: Strategic planning update; English ArbCom election results

• Special report: German ArbCom implodes

• In focus: Active user page filter prevents vandalism and harassment

• Op-ed: Operation successful, patient dead: Outreach workshops in Namibia

• In the media: In brief: Coverage of gender gap initiatives, banner fundraising, and more

• Featured content: The Christmas edition

• Technology report: Labs improvements impact 2016 Tool Labs survey results

• Traffic report: Post-election traffic blues

• Blog: Wiki Loves Monuments contest winners announced

• Recent research: One study and several abstracts

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

• From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost

• News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?

• Interview: What is it like to edit Wikipedia when you're blind?

• In the media: Year-end roundups, Wikipedia's 16th birthday, and more

• Featured content: One year ends, and another begins

• Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases

• Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new

• Technology report: Tech present, past, and future

• Recent research: Female Wikipedians aren't more likely to edit women biographies; Black Lives Matter in Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

• Arbitration report: WMF Legal and ArbCom weigh in on tension between disclosure requirements and user privacy

• Special report: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing

• News and notes: Official WMF rebuke to Trump policy; WMF secures restricted funds

• In focus: WMF strategy consultant brings background in crisis reputation management; Team behind popular WMF software put "on pause"

• WikiProject report: For the birds!

• Op-ed: How to make editing workshops useful, even if participants don't stick around

• In the media: Presidential politics, periodic table, and our periodic roundup of updates

• Technology report: Better PDFs, backup plans, and birthday wishes

• Traffic report: Cool It Now

• Featured content: Three weeks dominated by articles

• Forum: Productive collaboration around coordinated protest marches; Media and political personalities comment on Wikipedia at its 16th birthday celebration

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

• From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a new RSS feed

• Recent research: Special issue: Wikipedia in education

• Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in Android app

• In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia

• Gallery: A Met montage

• Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers

• Op-ed: Wikipedia has cancer

• Featured content: The dominance of articles continues

• Traffic report: Love, football, and politics

• Blog: WikiIndaba 2017: A continent gathers to chart a path forward

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

• From the editors: Signpost status: On reserve power, help wanted!

• News and notes: Global Elections

• Arbitration report: Cases closed in the Pacific and with Magioladitis

• Op-ed: Wikipedia's lead sentence problem

• Featured content: Three months in the land of the featured

• In the media: Did Wikipedia just assume Garfield's gender?

• Recent research: Wikipedia bot wars capture the imagination of the popular press

• Technology report: Tech news catch-up

• Traffic report: Film on Top: Sampling the weekly top 10

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

• News and notes: Departments reorganized at Wikimedia Foundation, and a month without new RfAs (so far)

• In the media: Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill

• Op-ed: Facto Post: a fresh take

• Featured content: Will there ever be a break? The slew of featured content continues

• Traffic report: Wonder Woman beats Batman, The Mummy, Darth Vader and the Earth

• Recent research: Utopian bubbles: Can Wikipedians create value outside of the capitalist system?

• Technology report: Improved search, and WMF data scientist tells all

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

• News and notes: French chapter woes, new affiliates and more WMF team changes

• Featured content: Spectacular animals, Pine Trees screens, and more

• In the media: Concern about access and fairness, Foundation expenditures, and relationship to real-world politics and commerce

• Recent research: The chilling effect of surveillance on Wikipedia readers

• Op-ed: Why Task Forces are Dying in 2017

• Gallery: A mix of patterns

• Humour: The Infobox Game

• Traffic report: Film, television and Internet phenomena reign with some room left over for America's birthday

• Technology report: New features in development; more breaking changes for scripts

• Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 3 wrap-up

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

• News and notes: Non-English special edition! 99% no news about English-based wiki communities!

• Recent research: Wikipedia can increase local tourism by +9%; predicting article quality with deep learning; recent behavior predicts quality

• WikiProject report: Comic relief

• In the media: Wikipedia used to judge death penalty, arms smuggling, Indonesian governance, and HOTTEST celebrity

• Traffic report: Swedish countess tops the list

• Blog: Canadian Supreme Court rules against Google in favor of worldwide court orders

• Special report: Sharing Wikipedia offline medical information in the Dominican Republic

• Featured content: Everywhere in the lead

• Technology report: Introducing TechCom

• Humour: WWASOHs and ETCSSs

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

• From the editors: What happened at Wikimania?

• News and notes: Basselpedia; WMF Board of Trustees appointments

• Featured content: Warfighters and their tools or trees and butterflies

• Traffic report: A fortnight of conflicts

• Special report: Biomedical content, and some thoughts on its future

• Recent research: Discussion summarization; Twitter bots tracking government edits; extracting trivia from Wikipedia

• In the media: Google's Ideological Echo Chamber; What makes someone successful?

• WikiProject report: WikiProject YouTube

• Technology report: Latest tech news

• Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 4 wrap-up

• Humour: Bots

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

• News and notes: Chapter updates; ACTRIAL

• In the media: Monkey settlement; Wikipedia used to give AI context clues

• Humour: Chickenz

• Recent research: Wikipedia articles vs. concepts; Wikipedia usage in Europe

• Technology report: Flow restarted; Wikidata connection notifications

• Gallery: Chicken mania

• Special report: Two steps forward, one step backward: The Sustainability Initiative

• Traffic report: Fights and frights

• Featured content: Flying high

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

• News and notes: Money! WMF fundraising, Wikimedia strategy, WMF new office!

• Featured content: Don, Marcel, Emily, Jessica and other notables

• Humour: Guys named Ralph

• In focus: Offline Wikipedia developed at OFF.NETWORK Content Hackathon

• Blog: The future of offline access to Wikipedia: The Kiwix example

• In the media: Facebook and poetry

• Special report: Working with GLAMs in the UK

• Traffic report: Death, disaster, and entertainment

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

• News and notes: Cons, cons, cons

• Arbitration report: Administrator desysoped; How to deal with crosswiki issues; Mister Wiki case likely

• Technology report: Searching and surveying

• Interview: A featured article centurion

• WikiProject report: Recommendations for WikiProjects

• In the media: Open knowledge platform as a media institution

• Traffic report: Strange and inappropriate

• Featured content: We will remember them

• Recent research: Who wrote this? New dataset on the provenance of Wikipedia text

• Humour: Good faith (but still incomprehensible)

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

• Special report: Women in Red World Contest wrap-up

• Blog: Close encounters of the Wikipedia kind

• Featured content: Featured content to finish 2017

• In the media: Stolen seagulls, public domain primates and more

• Arbitration report: Last case of 2017: Mister Wiki editors

• Gallery: Wiki loving

• Interview: Interview with Charlesjsharp, regular contributor of Wikipedia's Featured Pictures

• Recent research: French medical articles have "high rate of veracity"

• Technology report: Your wish lists and more Wikimedia tech

• Traffic report: Notable heroes and bad guys

• Humour: On their way to the WMF Incubator

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

• News and notes: Communication is key

• In the media: The Paris Review, British Crown and British Media

• Featured content: History, gaming and multifarious topics

• Interview: Interview with Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the top contributor to English Wikipedia by edit count

• Technology report: Dedicated Wikidata database servers

• Humour: Why don't we have an article about _________?

• Arbitration report: Mister Wiki is first arbitration committee decision of 2018

• Traffic report: The best and worst of 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018

• Op-ed: Do editors have the right to be forgotten?

• Featured content: Wars, sieges, disasters and everything black possible

• Recent research: Automated Q&A from Wikipedia articles; Who succeeds in talk page discussions?

• Blog: New monthly dataset shows where people fall into Wikipedia rabbit holes

• Interview: Interview with The Rambling Man, Wikipedia's top contributor of Featured Lists

• Traffic report: TV, death, sports, and doodles

• Special report: Cochrane–Wikipedia Initiative

• Arbitration report: New cases requested for inter-editor hostility and other collaboration issues

• In the media: Solving crime; editing out violence allegations

• Humour: You really are in Wonderland

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

• News and notes: The future is Swedish with a lack of administrators

• Recent research: Politically diverse editors write better articles; Reddit and Stack Overflow benefit from Wikipedia but don't give back

• Arbitration report: Arbitration committee prepares to examine two new cases

• Traffic report: Addicted to sports and pain

• Featured content: Entertainment, sports and history

• Technology report: Paragraph-based edit conflict screen; broken thanks

• Humour: Impossible and unexplained traffic report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

• Op-ed: Death knell for The Signpost?

• News and notes: Wiki Conference roundup and new appointments.

• Arbitration report: Ironing out issues in infoboxes; not sure yet about New Jersey; and an administrator who probably wasn't uncivil to a sockpuppet.

• In the media: The media on Wikipedia's workings: the good and not-so-good

• Traffic report: Real sports, real women and an imaginary country: what's on top for Wikipedia readers

• Featured content: Animals, Ships, and Songs

• Technology report: Timeless skin review by Force Radical.

• Special report: ACTRIAL wrap-up.

• Humour: WikiWorld Reruns

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

• From the editors: The Signpost's presses roll again

• Signpost: Future directions for The Signpost

• News and notes: Photo of Kim Jong-un. Stephen Hawking death tops hits on many Wikipedias.

• In the media: The rise of Wikipedia as a disinformation mop

• In focus: Admin reports board under criticism

• Special report: ACTRIAL results adopted by landslide

• Opinion: Guideline for Organization Notability revised

• Op-ed: World War II Myth-making and Wikipedia

• Community view: It's time we look past Women in Red to counter systemic bias

• Discussion report: The future of portals

• Arbitration report: No new cases, and one motion on administrative misconduct

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Military History

• Blog: Why the world reads Wikipedia

• Humour: Our Favorite Places to Whine About Stuff

• Traffic report: A quiet place to wrestle with the articles of March

• Technology report: Coming soon: Books-to-PDF, interactive maps, rollback confirmation

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Gallery: A look at some famous and not as well-known border tripoints

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

• From the editor: Another issue meets the deadline

• Op-ed: Has the wind gone out of the AdminShip's sails?

• Opinion: Integrating my many lives on Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Portals

• Discussion report: User rights, infoboxes, and more discussion on portals

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Arbitration report: Managing difficult topics

• News and notes: Lots of Wikimedia

• In the media: Wikipedia in Turkish politics; COI politics in Wikipedia; most cited work

• Traffic report: We love our superheroes

• Technology report: A trove of contributor and developer goodies

• Blog: Why I write about women on Wikipedia

• Recent research: Why people don't contribute to Wikipedia; using Wikipedia to teach statistics, technical writing, and controversial issues

• Humour: Play with your food

• Gallery: Wine not?

• From the archives: The Signpost scoops The Signpost

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

• From the editor: Another issue meets the deadline

• Op-ed: Has the wind gone out of the AdminShip's sails?

• Opinion: Integrating my many lives on Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Portals

• Discussion report: User rights, infoboxes, and more discussion on portals

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Arbitration report: Managing difficult topics

• News and notes: Lots of Wikimedia

• In the media: Wikipedia in Turkish politics; COI politics in Wikipedia; most cited work

• Traffic report: We love our superheroes

• Technology report: A trove of contributor and developer goodies

• Blog: Why I write about women on Wikipedia

• Recent research: Why people don't contribute to Wikipedia; using Wikipedia to teach statistics, technical writing, and controversial issues

• Humour: Play with your food

• Gallery: Wine not?

• From the archives: The Signpost scoops The Signpost

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

• From the editor: The Admin Ship is still barely afloat, while a Foundation project risks sinking

• Special report: NPR and AfC – The Marshall Plan: an engagement and a marriage?

• Op-ed: What do admins do?

• Opinion: Google isn't responsible for Wikipedia's mistakes

• News and notes: Money, milestones, and Wikimania

• In the media: Much wikilove from the Mayor of London, less from Paekākāriki or a certain candidate for U.S. Congress

• Discussion report: Deletion, page moves, and an update to the main page

• Featured content: New promotions

• Arbitration report: WWII, UK politics, and a user deCrat'ed

• Traffic report: Endgame

• Technology report: Improvements piled on more improvements

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Africa

• Blog: Wikipedia should be open for editors in Turkey

• Recent research: How censorship can backfire and conversations can go awry

• Humour: Television plot lines

• Wikipedia essays: This month's pick by The Signpost editors

• From the archives: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

• From the editor: If only if

• Op-ed: The last leg of the Admin Ship's current cruise

• Opinion: Wrestling with Wikipedia reality

• News and notes: Another newspaper for Wikipedia; Wikimania 2018 ends; changes at NPR

• In the media: Blackouts in Europe; Wikipedia and capitalists; WMF Jet Set

• Discussion report: Wikipedias take action against EU copyright proposal, plus new user right proposals

• Featured content: Wikipedia's best content in images and prose

• Arbitration report: Status quo processes retained in two disputes

• Traffic report: Soccer, football, call it what you like – that and summer movies leave room for little else

• Technology report: New bots, new prefs

• Gallery: Independence days, national holidays, and football – all in July

• Blog: Motivation of two editors

• Recent research: Different Wikipedias use different images; editing contests more successful than edit-a-thons

• Humour: It's all the same

• Essay: Wikipedia does not need you

• From the archives: The pending changes fiasco: how an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

• From the editor: Today's young adults don't know a world without Wikipedia

• Interview: 2018 Wikimedian of the Year, Farkhad Fatkullin

• News and notes: Flying high; low practice from Wikipedia 'cleansing' agency; where do our donations go? RfA sees a new trend

• In the media: Quicksilver AI writes articles

• Discussion report: Drafting an interface administrator policy

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Special report: Wikimania 2018

• Traffic report: Aretha dies – getting just 2,000 short of 5 million hits

• Technology report: Technical enhancements and a request to prioritize upcoming work

• Gallery: Leapfrog, historic Thai cave, and a rhythmic beat

• Recent research: Wehrmacht on Wikipedia, neural networks writing biographies

• Humour: Signpost editor censors herself

• Essay: Principle of Some Astonishment

• From the archives: Playing with Wikipedia words

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

• From the editor: Is this the new normal?

• News and notes: European copyright law moves forward

• In the media: Knowledge under fire

• Discussion report: Interface Admin policy proposal, part 2

• Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbcom

• Traffic report: John McCain's death generates over 7 million hits, followed by historical low

• Technology report: Paying attention to your mobile

• Gallery: A pat on the back

• Blog: After a catastrophic fire at the National Museum of Brazil, a drive to preserve what knowledge remains

• Recent research: How talk page use has changed since 2005; censorship shocks lead to centralization; is vandalism caused by workplace boredom?

• Humour: Signpost Crossword Puzzle

• Essay: Expressing thanks

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

• From the editors: The Signpost is still afloat, just barely

• Op-ed: Wikipedia's Strickland affair

• News and notes: WMF gets a million bucks

• In the media: Bans, celebs, and bias

• Discussion report: Mediation Committee and proposed deletion reform

• Traffic report: Unsurprisingly, sport leads the field – or the ring

• Technology report: Bots galore!

• Special report: NPP needs you

• Special report 2: Now Wikidata is six

• In focus: Alexa

• Gallery: Out of this world!

• Recent research: Wikimedia Commons worth $28.9 billion

• Humour: Talk page humour

• Opinion: Strickland incident

• From the archives: The Gardner Interview

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

• From the editor: Time for a truce

• Op-ed: Looking back, looking forward: A beginner's experience on Wikipedia

• Special report: The Christmas wishlist

• Opinion: The blogosphere migrates to Galaxy WMF

• News and notes: Reviewer of the year, WikiCup winner, and the 2019 Wikimedia Summit

• Reflections: Wikipedia, history, and the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day

• In the media: Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars

• Discussion report: Farewell, Mediation Committee

• Arbitration report: A long break ends

• Traffic report: Queen reigns for four weeks straight

• Gallery: Intersections

• Recent research: Why do the most active Wikipedians burn out?; only 4% of students vandalize

• Essay: No one cares about your garage band

• Humour: The dark side of our favorite root vegetable

• From the archives: Ars longa, vita brevis

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

• From the editors: Where to draw the line in reporting?

• Op-ed: Wikipedia not trumped by Trump appointee

• Special report: The Signpost got 380,000+ views in 2018, sounds reasonable enough, right?

• News and notes: Some wishes do come true

• In the media: Political hijinks

• Discussion report: A new record low for RfA

• WikiProject report: Articlegenesis

• Arbitration report: Year ends with one active case

• Traffic report: Queen dethroned by U.S. presidents

• Gallery: Sun and Moon, water and stone

• Blog: News from the WMF

• Humour: I believe in Bigfoot

• Essay: Requests for medication

• From the archives: Compromised admin accounts – again

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

• Op-Ed: Random Rewards Rejected

• In focus: The Collective Consciousness of Admin Userpages

• News and notes: WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives

• In the media: The Signpost's investigative story recognized, Wikipedia turns 18 and gets a birthday gift from Google, and more editors are recognized

• Discussion report: The future of the reference desk

• Featured content: Don't miss your great opportunity

• Arbitration report: An admin under the microscope

• Traffic report: Death, royals and superheroes: Avengers, Black Panther

• Technology report: When broken is easily fixed

• Gallery: Let us build a memorial fit for such pain and suffering

• News from the WMF: News from WMF

• Recent research: Ad revenue from reused Wikipedia articles; are Wikipedia researchers asking the right questions?

• Essay: How

• Humour: Village pump

• From the archives: An editorial board that includes you

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

• From the editors: Help wanted (still)

• News and notes: Front-page issues for the community

• In focus: Wikimedia affiliate organizations seek community participation in 2019 board election

• Discussion report: Talking about talk pages

• Featured content: Conquest, War, Famine, Death, and more!

• Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Binge-watching

• Technology report: Tool labs casters-up

• Gallery: Signed with pride

• Recent research: Research finds signs of cultural diversity and recreational habits of readers

• Essay: Optimist's guide to Wikipedia

• From the archives: New group aims to promote Wiki-Love

• Humour: Pesky Pronouns

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

• From the editors: Getting serious about humor

• News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive

• In the media: Women's history month

• Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding

• Featured content: Out of this world

• Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM

• Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations

• Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles

• News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive

• Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention

• From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion

• Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37

• Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?

• In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch

• Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride

• Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

• News and notes: An Action Packed April

• In the media: Is Wikipedia just another social media site?

• Discussion report: English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages

• Featured content: Anguish, accolades, animals, and art

• Arbitration report: An Active Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Mötley Crüe, Notre-Dame, a black hole, and Bonnie and Clyde

• Technology report: A new special page, and other news

• Gallery: Notre-Dame de Paris burns

• News from the WMF: Can machine learning uncover Wikipedia’s missing “citation needed” tags?

• Recent research: Female scholars underrepresented; whitepaper on Wikidata and libraries; undo patterns reveal editor hierarchy

• From the archives: Portals revisited

• Humour: Jimbo and Larry walk into a bar ...

• Opinion: The gaps in our knowledge of our gaps

• Interview: Katherine Maher marks 3 years as executive director

• Community view: 2019 Wikimedia Summit gathers movement affiliate representatives to discuss movement strategy

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

• From the editors: Picture that

• News and notes: Wikimania and trustee elections

• In the media: Politics, lawsuits and baseball

• Discussion report: Admin abuse leads to mass-desysop proposal on Azerbaijani Wikipedia

• Arbitration report: ArbCom forges ahead

• Traffic report: Dark marvels, thrones, a vile serial killer biopic, that's entertainment!

• Technology report: Lots of Bots

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Wikipedia in Turkey

• Recent research: Wikipedia more useful than academic journals, but is it stealing the news?

• Essay: Paid editing

• From the archives: FORUM:Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

• Discussion report: A constitutional crisis hits English Wikipedia

• News and notes: Mysterious ban, admin resignations, Wikimedia Thailand rising

• In the media: The disinformation age

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Traffic report: Juneteenth, Beauty Revealed, and more nuclear disasters

• Technology report: Actors and Bots

• Gallery: Unlike the North Face, Wiki Loves Earth

• Special report: Did Fram harass other editors?

• Recent research: What do editors do after being blocked?; the top mathematicians, universities and cancers according to Wikipedia

• From the archives: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching

• Opinion: Why the Terms of Use change didn't curtail undisclosed paid editing—and what might

• In focus: WikiJournals: A sister project proposal

• Community view: A CEO biography, paid for with taxes

• Op-Ed: 2019 Wikimedia Affiliate Selected Board Seats Election Results

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

• News and notes: Wikimedia grants less accessible for travel, equipment, meetups, and India

• In the media: Politics starts getting rough

• Discussion report: New proposals in aftermath of Fram ban

• Arbitration report: A month of reintegration

• Gallery: Classic panoramas from Heinrich Berann

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Community view: Video based summaries of Wikipedia articles. How and why?

• News from the WMF: Designing ethically with AI: How Wikimedia can harness machine learning in a responsible and human-centered way

• Recent research: Most influential medical journals; detecting pages to protect

• Special report: Administrator cadre continues to contract

• Traffic report: World cups, presidential candidates, and stranger things

• In focus: The French Wikipedia is overtaking the German

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

• News and notes: Documenting Wikimania and our beginnings

• In focus: Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff

• In the media: Many layers of fake news: Fake fiction and fake news vandalism

• Discussion report: Meta proposals on partial bans and IP users

• Traffic report: Once upon a time in Greenland with Boris and cornflakes

• Op-Ed: We couldn't have told you this, but Wikipedia was censored

• Opinion: The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia

• Community view: Chinese Wikipedia and the battle against extradition from Hong Kong

• News from the WMF: Meet Emna Mizouni, the newly minted 2019 Wikimedian of the Year

• Recent research: Special issue on gender gap and gender bias research

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

• From the editors: Where do we go from here?

• Special report: Post-Framgate wrapup

• In the media: A net loss: Wikipedia attacked, closing off Russia? welcoming back Turkey?

• Traffic report: Varied and intriguing entries, less Luck, and some retreads

• News from the WMF: How the Wikimedia Foundation is making efforts to go green

• Recent research: Wikipedia's role in assessing credibility of news sources; using wikis against procrastination; OpenSym 2019 report

• Gallery: Finding freely licensed photo collections

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• In focus: Wikidata & Wikibase for national libraries: the inaugural meeting

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

• In the media: How to use or abuse Wikipedia for fun or profit

• Special report: “Catch and Kill” on Wikipedia: Paid editing and the suppression of material on alleged sexual abuse

• In focus: The BBC looks at Chinese government editing

• Interview: Carl Miller on Wikipedia Wars

• Community view: Observations from the mainland

• Arbitration report: October actions

• Traffic report: Wrestling with a couple of teenagers, a Nobelist, and a lot of jokers

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Broadcast

• Recent research: Research at Wikimania 2019: More communication doesn't make editors more productive; Tor users doing good work; harmful content rare on English Wikipedia

• Essay: Wikipedia is in the real world

• News from the WMF: Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's what we're doing to help you stick around

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

• From the editor: Put on your birthday best

• News and notes: How soon for the next million articles?

• In the media: You say you want a revolution

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Arbitration report: Two requests for arbitration cases

• Traffic report: The queen and the princess meet the king and the joker

• Technology report: Reference things, sister things, stranger things

• Gallery: Winter and holidays

• Recent research: Bot census; discussions differ on Spanish and English Wikipedia; how nature's seasons affect pageviews

• Essay: Adminitis

• From the archives: WikiProject Spam, revisited

• In focus: An update on the Wikimedia Movement 2030 Strategy

• Special report: How many people edit in your favorite language? Where are they from?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

• From the editors: Caught with their hands in the cookie jar, again

• News and notes: What's up (and down) with administrators, articles and languages

• Special report: Are reputation management operatives scrubbing Wikipedia articles?

• In the media: "The fulfillment of the dream of humanity" or a nightmare of PR whitewashing on behalf of one-percenters?

• Discussion report: December discussions around the wiki

• Arbitration report: Announcement of 2020 Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Queens and aliens, exactly alike, once upon a December

• Technology report: User scripts and more

• Gallery: Holiday wishes

• Recent research: Acoustics and Wikipedia; Wiki Workshop 2019 summary

• From the archives: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited (re-revisited?)

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Op-Ed: Why we need to keep talking about Wikipedia's gender gap

• WikiProject report: Wikiproject Tree of Life: A Wikiproject report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

• From the editor: Reaching six million articles is great, but we need a moratorium

• News and notes: Six million articles on the English language Wikipedia

• Special report: The limits of volunteerism and the gatekeepers of Team Encarta

• In the media: Turkey's back up, but what's happening with Dot-org and a new visual identity?

• Arbitration report: Three cases at ArbCom

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2019

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, we're all winners

• News from the WMF: Capacity Building: Top 5 Themes from Community Conversations

• Community view: Our most important new article since November 1, 2015

• In focus: Cryptos and bitcoins and blockchains, oh no!

• Recent research: How useful is Wikipedia for novice programmers trying to learn computing concepts?

• From the archives: A decade of The Signpost, 2005-2015

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan: a wikiProject Report

• Humour: Predicting the 6,000,000th article

• Obituary: Remembering Wikipedia contributor Brian Boulton

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

• From the editor: The ball is in your court

• News and notes: Alexa ranking down to 13th worldwide

• Special report: More participation, more conversation, more pageviews

• In the media: Mapping IP editors, Smithsonian open-access, and coronavirus disinformation

• Discussion report: Do you prefer M or P?

• Arbitration report: Two prominent administrators removed

• By the numbers: How many actions by administrators does it take to clean up spam?

• Community view: The Incredible Invisible Woman

• In focus: History of The Signpost, 2015–2019

• Recent research: Wikipedia generates $50 billion/year consumer surplus in the US alone

• From the archives: Is Wikipedia for sale?

• Traffic report: February articles, floating in the dark

• Gallery: Feel the love

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Op-Ed: What I learned as Wikimedia UK Communications Coordinator

• Opinion: Wikipedia is another country

• Humour: The Wilhelm scream

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

• From the editors: The bad and the good

• News and notes: 2018 Wikipedian of the year blocked

• WikiProject report: WikiProject COVID-19: A WikiProject Report

• Special report: Wikipedia on COVID-19: what we publish and why it matters

• In the media: Blocked in Iran but still covering the big story

• Discussion report: Rethinking draft space

• Arbitration report: Unfinished business

• In focus: "I have been asked by Jeffrey Epstein …"

• Community view: Wikimedia community responds to COVID-19

• Recent research: Disease outbreak uncertainties, AfD forecasting, auto-updating Wikipedia

• From the archives: Text from Wikipedia good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own

• Traffic report: The only thing that matters in the world

• Gallery: Visible Women on Wikipedia

• News from the WMF: Amid COVID-19, Wikimedia Foundation offers full pay for reduced hours, mobilizes all staff to work remote, and waives sick time

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

• News and notes: Unbiased information from Ukraine's government?

• In the media: Coronavirus, again and again

• Discussion report: Redesigning Wikipedia, bit by bit

• Featured content: Featured content returns

• Arbitration report: Two difficult cases

• Traffic report: Disease the Rhythm of the Night

• Gallery: Roy is doing fine and sending more photos

• Recent research: Trending topics across languages; auto-detecting bias

• Essay: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing

• By the numbers: Open data and COVID-19: Wikipedia as an informational resource during the pandemic

• Opinion: Trusting Everybody to Work Together

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Interview: Health and RfA's: An interview with Guy Macon

• In focus: Multilingual Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: The Guild of Copy Editors

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello!

Even though I like to "help" Wikipedia by doing "basic improvements", I must say, you've been through a lot and think you deserve a treat, maybe some coffee or tea if you like. Sadly, I can do that for this is the internet (but the thought counts, yes?). Anyways, I hope you are doing well in all seriousness! I wish you luck in Wikipedia reforms, especially in terms of those stupid notability guidelines assuming you are still fighting the good fight, if not, that's fine too; this place is very, very bias bureaucracy that gets very angry if you call it that.... Otherwise, please enjoy yourself! Cheers, -Dgfknjk

P.S. I'm not really good at emoting, even more so on the virtual sphere, so please, don't take this as sarcasm, it would be very easy in your position. P.S.S. Sorry if this is too long to read.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgfknjk (talk • contribs) 09:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)