The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2015-01-07. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

I love the unintentional Kock Bloch joke ya guys unwittingly made.

Nä. Not unintentional. Hafspajen (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed! I laughed out loud more than once reading this.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• sigh* It took me six months to get FA on AI Mk. IV radar, and no one put it in The Signpost. Feel the love :-( Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• It was in The Signpost- I wrote the section myself. Who cut it out? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• It's in the next issue- the love will be felt :) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ahhh, the delay, it's killing me! Perhaps you might find it interesting that the FAC took longer than the Battle of Britain, which seems ironic given the content. :-) Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• I might just mention that ;) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Aye, sorry about that, Maury: we need enough time between the list being finalized and the issue being due to get things ready, and we use the weekly archives at WP:GO for what's in an issue. We used to use the immediately previous weekly archive, but that only gave three or four days to prepare an issue, so it was pretty easy to run into problems. It's a little slower now, but we've at least been able to consistently keep to schedule without too much stress, even with people going on holidays and the like. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I was being a grinch. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: The whole point of this series is to make sure that good content is celebrated. If you thought we had skipped you out, you had every right to be upset. It's just, luckily, we hadn't, we just have a funny schedule. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Does anyone want to call Harris's office and find out what they charge for editing on behalf of their clients? Ask them what they would take to troll some tag-team stalkers on econ articles. EllenCT (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Re. "Speedy editing" above, is "Wikipedia editing times have vastly increased" right? Maybe "saving speeds have vastly increased". Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 22:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've changed the text to make it clear that what has decreased significantly is the time needed by the MediaWiki software to save an edit, not the overall time that an editor spends doing an edit. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"If you don’t know how to get something corrected on Wikipedia for your boss and you're a digital campaign consultant in 2015, you might as well quit."

Wow, that's a strong statement. And quite true, I guess. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• But SHOULD you correct it? If you shouldn't, then not being able to shouldn't be seen as a problem.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• I did my part with this article. I wasn't sure whether an edit was justified to the section on Indonesia AirAsia since that section has a wlink to the main article, but at the very least there needed to be a hatnote.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

My position on Toilet paper orientation, since I live alone, is just to put the toilet paper on top of the toilet. It's just too complicated to change the roll otherwise. But I'm not editing that article to add my position on the subject. I doubt I would find enough sources advocating for that position to justify the addition, although it might be there already.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-01-07/Interview

"Auld Lang Syle" is #11 when it has more views than #4 to #10, can people fix this? P.S. I didn't get this issue even though I subscribed. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 03:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That appeared to be a typo on Wikipedia:Top 25 Report, after looking at it's source, so I changed it. Edgepedia (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks to Edgepedia who corrected it. The Top25 report and Traffic Report are manually compiled from the WP:5000 and occasionally we make an error like this, i.e., the articles are in the proper order but I failed to copy in the viewcount for that article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)