Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newsroom discussions prior to May 2018 are archived at WT:POST.

Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

2.5 hours to go!

I think this issue is looking very good so far. @HaeB: - let me know when you're ready to go.

In the meantime, I'd appreciate:

  • a good copy editing for the Special report
  • help with the blurbs at the bottom of Featured content
  • Your additions and ce to From the team - this will only work if it is indeed from the team
  • I'll cancel the Discussion report, and approve some other stories for publication
  • Anything else needed?

Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  • I think everything is done. I've been able to go over a number of articles (just finished the special report), EpicPupper and Sennecaster finished up the featured content and news & notes. Had to resolve an edit conflict on the special report, but everything looks good there now (bare links for inline refs were fixed by @Gerald Waldo Luis:, noticeboard thread links fixed by me). Unless I hear anything else, I think we are good to go in half an hour. jp×g 19:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I see there is a "recent research" article. I'll go over that now. jp×g 19:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
It looks from the Etherpad like this is actually being scheduled for March. I can't tell -- @HaeB: is this intended for release in the current edition? It's only got one paper in it, so I don't know if this is enough to run. jp×g 19:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Please also see my earlier comments in the main newsroom page. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@HaeB: will you be ready in 10 minutes (with headline and blurb)? @JPxG: will you be ready to publish 10 minutes after that? Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Smallbones, seems like the From The Team piece hasn't been approved? Looks all good for me. GeraldWL 19:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Smallbones and JPxG: Yes (headline, blurb and byline are already in place, it could already be published if need be). Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Smallbones and JPxG: Good to go! Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Smallbones approve tis Recent Research GeraldWL 20:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You all just got trolled -- it was actually a hot dog. Everything seems to have gone well (and I've now got global massmessage permissions, so no need to request anything on Meta). Looks like we did good this time! jp×g 20:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Whew, I was starting to worry about your BED exposure. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Automation + bots

(Relatively low priority). Does anyone have any feedback about a bot to automate some of the remaining manual tasks? I have a bot ready that I can submit for approval with the following tasks in mind:

  • Posts a RecentChangesLinked link to reader feedback on this talk page. The bot would check hourly if there is a new Signpost issue out by way of the pages in the format of "Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/YEAR-MONTH-DATE", e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-01-30, and transclude it onto a subpage of the bot with the "10" parameter (pending a change to the template used that I've requested here.)
  • Resets the newsroom every publication.
  • Archives the messages on the newsroom talk page every publication. I don't have this ironed out yet actually; I'm not sure how to approach this. Should the bot tell ClueBot to archive all threads currently on the page that are more than 1 day old (e.g. created before the publication process) every issue? I think that this is probably the best solution; it avoids false positives and still allows for allowlisting certain threads to not be archived with e.g. {{pinned}}.

The rest of the manual steps in publication are social-media related and could be investigated after the credentials are sorted out. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

These are really smart. It seems like most of these could be incorporated into the script (although I had to fork my own version of it to get it to work, so maybe not). One thing that seems difficult is the auto-archiving; sometimes there will be new sections (with feedback about the latest issue) a couple minutes after publication, so that would need to be very carefully calibrated if going off date ranges. It may be easier to just incorporate it into the publishing script, and have it run prior to (or simultaneously with) the publishing. But if I'm not writing the bot, I'll hold off on opinions about how it should be done ;) jp×g 06:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the script probably would be a better addition :) I'll see how forkable the script is and try to make a version of that. Scream at me if I haven't given updates here in a month or so, please. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 22:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Resetting the main newsroom page automatically upon publication sounds like a great idea.
As for this talk page, the existing archive bot settings seem fine; if anything, the 30 days limit should be increased instead of decreased, given that because of the Signpost's publication cycle, some threads may still see new activity after a month (like this one right now ;-) ). Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

2022 staff organization

I think it's a good idea to have a default plan to continue 2022 with distributed leadership amongst the editors, until an Editor-in-Chief emerges. In advance of 2022 I am inviting folks to read the list of positions at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Coordination and list themselves there. We especially need more formally under "editor", not just me.

In a few days, I will probably strongly encourage a few regular contributors to list themselves as editor if they have not by then. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We already have such a list at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/About#The_Signpost_team. I don't think it makes sense to start a second one. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Oops, that's what I meant. Read the definitions of the positions at the first link I posted, add yourself at the link HaeB posted. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Reader feedback

View reader feedback on issue 2 (February)

All: You can monitor reader feedback by pressing the button. jp×g 20:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It looks good to me!

We'll see what the readers say. But it's super important that we are happy with what we write. I'm very happy with this issue. A very good mix of people helped out, Signpost newbies, copy editors, a French admin (we don't get those too often!) and the old stalwarts.(hi Blue!) Thanks to everybody. This has been one of my favorite issues, just from the experience of everybody putting it together. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Smallbones, my pleasure. I have always wanted to contribute with SP and this feels like the right time. Who knows, maybe I'll write an op-ed for y'all? haha haha.... Anyways, it's a very fun process. GeraldWL 20:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, I'll second that. Happy to see new names on the article histories. Thanks everybody. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Looks great, I read it all, love it. I am anxious about identifying a new editor and chief and also about long term stability of the Signpost. Running the publication is a lot of committed volunteer labor and this is among the few Wikimedia projects which actually require long term consistent scheduled upkeep to keep operational. Even assuming that turnover happens successfully this time I am talking with others about how to get more stability. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject report

Could the WikiProject report be made a recurring feature? If it's fine, I'm planning on moving it up to the regular features on {{Signpost assignments}}. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 22:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It used to be, until 2016 (notice it becomes more sporadic afterwards). Maybe it can be again. igordebraga ≠ 15:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Organization of Signpost templates

The templates used by the Signpost right now seem quite disorganized. Some are in template-space, some are in Wikipedia space, and some are in subpages of templates. This is a bit of straw poll to see everyone's thoughts. Do you prefer:

  1. Template-space, different templates
  2. Template-space, subpages of a template
  3. Wikipedia-space, subpages of a template page for the Signpost
  4. Wikipedia-space, subpages of the Signpost
  5. Don't care 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 22:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Gmail credentials

Who has access to them (if any)? 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 22:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I just sent out the email, as it seems no one has used our gmail account since September 2020. Credentials are handled by The ed17. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. @The ed17, could you share the credentials with me in some way (for outreach purposes and automation)? I have email with PGP if that's preferred, or I can also do some other way. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
@EpicPupper: I've sent you an email. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Traffic report, but for edits rather than pageviews

Hello there! I stumbled upon Wikipedia:Database reports/Most edited articles last month today and thought that it would be interesting to have a feature similar to the Traffic Report, but for most-edited articles (top 25 monthly). Would this be okay? Where should it be included, inside the Traffic Report or somewhere else? 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

EpicPupper, I would be delighted to provide commentary. I think it would be suited for Traffic report but perhaps break the article down to two sections: one for the... traffic, one for editing. GeraldWL 06:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Even if there is an overlap for both (of course the top subject is the one dominating this week's WP:TOP25!), I support it. igordebraga ≠ 15:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Cool. I'll start a trial of it this month, then. I think I'll separate it into articles and all namespaces (in the all namespaces section, excluding the articles). 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 22:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep an eye peeled please.

Perhaps it's too early to set off a tornado alert, but if you hear something about an attack on Wikipedia please try to email me or a fellow Signposter and try to post it here. If it can really 100% be confirmed, I'll suggest we get the news out - likely at User talk:Jimbo Wales. But let's not spread rumors

  • discussions of possible news via email or on this talk page
  • 100% sure - at Jimbo's talk page.
  • stay cool

Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  • If and when there's an outage (of the West Coast server cluster for instance), does anyone have any idea what the ratio of affected users to downdetector reports would be? I'd throw out a number like 1,000:1 as a total guess. Maybe more like 10,000:1. It could be useful to include in any future Signpost reports. Here is a little primer on how it works. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Is this related to the botnet attacks? 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Unknown. I was told there would be followup at wikitech:Incident status. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
https://downdetector.com/status/wikipedia/ only shows one set of problems at about 5-6 pm last night, so this might have been just one random blip. So please stay cool, but keep your eyes peeled just in case. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
It seems (by examining traceroute, see [1]) that West Coast traffic is still being sent to Dallas today, instead of ulsfo in San Francisco. Intrigued to see the report, when it's available. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
All I can find posted about it right now is this brief incident report. It confirms what I saw with traceroute: West Coast datacenter (presumably ULSFO) is still down. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Improvement in Page Load Times on Wikipedia after the 2014 ULSFO datacenter deployment
  • Posted at mediawiki, an analysis of the improvements when the West Coast ulsfo server cluster went online in 2014: mw:Analytics/Reports/ULSFOImpact. It shows the greatest improvement in Asia-Pacific, especially Indonesia where latency went down 300 ms, also Japan and Korea improved by hundreds of milliseconds, quite a lot. A point for discussion if someone reaches out to the tech team is, has this taken a step backwards as a result of their mitigation measures? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
A fuller incident report has since been started at wikitech:Incident documentation/2022-03-01 ulsfo network. Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Have added a small item on this at News and notes. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

A small part of a story for next month?

Given these 2 recent news stories"

There's a story in here, even if it's relatively short, that we *have to cover* next month. But there is *possibly* a bigger story that interests me that would be about EnWiki. Noting that nothing is proven yet and that we'll go with the facts we find - is the Russian gov't or related Trolls from Olgino focusing their edits on enWiki over ruWiki? Are our editors on ruWiki different from the Russians editing on enWiki? There are multiple possible reasons something like that might appear to be the case, many of them starting with "It's only natural that ... " But this might be the best time to look at the question. Any folks (plural) want to help investigate this? Lots of interviewing involved. contact me by email, not here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Roskomnadzor demands censorship

Surprising absolutely nobody, Roskomnadzor demanded that Wikipedia be censored [2]. Surprising maybe a few, WMF told them to drop dead "we will not back down" [3]. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Roskomnadzor hacked by Anonymous

This is a novel situation where we may find out soon what exactly Roskomnadzor was censoring, including Wikipedia. I haven't looked myself but this says where the files are posted. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

In the News - potential outing issue

Verge has just published a story (Redacted). This has potential WP:OUTING implications. The editor's apparent real name, but not their Wikipedia handle, are given in the story. How can we handle this? Should the article be added to 'In The News', or avoided entirely? Ganesha811 (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia handle is linked from the story - so seems already outed. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't see that there is any reason for Signposters to take any chances on being banned for linking to an article that links to an article that might be said to out someby. Certainly while the links are up ot User talk:Jimbo Wales. The link to a link to another link theory of outing is discredited by guideline. Also WP:Ignore all rules in this case applies because absolutely nobody will benefit by keeping the editor's identity secret. The Belarusian police know both his real name and username and already have him in custody. So go on and discuss everything. Send me a link by email, if you think i don;t know it already. Definitely email me the latest news and links and I'll post what's needed here. Work on your articles with names and links and email them to me. Tell me what you are comfortable including (I'll respect that). I'll review just before publication just in case anything changes. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
  • OK, there is a Wikipedia article using "real name". I think the so-called outing issue will resolve itself within 3-4 days when everybody realizes that nobody benefits from applying the super-extreme interpretation of WP:OUTING, and that we really can't do *anything* in this case, internal wikipedia business or article editing, under that misinterpretation of the rule. In other words, that we have to apply Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment which is a guideline that further explains WP:OUT and is linked to there as covering all the details that should be considered.
  • Despite the extreme misinterpretation of WP:OUT there is no rule that says
    • you can't put an editor's real name and username in the same article, or
    • that you can't link to an external source that does that, or even
    • that you can't link to a source that links to a source that ...
To be sure, there are some limitations on these actions, but common sense, lack of actual (not theoretical) harassment, intent and reliable sources have to be considered, according to Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment.
This will be resolved in a few days. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Meantime the very same thing is being discussed on User talk:Jimbo Wales and I don't see any oversighting there. Hmmm. I've asked oversight-en-wp for clarification. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


As I predicted a few days ago, this issue has been resolved. The Mark Bernstein (Wikipedian) on enWiki and on several other language versions directly give the username of MB, well as link to news articles which give both the real name and username. Also User talk:Jimbo Wales links to some of the same articles. It would be a shame if the extreme reading of WP:Out prevented us from having an article or an onWiki discussion about the case. So feel free to mention both names in any article you write on this topic *if - in your opinion it adds to the article.* Editors and copy editors should leave this to the reporter's discretion, except in extreme cases. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I've just reviewed this situation. It remains the same IMHO. The Wiki article linked above still includes the real name of an editor as well as his user name and a ref to the connection. So this is allowed in this case. @Bri:

I'm reviewing something at NaN and will send you an email within 30 minures. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Acknowledged ☆ Bri (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Suppression on ru.wiki

I found out from a German news source -- the entire edit history of the Russian Wiki article ru:Вторжение России на Украину (2022), "Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022)" has been suppressed. It's extraordinary and worth reporting somewhere. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the suppression of the names of the contributors to the article is extraordinary. But note that the article has not been suppressed. That looks good to me but should be reported.
Let's go over what we need for the next issue on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
  • Something from a Ukrainian POV - likely an opinion piece. I haven't been able to arrange this article despite a couple of requests I sent out. If anybody has any ideas, please let me know ASAP!
  • Something on Mark Bernstein and ruWiki - likely In the News, maybe In the media,
  • I've got a disinformation report article.
  • Let me know if other topics should be covered.
Sincerely,
Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I've started something at News and notes, including a lengthy quote from Jimmy Wales. It's pretty rough and other editors are super invited to go over it to try to make sense of all of this. The diff that starts it out has some text we could use if it's deemed okay wrt names and identities. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Two days, 5 hours until publication

This should be a great issue

There will be three (3) eyewitness reports from Ukraine. My only difficulty here is what rubrics to put them under. Maybe

  • Eyewitness Wikipedian - Vinnytsia, Ukraine,
  • Eyewitness Wikipedian - Kharkiv, Ukraine,
  • Eyewitness Wikipedian - Western Ukraine.

Let's let the authors' voices come thru here. Copy editing, other than formatting should be minimal. (more in 5 minutes) Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I'll have a From the editor" and "Disinformation report" on Ukraine and oligarchs
  • Traffic report looks like the readers are interested in 'all Ukraine, all the time.' If that's what we've got, let's go with it
  • I'm hoping @Vysotsky: will have a great addition to this, but it won't be under "Serendipity".
  • News and notes - well there is some non-Ukraine news

That said

  • @HaeB: just your usual gentle reminder for recent research
  • That leaves about 9 spots open. If you've got non-Tkraine material - go for it!
  • @JPxG: will you be available to publish?

I'll start posting the eyewitness reports now. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I can help copyedit various things. I can have my portion of the disinformation report finished within the next hour. I was hoping to get in a WikiProject report for this issue, but alas, no. I can probably finish the tech report, featured content and gallery (Ukraine-related).
What are everyone's thoughts on publishing a "from the team" statement on the war in Ukraine - similar to what Diff has? I can put something together. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Re disinformation report, I see that part of it is already finished, so I'm skipping looking into those parts. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
@Smallbones: I'll be available to publish. jp×g 04:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

To do

  • There are at least 6 articles marked ready for copy editing
  • The Gallery could use some more pix. Note the search link there
  • "From the team" is marked for CE, but I;ll suggest Signposters make short additions as wll. I will.
  • more later - follow this space.

Eyewitness Wikimedian

I've moved the "Eyewitness Wikipedian" pages to "Wikimedian" to broaden scope, and also as one of the contributors mainly contributes to Commons, another contributes a lot to Wikidata, another has strong contributions to Commons, etc. Scream at me if you disagree. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 01:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

was that a scream? 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 01:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I think these should be moved once again to use dashes instead of hyphens in the article title (i.e. – not -). ☆ Bri (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Heads-up

I've added JPxG as publication manager since they've been doing it recently anyways. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 07:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I've cleared out the suggestions; they should all be implemented or commented on appropriately now. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 07:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Questions and et cetera

Sorry for my inactivity on this issue so far (I have been busy with some other stuff, but I will hopefully still have time to finish my features and do copyediting before release). Am doing a quick once-over of some stuff right now... @Smallbones: in the disinformation report, some of the names might need to be looked over more closely. There is a "Tomwselcer" sockfarm mentioned - I couldn't find any user by that name. There is a Tomwsulcer, but as for a farm, I only see one SPI for a single account with 7 edits. Is there a larger farm I'm not seeing here, or is this an error in the article? jp×g 07:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking a little deeper into this: User:Selimabner6 was indeed a sock, but of BurritoSlayer. The SPI is here -- Tomwsulcer was accused of being the sockmaster for this farm, but it appears that Bbb23 found his account to be unrelated back in 2017. jp×g 07:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @JPxG: this is a good catch, a complicated situation that I would have had to explain later, but so far it looks ok, but it's time for another triple check. Somw facts

  • I misspelled Tomwsulcer as Tomwselcer once in the article, but spelled it correctly twice.
  • Tomwsulcer was the name of 2 different SPIs, the 1st was renamed to Burritoslayer
  • Tomwsulcer was CBANed at ANI after admitting sockpuppeting in the middle of my investigation (rhis month), his user page was deleted (oversighted?) but my "facts" in the article seem to refer to the 1st (Burritoslayer) SPI
  • It looks like replacing "Tomwsulcer" with "Burritoslayer" in the article will solve the problem, but this obviouslyneeds to be trippple checked. Thanks again. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
User page deletion not via oversight: as far as I can tell it was a u1 speedy deletion at the user's request on 9 March, before the 13 March cban ☆ Bri (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

3 hour 15 minutes to publication

It looks like @HaeB: and others have a good start on Recent research and I assume they'll be ready. @JPxG: I assume you'll be ready to publish. There are a few articles that have been nominally started but are almost devoid of content - I'll just cancel them unless I hear something within an hour. A few articles have some minor incomplete spots - I'll just delete those spots and publish the rest.

I'm still working on 3 things

  • Disinformation report - triple checked, it's BurritoSlayer not Tomwsulcer. I'll maybe make a few more minor changes
  • News and notes - done
  • A bit at In the media (could somebody come up with a better title?)

which may require some small copy editing after I complete them. So I may be a bit difficult to reach, but everything looks on track.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Smallbones, I'm very clumsy horrible with this but an idea flew past my head: "War, vandalisms, and of course, Cleopatra". GeraldWL 17:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


If somebody wants to edit Arb report while I edit Recent research (or vice versa) we can be outta here in 25 minutes (even with my 5 minute break) Lei me know here @JPxG: Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I got sidetracked for a minute, so we might be a few minutes off, but I am working as we speak. jp×g 19:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mark them fearing an edit conflict, but Arb report looks good to piublish, and I'll mark Featured conrent as cancelled. @JPxG: that means we're ready to publish. Hands off the keyboatds please for about 4 minutes. The go with the publishing. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@JPxG: good to go. Let's publish Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Can we spare a few minutes for the deletion report, or do we want to just roll without it? jp×g 20:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

OK give me a deletion report and 10 minutes to copy edit it! Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Okay, ready for copyedit. jp×g 20:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
OK @JPxG: copy edit done. Please publish. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Dope, let's roll. jp×g 20:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Archive_23&oldid=1247600586"