Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-01-17/In the media

• Quote from above on Buzzfeed's survey of celebrity deaths: "the verdict was that 1977 ... was as bad as 1977 if not worse". That's one useful survey. Andrew Dalby 11:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - thanks! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'404 no more' Am I blind or did we forget to link to or name such an extension? What a great way to be non-helpful: "there is this cool tool you may find useful. We won't link it and won't mention its name. Go see if you can find it with those vague clues." Fail. Can the author please expand this blurb with something that won't make people waste few minutes trying to find this extension?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://blog.archive.org/2017/01/13/wayback-machine-chrome-extension-now-available/ links to it; added. 174.16.120.55 (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, blind, perhaps? But don't let that slow you down. I've made the link a little clearer, and I will find an intern to brutalize for this transgression. Please feel free to contact our subscription department for a full refund on this edition! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I still don't see a link to the extension in the old version. Just article about the extension. The blog link is better, but I wonder, is there any reason not to link to the installation page at https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/wayback-machine/fpnmgdkabkmnadcjpehmlllkndpkmiak ? I mean, why not make it easy to people? Anyway, thanks for the note, better few hoop jumps needed than no info at all :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, your initial comment was quite hostile. I am not personally offended, but I am quite concerned about the ideas that our authors in general might have to contend with this kind of response. Please understand: if somebody were to attack one of your research reviews with the level of hostility you have shown here, I would not tolerate it. This may or may not matter to you, but I'm sure it matters to some of our contributors.

We could use more help in collecting and writing up these pieces. If you would like to take it on, please let me know. If you contribute regularly, you will have a great deal of influence over how things are described and linked. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peteforsyth You are right I was... a bit too frank, or sarcastic. I usually try to keep my temper, but around that time I was dealing with another wiki problem, and, well, it's no excuse. I hope nobody was offended, it was not my intention, I just wanted to point out that an important link was missing/obscured, and should have done it in a more neutral tone. Once again, I appreciate the time that you and others put towards writing those pieces. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for acknowledging. You have no quarrel from me, the initial version was less than ideal. I think now, it's fine; the extension itself is prominently linked in both the blog post and the news story. I appreciate your feedback, and this followup means a lot to me. Thank you, as well, for your excellent research reviews. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Installed the extension. Nice :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please let us know if you find yourself using it for the long term! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]