On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com wrote:
What a lot of churn. So the overall rate was merely +1 FA, +4 FL (and
also 3 topics and three images).
Is it always this bad?
My long-time observation is that the people who obsess about FA over
the long term want to
R E Broadley wrote:
The only link I've been given so far is the [[Wikipedia:Disruptive
editing]] link. Have you seen any others, because I have certainly
not.
I think you can reasonably ask the ArbCom about this. Disruptive
editing is only a behavioural guideline: it mentions This
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-07-06/Features_and_admins
I couldn't help but notice:
* Five articles were promoted to featured status this week
* Four articles were delisted this week.
*
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
There are long-term stats somewhere, and they could be updated if you
asked. I suggest identifying which of the featured areas you want to
see long-term stats for, and asking at the relevant talk pages. An
2009/7/13 Matthew Brown mor...@gmail.com:
My long-time observation is that the people who obsess about FA over
the long term want to keep the number of articles with that status
approximately constant by making the standards more and more difficult
to meet.
Many have stated this directly on
- Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, 13 July, 2009 03:29:06 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Featured churn
Andrew Turvey wrote:
- Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, 13 July, 2009 03:29:06 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Featured churn
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I often wondered - what's the point of delisting? Surely if a previous
version of an article was good enough to be Featured, if the current version
isn't, you should just restore the one that was?
Or am I
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Matthew Brownmor...@gmail.com wrote:
My long-time observation is that the people who obsess about FA over
the long term want to keep the number of articles with that status
approximately constant by making the standards more and more difficult
to meet.
Yeah,
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:.
Here's a great example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Face_of_a_Southern_Yellowjacket_Queen
What an incredible image. This is a *wasp*, and we have great detail
of the *hairs* on
2009/7/14 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:.
Here's a great example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Face_of_a_Southern_Yellowjacket_Queen
What an incredible image. This is a *wasp*, and we
2009/7/14 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com:
- Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
My long-time observation is that the people who obsess about FA over
the long term want to keep the number of articles with that status
approximately constant by making the standards more
12 matches
Mail list logo
