2009/7/10 geni geni...@gmail.com:
It got 207K pageviews over the day. Previous days featured article
only got 31.9K. Apparently our readership in general likes 13th
century British history.
Damn you that was a coffee moment.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l
Tim Starling wrote:
But whatever offends you about a feature article choice, regular
Wikipedians probably know that there's not much point trying to
convince Raul654 of anything.
I did like the bit in the Signpost where he complained that Andrew Lih's
book only mentioned FA twice.
Charles
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:31 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
I can hardly believe there was no angst here, of all places, on
yesterday's featured article. Did someone fail to think of the
fictional children?
Good discussion on Raul's talk page:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
But whatever offends you about a feature article choice, regular
Wikipedians probably know that there's not much point trying to
convince Raul654 of anything.
I did like the bit in
Tim Starling wrote:
I suspect frequent editors of Wikipedia have long since become
desensitized to obscene language, thanks to the constant stream of it
that gets inserted into articles as vandalism, and written all over
their user talk pages as revenge for reverting that vanadalism. I for
Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
But whatever offends you about a feature article choice, regular
Wikipedians probably know that there's not much point trying to
convince Raul654 of
If anyone is inspired to try a sequel there was a Mount Whoredom in colonial
Boston. Center left, second hill from the shoreline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boston,_1775bsmall1.png
-Durova
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 5:19 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
Tim Starling
I can hardly believe there was no angst here, of all places, on
yesterday's featured article. Did someone fail to think of the
fictional children?
Good discussion on Raul's talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raul654#Today.27s_featured_article
- d.
2009/7/10 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
I can hardly believe there was no angst here, of all places, on
yesterday's featured article. Did someone fail to think of the
fictional children?
Good discussion on Raul's talk page:
geni wrote:
2009/7/10 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
I can hardly believe there was no angst here, of all places, on
yesterday's featured article. Did someone fail to think of the
fictional children?
Good discussion on Raul's talk page:
Anthony Simone wrote:
A lot of the discussion was at Talk:Main Page, with some more at the
article talk page. Note, though, that almost all the people who
seriously objected to it were IPs and users with very few edits. So, it
seems to have gone over pretty well with our users, most of whom
11 matches
Mail list logo
