--- Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Anthere wrote
And I would dare to say : is the over reaction a
sign that the current
project has become too "restricting" in editors
freedom that they feel
they need to get so wild the one day this is
permitted ?
Yep. Most days of the year WP is in serious mode. And it works - we are now in the top 100 websites at Alexa, overtaking Ask Jeeves last time I looked. We need a 'festival'.
Charles
And how do we clean up all of the leftover hoaxes? Or do we just say, "Oh, well, that was created on April 1, we'll just live with it."?
RickK
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Rick wrote
And how do we clean up all of the leftover hoaxes? Or do we just say, "Oh, well, that was created on April 1, we'll just live with it."?
I don't know about anyone else - but I've deleted [[Google Gulp]] many times already. And comparable things.
You know, the (rest of the) media have made a big deal about the self-healing properties of WP; as they are apparently more reliable, there's a chance it's true.
Admittedly I was a bit baffled when 'block' a user became 'crush by elephant'. I do hope that's not permanent.
Actually, I was just reading in the papers today an LA Times editorial complaining that Americans were importing too many colloquial expressions from British English. Perhaps a bit of the more traditional 'stiff upper lip, Carruthers' might help with these minor crises.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
I've deleted [[Google Gulp]] many times already.
Without even looking at [[Google]] and it subarticles, I just know that the Wikipedia demographic will have written oodles on Google. If a section on the several hoaxes they have done is not there already, it soon will be - just redirect there and then readers get something to read and it stops a pointless create/delete cycle.
Pete