I thought it would be interesting to look at some of the articles that I ever created (ab initio) for Wikipedia, and then check Henrik's traffic tool to see how many people per month (February 2008) visit each article.

What's the point?

I dunno. I guess that my volunteer work helped to assure at least some improvement in the user experience of tens of thousands of annual visitors to Wikipedia. And what did I get for it? The imprint of Jimbo's jack-boot in my backside. You're welcome, Jimbo.

These go in order of creation date, from oldest to most recent.

Avia (not only my first article, but my first edit) - viewed 2,031 times in February

Kohs - viewed 569 times

Jacobson Stores - viewed 362 times

Carolina Ardohain - viewed 5,116 times

Russell Weigley - viewed 198 times

Spiraling - viewed 285 times

Kohs block - viewed 457 times

Tom Brislin - viewed 223 times

Czech Air Force - viewed 3,295 times

Baywood Greens - viewed 122 times

Resorts Atlantic City (the article that inspired me to conceive of Wikipedia Review) - viewed 955 times

Nemours Foundation - viewed 340 times

KidsHealth - viewed 213 times

Omnibus (survey) - viewed 353 times

Markov strategy - viewed 93 times

Any thoughts?

I'd be curious to know if any Wikipedians who post here at the Wikipedia Review can top my traffic stats for Carolina Ardohain or the Czech Air Force?

Greg

Inquiry • Jan 2008 : 13,061 • Feb 2008 : 13,505

If you count "significantly rewritten by" then I have some in the 20,000 to 30,000 range, just on first scan.

Jonny

Does rewriting count? Robert Benchley got 4220 pageviews in February, but my records include:

* The Turk, which got 18743 February pageviews. I think the new Terminator show had an episode about a chess playing machine at the beginning of the month, because most of those views came around the 3rd and 4th of the month.

* The Moldy Peaches, which I rewrote back in 2005 or 2006, and reached some high levels of promenence thanks to the Juno soundtrack. 64822 views in February, nearly 90k in January.

* Glenn Ordway is up to 2187 in March, so it doesn't count for this.

* Headlights (band) got a respectable 1512 hits in February.

* Of Montreal received 27148, and that's without an album or tour.

Nothing else breaches more than 1500-2000 for me that'd make any sense, at least.

I've got one in the 6000-7000 range. I'd tell you more but my account there is still in good standing and is pretty much hibernating in case I ever need it again.

My friend the Duck of Luke created the brilliant SureFire M6 Guardian article. - 892 views

I rewrote Californication (album), that got around 30k http://stats.grok.se/en/200802/Californication%20%28album%29. None of the articles I craeated got much though

I created Gong farmer

And it may be one of the least read articles:

http://stats.grok.se/en/200802/Gong%20farmer

Wow! That was actually a really good read and I learned something new.

That's one hell of a picture for Gong farmer, too.

The gong farmer picture also has a months-long history of coming, and going, and going, and coming. (I feel like Lili Von Shtupp!)

Anyway, to address another issue -- I'd prefer to keep this thread focused on articles created by authors, not those re-written, because there's a certain "what if I had never done that" essence to the former, but not so much with the latter.

Of course, that's not even to say that nobody would have cobbled together an article about the Czech Air Force or about inquiry, eventually.

Great reminiscences, though, so far, everyone!

That's "a person who removed human excrement from privies and cesspits", according to the article... so, is it a synonym of "turd burglar"?

Reworked entirly an article which makes about 65K, created two with 1-2K, (funny, the central article of the conflic which got me banned got less hits) others about 0.6K. Wikipedia is unfortunitly damn popular, my less notable (from my main account) is Docosahexaenoic acid associated to Clozapine which got over a hundred http://stats.grok.se/en/200802/DHA-clozapine.

I'm now embarassed to think I have made any gift to the disease of society.

I've got Kohs beat by a long shot: the Ashlee Simpson article got 105,336 views in February. I can't say for sure that of all the articles I've created in the last four years, that's the one getting the most views, but it seems like a pretty good bet: for example, the article on the President of Namibia, Hifikepunye Pohamba, got a mere 1,470 views in February.

Now THAT's what I'm talkin' about!

I created the article Katrina (a disambig page about the various uses of the name), back at the time Hurricane Katrina was raging. That got 8702 hits last month.

11:28, 12 March 2008 East718 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Gong farmer.png" ‎ (vandalism)

What a cool tool. The best I can find of the articles I started was Shoe polish, with 7483 views in Feb

More people have viewed Handmaiden, Alabaster brow, Swartkrans and Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors then I expected.

Less have viewed Ballot Security Task Force, Timewasting and
Edward Low than I would have expected.

Ominously, Maltesers had 6666 hits. The confectionery of the beast?

It looks like this tool wikipooped out on the 10th …

http://stats.grok.se/en/

Jonny

Liasis olivaceus - 5412 times in feb, but only because it was on the front page.
Brooke Brodack - 5165 times in feb. Regular traffic.

Yes, everything I looked at had zero hits for 11th onwards and for 3rd and 4th.

My top three

Definition (139,877 - significant rewrite)
Existence (13,994 - complete rewrite, much of it still survives)
Medieval Philosophy (6,460 - complete rewrite)


Note on the third one the section on Christian philosophy is missing since I was indef blocked before having the chance to complete this. Doesn't anyone find it absurd that a significant section of an important article is missing because its author has been banned from writing? Moreover banned on a/c of a completely useless c--t on the Arbcom who spends all his day writing stupid memoranda on ANI or about the MM decision.

More information on other articles on my old user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Renamed_user_4, the only thing I am now allowed to edit on Wikipedia.

The medieval philosophers (and also 'Mitchell's Christian singers') creak along at 150 odd hits.

[edit] just noticed the ab initio bit of Greg's criteria. Well I did create the Chelsea London article (September 2003) at 14,426.

Doesn't seem absurd to me at all -- this is the Wikipediot Way, you know. I had set up the history of the Czech Air Force into five distinct units, and the oldest one is the one with the most detail, because that's what I was able to work on before I was banned. One of the five periods is still completely blank.

User:Renamed user 4 does not appear to be blocked or banned in any way. Am I missing something, Peter?

Greg

It jolly well is blocked but I came to a 'gentlemans agreement' that they would leave the page without any unpleasant messages. 'Renamed user' is because the account originally had my real name and during the nastiness that led to the block all sorts of nuts like someone called 'Save us 229' were posting things on the page and trying to threaten me at work.

Incidentally 'Save us 229' (now that I have looked) seems to redirect to something quite different, and the history has disappeared. He used to have stuff like 'you will never escape from me and I will persecute you &c'.

If I try and log in and edit I still get a nasty message left there by our friend WJBScribe who has to be one of the most pompous asses running the show.

Isn't that our good friend Moe Epsilon?

No, he prefers to be called Kaiba now.

Trying to break the world record for using different names without being charged with sockpuppetry?