>-----Original Message-----
>From: Brian Salter-Duke [mailto:b_duke@bigpond.net.au]
>Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 03:54 PM
>To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletions - do we cut a bit of slack for the Third World
>
>Please take a look at:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kathmandu_Univ…
>
>Should we, as I suggest there, cut a bit of slack for artciles about
>something in the Third World, or do we just accept the "no reliable
>third party sources for notability" mantra. It is just a stub and the
>information seems well supported by the external link to the School
>site. Not perfect, I agree, but I do not suppose Kadmandu newspapers are
>searched by Google and that is not perfect either. I would welcome views
>in general on this sort of thing, without asking any of you to intervene
>in that discussion for deletion.
>
>Brian
Common sense would counsel cutting some slack. We do for [[Citizendium]] (And [[Wikinfo]].
Fred
http://www.halfpixel.com/2007/02/15/delete-wikipedia/
But still, you've got to laugh, when the wool is pulled over Wikipedia's
eyes this easily, no?
Let's see if this gets through, or if the Cabal wants to still try thinking
that they can stop the truth from being heard... for I know there is a Cabal
now.
Parker
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
> I believe the canonical reply to that is
>
> FUCK. THAT. SHIT.
Truth Beholder wrote:
> And now the fascist patrol has locked my page so I can't
request unblock,
> how fucking fascist typical of fascistopedia.
Michael Smith wrote:
> Bite me, you abusive asshole.
>
> Sean Barrett wrote:
>>
>> Get lost, you pathetic little wanker.
Sorry, but that's more than I'm willing to put up with. I'm
unsubscribing.
-Gurch
Flame Viper wrote:
> The problem is that there are two different fields of
Wikipedia work: Editing and maintenance. Editing is the
general writing and improvement of articles, citing,
cleanup, categorisation, etc. Maintenance is the
vandalfighting, blocking, arbitrating, mediating, and
policy that provides the framework for the wiki.
It's not quite as simple as that. There are many tasks that
I would be hard pressed to class as either "editing" or
"maintenance". If anything, I'd draw the line so that
cleanup counts as maintenance.
In a similar vein, labelling someone as an "editor" or
"maintainer" is not possible.
-Gurch
Hello,
I just entered the cause of death and Category: Lung cancer deaths to the
Article on Illinois Representative Charles Arthur Hayes. His name now
appears in that Category, but not in the Category: Cancer deaths. Shouldn't
he appear in this Category also since cancer is what he died from? It seems
the only way to accomplish this is to include both Categories in his
Article. However, when I have done this in the past, in other similar
situations, I have gotten a whole lot of grief. What gives?
Frustrated.
Marc Riddell
"Gregory Kohs" wrote
> I think you can see the inherent problem of Wikipedia handling corporate
> concerns of libel this way -- 10 days is a little long for a concerned party
> to wait for any reply, and even then, only after a second query had to be
> sent.
Where it says "In case of a substantial legal concern over article content (rather than a more general concern): please email info-en-q(a)wikimedia.org with "Legal concern" in the subject line, for prompt attention", I imagine it actually means you to do that.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Rich Holton wrote:
>
>> Given the recent discussions on this list, and the
continuing increase
>> in de-facto requirements for new admins, I have to
wonder if we are not
>> now well on the way to the creation of an elite class on
Wikipedia.
>>
> Nah! It's more like the time of the French Revolution
when all citizens
> were equal but some were more equal than others.
>
>> It appears to me that the vocal representatives of the
current crop of
>> admins (meaning those who have become admins within the
last year or so)
>> have left far behind the idea that being an admin is
"no big deal".
>> They see being an admin as a big deal, and want things
to remain that way.
>>
> It's called self-interest.
>
>> Of course, the admins point to the very real challenges
that vandals
>> pose as the reason for the rigor of the application
process. They reject
>> any proposal that might place Wikipedia is peril.
>>
> Right! The right to bear arms is justified because it
keeps America
> safe from being overrun by elephants.
>
>> Perhaps they're right. I'm certain that they truly want
what it best for
>> Wikipedia.
>>
> As the saying goes: "The road to hell is paved with good
intentions."
>
> Ec
You appear to be treating administrators as a close-knit
group all of whom have exactly the same motives, intentions
and point of view.
This is not the case.
-Gurch
The "problem with your article?" page for en:wp is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_e…
It directs people to either the Help Desk or to OTRS. The Help Desk
appears to be getting a few reasonable queries from organisations,
which are being dealt with properly.
No flood of crap yet, which is good :-)
OTRS volunteers - how's it looking from your side?
- d.