for the materials send me ,i am glad for your work
--
Este mensaje le ha llegado mediante el servicio de correo electronico que ofrece Infomed para respaldar el cumplimiento de las misiones del Sistema Nacional de Salud. La persona que envia este correo asume el compromiso de usar el servicio a tales fines y cumplir con las regulaciones establecidas
Infomed: http://www.sld.cu/
I notice that the article on the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon has recently
been deleted, and it has in fact been deleted many times over the years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baader-Meinhof_phenomenon
However, according to stats.grok.se, this article is quite popular, having
been viewed *around 350 thousand times since 2007*. Here's the script I
wrote:
for i in $(wget --quiet -O-
http://stats.grok.se/en/200712/Baader-meinhof%20phenomenon | grep '>2' |
cut -f2 -d'>' | cut -f1 -d'<');do wget --quiet -O-
http://stats.grok.se/en/$i/Baader-meinhof%20phenomenon | grep 'has been
viewed' | sed 's/.*viewed//;s/ //g';done
201402: 67419
201401: 20892
201312: 19924
201311: 5886
201310: 757
201309: 1801
201308: 756
201307: 1019
201306: 1153
201305: 3548
201304: 1092
201303: 1565
201302: 746
201301: 2291
201212: 586
201211: 612
201210: 1062
201209: 586
201208: 360
201207: 326
201206: 238
201205: 277
201204: 286
201203: 298
201202: 392
201201: 743
201112: 392
201111: 566
201110: 571
201109: 460
201108: 778
201107: 1735
201106: 452
201105: 368
201104: 409
201103: 336
201102: 649
201101: 475
201012: 295
201011: 274
201010: 373
201009: 325
201008: 363
201007: 609
201006: 844
201005: 751
201004: 810
201003: 522
200712: 454
Total: 348201
Wikipedia's policies are irrelevant: This phenomenon has entered the
lexicon, and is now well known simply due to its existence in Wikipedia.
Since the phenomenon didn't have a well known name, I've been telling
people about it for quite some time now, and it has recently enjoyed a huge
surge in popularity, *due to its existence on Wikipedia*.
The article should reinstated, a section concerning the unique nature of
its notability should be added.
Cheers,
Brian Mingus
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com>
Date: 26 March 2014 16:36
Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] Help: 28 articles on women professors need infoboxes
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list <wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Hi,
I have not played around with en.wp infoboxes for yonks. Would anyone
care to run through the list at
<https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Kings_College_London_Wikipedia_editing_worksh…>
and do a little bit of an informal review/copyedit and add infoboxes
where appropriate?
King's College has been kind enough to officially release portraits
for all of them, which I have now included, so the articles are
instantly more attractive.
Thanks,
Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:04:31 -0700, Brian J Mingus wrote:
> Wikipedia's policies are irrelevant: This phenomenon has entered the
> lexicon, and is now well known simply due to its existence in Wikipedia.
I wouldn't say that "Wikipedia's policies are irrelevant" to anything
regarding Wikipedia, as this would be tautologically false. However,
there are always a whole bunch of often-conflicting policies to be
considered (including "Ignore All Rules"), which might pull in
different directions. With regard to a deleted article on a
phenomenon lacking sufficient reliable citations, but which is
starting to spread under that name (due in part to the past existence
of the Wikipedia article, and various mirrored copies some of which
still persist, and blogs and forum posts referencing it), the "end
game" would likely be either that the idea and name spread enough to
ultimately produce reliable sources allowing the article to be
recreated and kept (at which point the past deletion would be
irrelevant, and the article would belong under Wikipedia policy even
if its past history included self-reference to Wikipedia itself), or
it dies out without achieving notability and the deletion would
stand.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Hi all!
At the moment, the Individual Engagement grant committee has an open call
for volunteers :) We're looking for interested individuals who can put in
some time each round (we have two rounds a year) to brainstorm with
potential grantees, and help evaluate proposals for funding.
The call for volunteers closes March 9, so if you're interested please do
consider adding your name!
More detail can be found at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Committee. We'd love to have you
on board :)
Regards,
Steven Zhang
Is anyone able to track down the history of the sidebar?
I noticed 'Wikimedia Shop' appeared there (recently?), and I can only find:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sidebar
How do I get from that to the actual pages where changes are being made?
Carcharoth
Heise just took down the H Online archive (the English-language
version of Heise.de, a computer news site). This has broken a *huge*
pile of reference links.
[{Special:LinkSearch]] only shows links in the wikitext - not links
inside reference citation templates.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site:en.wikipedia.org+link:h-online.com
shows hundreds of links. Argh.
What I need to do is (a) find all the links (b) add archiveurl=
(something on archive.org, which seems to have captured the whole
site) and archivedate= .
Are there tools that do any of this job?
- d.
I ran across this today, though it's a few years old. The Wikipedia article
doesn't seem to have ever been fixed.
Also a good example of how web sources sometimes do better research than
acceptable Wikipedia sources.
http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/history/history6.htm
I have given you a small amount of money to your site. This will never
happen again if you do not change your article on Keith
Ablow. I am his patient and I am deeply offended on the new added
"professional ethics" part of your page on him. Keith has never ever been
texting anyone he is my doctor, cares deeply about me, listens, helps me
like no one in my life and there is zero reason to say on your website
attacks on him in the "professional contact" section newly added. I am
deeply offended as this is not based on facts but opinion of someone that
may or may have not been treated by him. He is a wonderful physician and
healer. That section about him should be removed immediately as it is
based on opinion not on fact. Your website should be about facts not
opinion. Not a dime from me further until that opinion is removed. That
is opinion (and it is not even true) and not fact. Makes me furious.
Ali Norris