Snap! :)

2009/4/9 Jim Redmond jim@scrubnugget.com

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 11:43, purple.clouder@gmail.com wrote:

...

Could you please explain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_ink

-- Jim Redmond [[User:Jredmond]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Oddly enough the Wikipedia article makes even less sense than the original declaration.

bibliomaniac15

--- On Thu, 4/9/09, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote: From: James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Green Ink Day To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 9:59 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_ink

2009/4/9 purple.clouder@gmail.com

Could you please explain?

On Apr 9, 2009 9:40am, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:

...

It seems to be Green Ink Day on the list.

...

*sigh*

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Please ignore this Green Ink Day nonsense, and address the Alan Cabal article that has been expunged from Wikipedia's mainspace to its userspace for unjust reasons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_articl...

Bill

________________________________ From: Scientia Potentia est bibliomaniac_15@yahoo.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 1:07:56 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Green Ink Day

Oddly enough the Wikipedia article makes even less sense than the original declaration.

bibliomaniac15

--- On Thu, 4/9/09, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote: From: James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Green Ink Day To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 9:59 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_ink

2009/4/9 purple.clouder@gmail.com

Could you please explain?

On Apr 9, 2009 9:40am, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:

...

It seems to be Green Ink Day on the list.

...

*sigh*

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

2009/4/9 Bill Carter billdeancarter@yahoo.com:

Please ignore this Green Ink Day nonsense, and address the Alan Cabal article that has been expunged from Wikipedia's mainspace to its userspace for unjust reasons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_articl...

For those wondering what's going on, this article has been through a deletion discussion four times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Cabal (March 08)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Cabal_(2nd...) (January 09)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Cabal_(3rd...) (March 09)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_30 (DRV, March 09)

I make no comment on the merits.

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Bill Carter billdeancarter@yahoo.comwrote:

NOTE: The deletion review was actually held on March 30th to April 4th or 5th. You made an error. Furthermore, it was speedy deleted. You CANNOT speedy delete an article with 40 fucking references. This is scandalous.

It is not really reasonable to say the article was speedily deleted. The third AfD debate ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Cabal_(3rd...)) ran for the full time, and ended in a clear delete consensus.

The article was then created again, which made a clear case of speedy deletion under criterion G4 (recreation of previously deleted material). Only after this was noticed and the article deleted under G4 was the AfD close taken to deletion review. During this debate the article history was restored so that non-admins could see the article. A further full time debate was held. There was no consensus to overturn the close, so when the deletion review ended the history was again deleted.

Deletion debates do not always come to the right decision, but when they don't, it is a mistake and not a scandal. The reason for the article being nominated for deletion was lack of notability, and not lack of references. The problem with the references is, I suspect, that too few of them are in the sort of mainstream publications which would make a clear case of notability.