Message: 5
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 21:33:31 +0000
From: Mike Dupont <jamesmikedupont(a)googlemail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l]
speedydeletion.wika.com lauched
Message-ID:
<CAF0qKV0enH4_EwrnLYoPUOGwiDrjRHBfBuLQY1Pv2JiDfCD=
MQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
John, and others.
I have finally figured out a big problem with my plan. The articles for
deletion are not tagged peoperly at all. There are authors who know for a
fact that articles are mistagged and have no proper copyvio tagging, and
now they are accusing me of hosting copyvio articles. I see this a problem
in the wikipedia deletion system, if an editor knows for a fact that an
articles is in violation of copyright then they should tag it as Such. I
have written scripts to strip out artilces that are properly tagged. Lets
sit down and work out a plan for a proper system of sorting out what is not
notable, and waht is copyrightvio. I want to host the non notable artilces.
My argument is that giving non-notable bands and actors etc an outlet to be
hosted will reduce repeated reposting of articles. I have been sorting
through all these articles, contacting people and many of them are
thankful, I would be suprized if any of them would repost the deleted
article, like the Jack Psyco from .au, someone reposted his article many
many times.
Please support me in cleaning up the deletion and tagging process, I am
willing to put some work into this. I can write code as well.
Some people have asked me not to use the mailing list, but I wanted to
bring up this up in response to your mail.
Please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mdupont/SpeedyDeletionWikia
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mdupont#Speedy_backup_-_copyvios_and…
thanks
mike
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:00 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Mike, with all due respect we don't have the volunteers to do what you
will need, and I doubt you would be able to recruit them yourself. Take one
example, if an article clearly qualifies for A7 deletion as not asserting
importance or significance then please don't rely on us to also check it
for copyvio. An article that asserts that a footballer has only played for
minor clubs, or that a band will be the next big thing on the Great Malvern
Grunge scene as soon as they've recruited a drummer will be deleted per A7.
Yes we need to check that this isn't the result of vandalism, and yes
there are people not notable for their music career who are otherwise
notable as Prime Ministers etc. But if an article clearly qualifies for A7
deletion then we currently have no need to also check it for copyvio. I'm
sure if someone went through the thousands of pages that I've deleted there
would be quite a few where copyvio could have been added as an additional
deletion reason.
Please reconsider your project. There is so much that can be done on
Wikipedia to rescue articles worth rescuing that it would be a great waste
to see time and energy diverted to unsalvageable articles.
WSC