Of course there's a process for speedy deletion--it's described where
you would expect, at WP:CSD. It explains how to nominate for it, how
to challenge it, and how to evaluate the proposals, and how to
challenge it. There are, to be sure, a number of people who use it
wrongly, but there is still
On 9/12/09, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course there's a process for speedy deletion.
Not at all. An admin simply deletes an article. That's a speedy deletion.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 9/12/09, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course there's a process for speedy deletion.
Not at all. An admin simply deletes an article. That's a speedy deletion.
You're both correct, said he soothingly. An admin deletes after going
through
But I'm not equating speedy with out-of-process, you are.
I'm saying they are two different things.
I never stated that we have a process for speedy, since that wasn't the point I
was making.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia
The original point was that if a deletion was out of process (which is not
the same thing as speedy), than that is a valid reason to restore it.
Out of process not meaning there is no process for this but rather meaning
we have a process, which you did not follow.? Two different things.
g'day folks,
Imagine if Wikipedia was printed.
http://www.fun.chanun.com/funny-stuff/imagine-if-wikipedia-got-printed
We'd need a lot of trees.
Regards
*Keith *
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing
2009/9/12 Keith Old keith...@gmail.com:
g'day folks,
Imagine if Wikipedia was printed.
http://www.fun.chanun.com/funny-stuff/imagine-if-wikipedia-got-printed
We'd need a lot of trees.
And, seeing the state of some articles, a lot of proof readers!
--
Regards,
Isabell Long.
On Saturday 12 September 2009, Keith Old wrote:
http://www.fun.chanun.com/funny-stuff/imagine-if-wikipedia-got-printed
It'd be a lot bigger than that! That's not even the width of a basic
multi-volume print encyclopedia.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
2009/9/11 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Joseph Reagle rea...@mit.edu wrote:
So, on this note, what are some examples of content that was produced
for
pay at the Wikimedia Foundation? I can think of some archival
material, such
as the use of some material form the
2009/9/12 Joseph Reagle rea...@mit.edu:
On Saturday 12 September 2009, Keith Old wrote:
http://www.fun.chanun.com/funny-stuff/imagine-if-wikipedia-got-printed
It'd be a lot bigger than that! That's not even the width of a basic
multi-volume print encyclopedia.
yep - that's just the
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:32:50 +0100
From: surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com
To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Deletion of unreferenced living person biographies
Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/9/10 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
Actually, many of them edit in a slightly less clumsy but still very
unsatisfactory way, and if not noticed at first may never be improved
afterwards if the group is not prominent. We have 10s of thousands of
such articles. I tend to leave them alone, because there are so many
worse.
David
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 2:45 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
That's 980 Britannica-sized volumes. Or about 15 sets of Britannica.
That's smaller than I thought. We obviously have a lot of very small articles.
Carcharoth
___
WikiEN-l
2009/9/12 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 2:45 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
That's 980 Britannica-sized volumes. Or about 15 sets of Britannica.
That's smaller than I thought. We obviously have a lot of very small articles.
We had a lot of
I think this is an old recycled report. If I recall, it's of all the
featured articles, not every single article on the project.
--
Alex
(User:Majorly)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Perhaps the image is intended to be the TOC or INDEX.
-kc-
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Imagine if Wikipedia was printed
2009/9/12
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 7:00 PM, KillerChihuahua
pu...@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Perhaps the image is intended to be the TOC or INDEX.
-kc-
Here's the original source for those images:
http://www.rob-matthews.com/index.php?/project/wikipedia/
According to the artist who created it, it's 5000
2009/9/13 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 7:00 PM, KillerChihuahua
pu...@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Perhaps the image is intended to be the TOC or INDEX.
-kc-
Here's the original source for those images:
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:25:28 +1000
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I suppose, as in matters of internet deportment, civility, we must also
accept the burden of maintaining the standard for English
June 2009 news. The Rob Matthews's 5,000 pages 'book' contained no more than
437 FAs. We've got a total of 2,606 FAs.
According to the* Telegraph* one of Matthews (who is a 22 year-old graphic
design) goals is to sell it. In theory, he could sell all of Wikipedia
article space content...
In a message dated 9/12/2009 9:35:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
szv...@gmail.com writes:
According to the* Telegraph* one of Matthews (who is a 22 year-old
graphic
design) goals is to sell it. In theory, he could sell all of Wikipedia
article space content... 3,031,886 would give him an
21 matches
Mail list logo
