Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?

[Brill Lyle]

I know David in real life so maybe I am not as objective as I could be but
I know how hard he works and how diligent he is about this admin work he
does. He is doing the devil's work in my opinion. I couldn't do what he
does so I'm thankful for his efforts. Thank you David.

When David has flagged things I've worked on -- or that I disagree on his
take on something others have worked on and he's flagged -- he's been very
willing to have a conversation about it -- and has changed his stance more
than once.

That said, it's down to the quality of the first draft. In this instance,
the draft, in my opinion, did a disservice to the subject. Although there
were good citations, the content of the page was not strong enough or well
developed enough to reflect what the entity actually does. And didn't
establish notability or have the basic details needed to be up on
Wikipedia. It was a draft and belonged in a Draft, Sandbox, or user space.

So this is another case of an enthusiastic editor putting something up on
the main space without doing the building blocks work that was needed. I
love the enthusiasm displayed here but helping new folks who want to create
entries for their friends and relatives or want to start right off with a
new entry -- vs. working on building skills by adding citations and
improving the gajillions of articles that need TLC -- well it begins to
wear even this inclusionist down. I don't think I had the guts or
confidence to start a new stub until I had been editing regularly for 6
months, but obviously other people have a different take on this.

Also:
Mitar, these long breathy quite frankly TL;DR posts don't really help your
cause. I think your concerns have been expressed and people have been great
about responding. But at a certain point no one has time to dig through all
your words and it becomes a bit presumptive that people have time to give
these legitimate concerns the attention they deserve. Just thought I'd
mention that. Totally ironic of me to say because I am a long-winded person
myself. So take that for what you will :-)

Again, only my opinion, all of the above. But wanted to give a shout out to
David and thank him publicly.

- Erika




*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle *

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 7:01 PM, David Goodman  wrote:

> I was the person who tagged the article we are discussing for deletion as
> no indication of importance. I am quite aware I have a certain frequency of
> error, probably about 2-5%, as does essentially everyone screening
> articles. Therefore there is an firmly established practice , that no
> administrator delete an article of such ground without a check from someone
> else, so it could not be deleted unless another administrator agreed. This
> reduces the error rate to about  0.05 to 0.25%,and I cannot imagine how and
> crowd-sourced process could do better.
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?

[Mitar]

Hi!

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 4:01 PM, David Goodman  wrote:
> I was the person who tagged the article we are discussing for deletion as
> no indication of importance.

Thank you for commenting here and for you work! I know it is a lot of
work and that errors are possible. This is completely expected. I
really appreciate all the admins and the work they are putting in.

> This reduces the error rate to about  0.05 to 0.25%,and I cannot imagine how 
> and
> crowd-sourced process could do better.

This sounds amazingly low! Great job!

> The procedure worked in this case; I seem to have made one of my errors,
> and another editor caught it; the article was not deleted, but was sent to
> one of our two areas for further work on articles, the editor's user
> subpage

No, the article was deleted. And was restored later on to my user
space after I got frustrated at first and then decided to retry the
whole process and dive deeper into editing Wikipedia practices. I must
say that this diving was interesting, that I learned many new things,
and were welcomed by many very friendly and helpful people.

> All too many articles go to user subpages or
> draft space and never get heard of again; more important, many potentially
> good editors whose material is challenged do not have enough confidence to
> complain  or enough knowledge to complain effectively.

This would be for me a much better experience. If somebody would move
it to a draft space and say, "hey, please improve it first, before
putting it to the main namespace" I would completely understand the
process. I did not know of this practice that people create articles
first in draft spaces and then move them to main once they are deemed
ready. I thought that I should just create an article which is missing
and make it a stub so that it is clear that it is still in process.

But it got deleted in a day, without any discussion on its talk page,
and I got lost access to its content. This made me confused as an
editor who is not very familiar with processes.

In general I think this should be the practice. If something is not
clearly illegal or something, then it should be moved to a draft
space. And if not improved in a month or so, deleted. (The latter
could probably be done automatically.)

Why is this not a common practice? I think it is a good compromise
between deletion and experience of editors.

So where there are clear steps what steps should be taken to improve
the thing I think this is great. For example, when the speedy deletion
tag was added to my article, there was a clear next step: on the talk
page start a discussion why it should not be deleted. I did that. But
instead of expected discussion, article was just deleted. This
confused me because I was not assuming I am doing anything wrong. I am
going step by step as instructed.

If instead it would be moved to draft space and said, "the article is
not yet to the standard of Wikipedia, it lacks clear statement of
notability, you have a month to improve it afterwards it will be
deleted" I would have known what to do, even without reading rules.
And it would be also a very reasonable thing for me to observe.

I think the main issue with deletion is that it is a cut-off point,
something where the flow of working on an article is abruptly cut and
one cannot continue without asking for help. This requires a really
high activation potential.

> Articles on small organization, commercial and
> non-commercial, and on the people associated with them, are the ones most
> prone to advertising. I once also thought about dividing the site as a
> potential solution,  but if we divided the site, the advertisersknow
> very well the significance of having an article on WP, and   would still
> want to be in the part where the most important articles go.

Exactly, but this is a good thing, no? So the editors who are not
advertisers would be OK with articles being in the draft space until
they are made to the good quality, and advertisers would not like
that.

So why is this argument against moving articled to the draft space
instead of just deleting them?

> The only really effective way to rid us of promotionalism  is to ban
> anonymous editing, and immediately reject any edits from people associated
> with the organization  or found to be paid editors.

Hm, but I must say that this is slightly contradictory to the issue of
notability and significance. Because one way to address the issue of
promotionalism is to allow articles about corporations to exist, but
be very bare and simple: there is this organization with this name, at
this location, with this founders, it produces milk. The end. Not much
space for PR. What is wrong with such an article? Maybe it is
important only to that local community who would search for all
companies producing milk in their area. Or students who would like to
create a map of all companies producing milk in their area. Or maybe a
professor wants to determine which 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?

[David Goodman]

I was the person who tagged the article we are discussing for deletion as
no indication of importance. I am quite aware I have a certain frequency of
error, probably about 2-5%, as does essentially everyone screening
articles. Therefore there is an firmly established practice , that no
administrator delete an article of such ground without a check from someone
else, so it could not be deleted unless another administrator agreed. This
reduces the error rate to about  0.05 to 0.25%,and I cannot imagine how and
crowd-sourced process could do better.

The procedure worked in this case; I seem to have made one of my errors,
and another editor caught it; the article was not deleted, but was sent to
one of our two areas for further work on articles, the editor's user
subpage (the other one is the Draft space, which is also used in such
cases. They each have advantages, though they overlap.) I am not saying we
have a perfect system here. All too many articles go to user subpages or
draft space and never get heard of again; more important, many potentially
good editors whose material is challenged do not have enough confidence to
complain  or enough knowledge to complain effectively.

We have made improvements, and if people suggest further ones, we can make
them. When I joined 9 years ago, the error rate was 5-10%, many
administrators deleted without waiting for confirmation, and our overall
process error rate was probably at least 2%. We can still do better than
the present situation, where the result essentially depends whether the
article attracts the attention of one of the relatively small number of
really good editors  such as Brill Lyle.  There are various small and large
improvements suggested, some of which may be feasible.  but the key problem
is not balancing the number of non-notable article accepted versus the
notable ones rejected, but dealing with promotionalism.

Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally
harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional
campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're
useless as an encyclopedia . Articles on small organization, commercial and
non-commercial, and on the people associated with them, are the ones most
prone to advertising.I once also thought about dividing the site as a
potential solution,  but if we divided the site, the advertisersknow
very well the significance of having an article on WP, and   would still
want to be in the part where the most important articles go.

The only really effective way to rid us of promotionalism  is to ban
anonymous editing, and immediately reject any edits from people associated
with the organization  or found to be paid editors. (we'd still have
problems with promotional editing fro fans and such, but this is presently
a lesser problem). However, this would be removing what almost everyone
here considers to be an essential core principle of WP, , and is not going
to happen.

I was once an inclusionist, and I remain so,a bout any topic not lending
itself to promotion ,or where the promotion can be removed.

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 5:50 PM, John  wrote:

> Like you where told, Having an article not assert notably, and having an
> article be non-notable are effectively the same thing for wikipedia.
>
> You provided several examples specifically cities and plant/animal species,
> both of those have inherent notability. However companies do not have such
> a default status, thus must assert it. forcing the limited ~500
> administrators to review and research each of the 5693 deletions performed
> yesterday (of which 1196 where in the main namespace) would place too much
> burden on them if the article fails to assert notability or isnt notable
> there is no effective difference.
>
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Mitar  wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Vi to  wrote:
> > > My activity at en.wiki only deals with crosswiki abuse and lta
> > > "management". So don't be afraid of me but frainkly I don't find your
> > > startup incubator to be notable. In other words I don't find it to be
> > > something I expect to find on an encyclopedia.
> >
> > He he. No, the startup incubator is in the same building, but one
> > floor higher. :-)
> >
> > http://hekovnik.com/
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Brill Lyle 
> > wrote:
> > > Okay, I did a pretty thorough scrub and reworking of the article. I
> added
> > > the logo as well as moved it to the main space. As it stood the article
> > > needed help but of course that's typical of new articles.
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poligon_Creative_Centre
> >
> > Wow! This is amazing! Thank you so much! The article is alive and so
> > much better!
> >
> > Hm, but while I agree that the article has not been of high quality
> > from the start, I am really not sure if 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?

[John]

Like you where told, Having an article not assert notably, and having an
article be non-notable are effectively the same thing for wikipedia.

You provided several examples specifically cities and plant/animal species,
both of those have inherent notability. However companies do not have such
a default status, thus must assert it. forcing the limited ~500
administrators to review and research each of the 5693 deletions performed
yesterday (of which 1196 where in the main namespace) would place too much
burden on them if the article fails to assert notability or isnt notable
there is no effective difference.

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Mitar  wrote:

> Hi!
>
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Vi to  wrote:
> > My activity at en.wiki only deals with crosswiki abuse and lta
> > "management". So don't be afraid of me but frainkly I don't find your
> > startup incubator to be notable. In other words I don't find it to be
> > something I expect to find on an encyclopedia.
>
> He he. No, the startup incubator is in the same building, but one
> floor higher. :-)
>
> http://hekovnik.com/
>
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Brill Lyle 
> wrote:
> > Okay, I did a pretty thorough scrub and reworking of the article. I added
> > the logo as well as moved it to the main space. As it stood the article
> > needed help but of course that's typical of new articles.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poligon_Creative_Centre
>
> Wow! This is amazing! Thank you so much! The article is alive and so
> much better!
>
> Hm, but while I agree that the article has not been of high quality
> from the start, I am really not sure if the best approach was for it
> to be deleted. What would be a better process in such cases? Why
> articles are not asked to be deleted with more time?
>
> My article was speedy deleted based on:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7
>
> What I do not understand is why there is a speedy deletion if article
> does not explain why the subject of the article is not significant,
> instead of deletion if article's subject is not significant? Because
> the first thing could be improved, it is a content issue?
>
> Anyway, what is the process to improve this process? Or should we just
> leave it be and everything is great?
>
>
> Mitar
>
> --
> http://mitar.tnode.com/
> https://twitter.com/mitar_m
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?

[Mitar]

Hi!

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Vi to  wrote:
> My activity at en.wiki only deals with crosswiki abuse and lta
> "management". So don't be afraid of me but frainkly I don't find your
> startup incubator to be notable. In other words I don't find it to be
> something I expect to find on an encyclopedia.

He he. No, the startup incubator is in the same building, but one
floor higher. :-)

http://hekovnik.com/

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Brill Lyle  wrote:
> Okay, I did a pretty thorough scrub and reworking of the article. I added
> the logo as well as moved it to the main space. As it stood the article
> needed help but of course that's typical of new articles.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poligon_Creative_Centre

Wow! This is amazing! Thank you so much! The article is alive and so
much better!

Hm, but while I agree that the article has not been of high quality
from the start, I am really not sure if the best approach was for it
to be deleted. What would be a better process in such cases? Why
articles are not asked to be deleted with more time?

My article was speedy deleted based on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7

What I do not understand is why there is a speedy deletion if article
does not explain why the subject of the article is not significant,
instead of deletion if article's subject is not significant? Because
the first thing could be improved, it is a content issue?

Anyway, what is the process to improve this process? Or should we just
leave it be and everything is great?


Mitar

-- 
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?

[Brill Lyle]

Okay, I did a pretty thorough scrub and reworking of the article. I added
the logo as well as moved it to the main space. As it stood the article
needed help but of course that's typical of new articles.

While the citations were okay I added more to them, and found a lot of
English articles as well as a few more Slovenian ones. There's probably a
lot more information out there but I need to stop and assist with the
ongoing editathon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poligon_Creative_Centre

Please feel free to edit, adjust, rework.

:-)

- Erika


*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle *

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Brill Lyle  wrote:

> Thanks for the responses. I think the overarching thought I have is that
> Wikipedia needs to learn as much from editors as editors need to learn from
> Wikipedia. I'm glad other editors are responding and focusing on this.
>
> I'm doing remote support of an editathon today so I will work on assisting
> on cleanup with this article.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mitar/Poligon
>
> Another hopefully helpful idea:
>
> Use another makerspace/coworkspace entry / entries as examples of
> structure and content:
> - I know about this local one:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyebeam_(organization)
> - which led to
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyebeam_(organization)#See_also
>
> - Erika
>
> *Erika Herzog*
> Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle *
>
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Mitar  wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Thanks you for all the responses. It is really great to see this
>> various explanations.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Brill Lyle 
>> wrote:
>> > Gadzooks! The comments you made about friendly editors to a large
>> community
>> > of Wikipedia editors, maybe re-think saying that. I'm having a hard time
>> > getting past these comments. *I* am a friendly editor, and am actually
>> able
>> > to help you.
>>
>> Oh, sorry. I didn't mean it like that. I more than appreciate all the
>> help and responses I am getting here. What I mean is that I would hope
>> that it is possible to edit the Wikipedia without knowing editors and
>> admins individually. But this would probably mean even more
>> bureaucratic process, so maybe it is even better like this.
>> Personally, I believe all editors are good people, with a common goal,
>> it seems we just disagree sometimes, but this probably also comes from
>> dissymmetry of information about particular things. Mine about
>> Wikipedia rules, theirs about a particular topic. Addressing this
>> dissymmetry is done through discussions.
>>
>> I see how that comment might offended. Sorry again.
>>
>> > But you have basically said you have too much of a life to
>> > engage, IRC is HARD, etc. Huh.
>>
>> I am trying to present this as an occasional editor. Yes, one solution
>> to issues I have is to get to know Wikipedia rules and community more,
>> to get more engaged and integrated. This is a completely valid
>> approach.
>>
>> But I wonder, is there an alternative path. What about occasional
>> editor who might not have resources to embark on this path.
>> Personally, it seems, I am already walking it. Yes, IRC is doable, of
>> course. But this is because I get activated when I get frustrated and
>> start thinking how to solve the problem. Instead of deactivated. My
>> worry with that comment was that more obstacles are there, harder is
>> to resolve such issues.
>>
>> > Quite frankly, without specifics about the entry -- and the citations
>> used
>> > -- there's nothing anyone can do to help you. ... Which is fine, but I
>> was
>> > trying to help solve the problem.
>>
>> Oh, sorry. I thought you already find the page? So it is this page:
>>
>>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?

[FRED BAUDER]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 15:04:54 +0100
 Lilburne  wrote:

On 25/06/2016 06:49, Mitar wrote:

Hi!

I am an occasional editor of Wikipedia, I read it a lot, I edit
sometimes, and I am at all not familiar with bureaucracies and rules
Wikipedia community has developed through years (call me lazy, but
they simply always look too scary and too many for me to even start
reading them, walls and walls of text). When I interact with 
Wikipedia

I thus try to assume what reasonable rules for creating a
collaborative source of all human knowledge would be.



That is one of the meanings of "Ignore all rules:" Assume the rules 
are reasonable and edit.


Fred Bauder


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?

[Brill Lyle]

Thanks for the responses. I think the overarching thought I have is that
Wikipedia needs to learn as much from editors as editors need to learn from
Wikipedia. I'm glad other editors are responding and focusing on this.

I'm doing remote support of an editathon today so I will work on assisting
on cleanup with this article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mitar/Poligon

Another hopefully helpful idea:

Use another makerspace/coworkspace entry / entries as examples of structure
and content:
- I know about this local one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyebeam_(organization)
- which led to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyebeam_(organization)#See_also

- Erika

*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle *

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Mitar  wrote:

> Hi!
>
> Thanks you for all the responses. It is really great to see this
> various explanations.
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Brill Lyle 
> wrote:
> > Gadzooks! The comments you made about friendly editors to a large
> community
> > of Wikipedia editors, maybe re-think saying that. I'm having a hard time
> > getting past these comments. *I* am a friendly editor, and am actually
> able
> > to help you.
>
> Oh, sorry. I didn't mean it like that. I more than appreciate all the
> help and responses I am getting here. What I mean is that I would hope
> that it is possible to edit the Wikipedia without knowing editors and
> admins individually. But this would probably mean even more
> bureaucratic process, so maybe it is even better like this.
> Personally, I believe all editors are good people, with a common goal,
> it seems we just disagree sometimes, but this probably also comes from
> dissymmetry of information about particular things. Mine about
> Wikipedia rules, theirs about a particular topic. Addressing this
> dissymmetry is done through discussions.
>
> I see how that comment might offended. Sorry again.
>
> > But you have basically said you have too much of a life to
> > engage, IRC is HARD, etc. Huh.
>
> I am trying to present this as an occasional editor. Yes, one solution
> to issues I have is to get to know Wikipedia rules and community more,
> to get more engaged and integrated. This is a completely valid
> approach.
>
> But I wonder, is there an alternative path. What about occasional
> editor who might not have resources to embark on this path.
> Personally, it seems, I am already walking it. Yes, IRC is doable, of
> course. But this is because I get activated when I get frustrated and
> start thinking how to solve the problem. Instead of deactivated. My
> worry with that comment was that more obstacles are there, harder is
> to resolve such issues.
>
> > Quite frankly, without specifics about the entry -- and the citations
> used
> > -- there's nothing anyone can do to help you. ... Which is fine, but I
> was
> > trying to help solve the problem.
>
> Oh, sorry. I thought you already find the page? So it is this page:
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?

[Lilburne]

On 25/06/2016 06:49, Mitar wrote:

Hi!

I am an occasional editor of Wikipedia, I read it a lot, I edit
sometimes, and I am at all not familiar with bureaucracies and rules
Wikipedia community has developed through years (call me lazy, but
they simply always look too scary and too many for me to even start
reading them, walls and walls of text). When I interact with Wikipedia
I thus try to assume what reasonable rules for creating a
collaborative source of all human knowledge would be.




I don't know which articles you are referencing and I don't think I need 
to know.
The problem, is that less than 5% of the articles are in any way useful. 
There are
100s of thousands of articles that simply tell me that X x is moth, or a 
beetle and
nothing more. If I know to be looking up X x then I already know that it 
is a moth
and not some form of frog. The there are the 100s of thousands of 
articles that
simply tell me that A B played one game of professional baseball in 
1927. Or the
100s of thousands of articles that simple state that Z is a village in 
Iran with 43

people.

Wikipedia is full of this stuff which you can see by pressing the random 
article
link a few times. If you find anything comprehensive which isn't also 
riddled
with errors. It will almost certainly be a direct cut from 
somewhere else.


Simple the site is overflowing with useless junk that monitoring it has 
become

impossible. Know one can stop Z from being moved to Cambodia, or A B from
being noted for playing tiddlywinks, or indeed turning X x into a frog.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikipedians of the year Emily Temple-Wood and Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight

[Ed Erhart]

Hi all,

As many of you have heard, Emily Temple-Wood (Keilana) and Rosie
Stephenson-Goodknight (Rosiestep) have been named as the co-Wikipedians of
the Year at Wikimania.

Congratulations to them both, along with the runner-ups Mardetanha and
Vassia Antanasova (Spiritia)!

You can read more about this on the Wikimedia blog:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/06/24/wikipedians-of-the-year/

-- 
Ed Erhart
Editorial Associate
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?

[Vi to]

My activity at en.wiki only deals with crosswiki abuse and lta
"management". So don't be afraid of me but frainkly I don't find your
startup incubator to be notable. In other words I don't find it to be
something I expect to find on an encyclopedia.

Vito

2016-06-26 9:57 GMT+02:00 Mitar :

> Hi!
>
> This is restored version of the article with even more references (11)
> than at the time of deletion (8):
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mitar/Poligon
>
>
> Mitar
>
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:47 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> > A number of us are currently discussing this situation on IRC. (: I
> believe
> > that the immediate concern is being addressed, and we are also discussing
> > ways of improving the deletion process on ENWP.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:21 PM, carl hansen 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Mitar,
> >> To get a deleted article back, ask an "Administrator" to move it to your
> >> User_page draft
> >> space so you can get your text/references . The text is still in the
> >> system, just not accessible to public. There should be no
> >> problem. You could even ask the Administrator who deleted it, via Talk
> page
> >> , or make request at
> >> Wikipedia:Community_portal
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
>
> --
> http://mitar.tnode.com/
> https://twitter.com/mitar_m
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?

[Mitar]

Hi!

This is restored version of the article with even more references (11)
than at the time of deletion (8):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mitar/Poligon


Mitar

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:47 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> A number of us are currently discussing this situation on IRC. (: I believe
> that the immediate concern is being addressed, and we are also discussing
> ways of improving the deletion process on ENWP.
>
> Pine
>
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:21 PM, carl hansen 
> wrote:
>
>> Mitar,
>> To get a deleted article back, ask an "Administrator" to move it to your
>> User_page draft
>> space so you can get your text/references . The text is still in the
>> system, just not accessible to public. There should be no
>> problem. You could even ask the Administrator who deleted it, via Talk page
>> , or make request at
>> Wikipedia:Community_portal
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?

[Pine W]

A number of us are currently discussing this situation on IRC. (: I believe
that the immediate concern is being addressed, and we are also discussing
ways of improving the deletion process on ENWP.

Pine

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:21 PM, carl hansen 
wrote:

> Mitar,
> To get a deleted article back, ask an "Administrator" to move it to your
> User_page draft
> space so you can get your text/references . The text is still in the
> system, just not accessible to public. There should be no
> problem. You could even ask the Administrator who deleted it, via Talk page
> , or make request at
> Wikipedia:Community_portal
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?

[carl hansen]

Mitar,
To get a deleted article back, ask an "Administrator" to move it to your
User_page draft
space so you can get your text/references . The text is still in the
system, just not accessible to public. There should be no
problem. You could even ask the Administrator who deleted it, via Talk page
, or make request at
Wikipedia:Community_portal
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,