On 29/09/2007, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 29/09/2007, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 28/09/2007, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > We'll see if the S-curve in article
creation (as noted by Andrew Lih)
> > really does top off at about 2.5-3 million. Or if there's some
> > systemic deletionism going overboard that can be corrected.
> I'd be interested to see these notes... do we
have a link?
In an effort to hold back the tide of goldfarming speedy-tagging, I've
been going to these page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=500&target=Templa…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=500&target=Templa…
and removing clearly bogus speedy tags, and leaving a commenter on the
tagger's page something like:
==Clearly erroneous A7==
The speedy criteria are hard and don't stretch - please take more care
with these. (This is becoming a matter of
[
http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/09/10/two-million-english-wikipedia-arti…
public] [
http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/07/10/unwanted-new-articles-in-wikipedia/
concern] and PR problems, so a few people are looking at all CSDs and
particularly A7s lately.) Thanks! - ~~~~
I doubt it will kick over a hornet's nest, but others are heartily
invited to join in.
ps: about 1/3 were bogus, the other 2/3 thoroughly deserved to die and
I shot several of them myself.
pps: best not to say "I was an admin on Wikipedia when your mum still
wouldn't let you use the computer unsupervised", even if it is true.
May be undiplomatic and less than persuasive.
- d.