[Mageia-discuss] page of Mageia in wikipedia (in english) has been deleted

[Doug Laidlaw]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 10:43:01 -0300
Macxi <terraagua at gmail.com> wrote:

> Doug, 
> 
> As the suggestion of several people, I'm subscribing in the list
> Marcom - Mageia-marketing (Mageia marketing team discussion list)
> 
> https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-marketing
> 
> There are two pages with news about mageia:
> https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Archive:Initial_press_release_on_the_Mageia_fork
> https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Mageia1_Press
> 
> In category of the "press":
> https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Category:Press
> 
> I think it is necessary to create a page about Mageia2_Press, or
> Mageia_2_Press.
> 
> Thanks for your suggestions
> 
> Cheers
> Macxi
> 
> 
> Em qui 17 mai 2012, às 23:17:06, Doug Laidlaw escreveu:
> > On Thu, 17 May 2012 19:59:00 -0300
> > 
> > Macxi <terraagua at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > The page of Mageia in wkipedia  (in english) has been deleted in
> > > May 13, 2012.
> > > 
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mageia
> > > 
> > > The report of the decision here:
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mageia
> > > 
> > > I mentioned this in the Fórum Mageia, topic "Re: mageia
> > > information (wikipedia):"
> > > https://forums.mageia.org/en/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=2428#p18065
> > > 
> > > I'm worried because  many people will look for information about
> > > mageia next week, when the Mageia 2 is released, and I really like
> > > the wikipedia and I think an important source of information for
> > > everyone who wants to learn more about Mageia,
> > > 
> > > I suggest create a page "Mageia 2 Press" in Mageia Wiki: (
> > > https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Category:Mageia_2 ) and request the
> > > reactivation of the page.
> > > 
> > > Macxi
> > 
> > I suggest that before doing that, you look at the reasons for its
> > deletion, and that a new page answering the criticisms be
> > prepared.  I have edited an article (a minor edit) but I can't do
> > one from scratch, it needs somebody better informed than a distant
> > user, and whose mind isn't turning to jelly (I will be 70 next
> > year; does that make me a candidate for the oldest user?)  The page
> > itself needs a certain structure, with a summary to introduce the
> > main article, although sometimes, that isn't obvious.  I looked up
> > Hoover of England once. The editors didn't like that page because
> > it was too much like advertising.
> > 
> > Wikipedia always say that they don't want first-hand information or
> > an author's personal preferences.  They want sources themselves to
> > be encyclopedia-like.  If you have a break-through idea, you can't
> > put it up until it is in research journals.  That can be difficult
> > for something brand new.
> > 
> > Doug.
> 
> !DSPAM:4fb65312245801713227817!
> 

I will leave it to you.  Perhaps the objections can't be sustained; I
didn't see the original pages.  But they suggest that standards were
not met.  Being on a list where these things are talked about, will be
an advantage, of course.

Doug.