From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:243]) by hurricane.the-brannons.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C46578630 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 07:04:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.90]) by qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ccid1n0081wpRvQ5De3dvL; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 14:03:37 +0000 Received: from eklhad ([107.5.36.150]) by omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ce3d1n00A3EMmQj3ee3dT6; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 14:03:37 +0000 To: Edbrowse-dev@lists.the-brannons.com From: Karl Dahlke User-Agent: edbrowse/3.5.1 Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:03:37 -0400 Message-ID: <20140212100337.eklhad@comcast.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1394633017; bh=LD+W/q2/cEDYJ7BSmlBjP9cAESM95aVzxSbNnnV9ETo=; h=Received:Received:To:From:Reply-to:Subject:Date:Message-ID: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=OaPV1U+5avrUWtucPEuZwjh+ottQS1qdeaNXMs3dGQpxrOHSvZ22C8F+f5iyBFczY 3s5clkEbVJkQGwU56oaRYNjQ5WAt8/uhikN/bpIroqhR47taH6sWKASPdHogP4Oeys s0I1WvKfS3bC81OOtqaZpBpvkGHzMG+EF5dkaMe0ULiaZt20Y7xFM792zDlNebXNKK oIOEMGV6WWu61rxQ0cOKg4GuUfSdjWzoy/d2naRuS7R2e84kEyPJI/2etkBDU4BRR1 W3QKKZMXBuFzG6jW6X6BcECkKH/m6FOAOyUoMNmXG8wPceEODywR4Qr6iQsME6z5MQ 1PpM4YDBrqGyA== Subject: [Edbrowse-dev] wiki X-BeenThere: edbrowse-dev@lists.the-brannons.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: Karl Dahlke List-Id: Edbrowse Development List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 14:04:58 -0000 I submitted my edbrowse article to wikipedia, with my wife's help getting past the captcha. I then pulled it down to view, and there at the top was a big note saying "This article has been marked for speedy deletion by our automatic filter." Really? I clicked a few links, fortunately wiki is a very edbrowse-friendly site, and found out why. In 2010 someone posted an article about edbrowse. I had no knowledge of this. I could not find the article, or even who posted it. Any idea who it was? I did however find the discussion log of why it was deleted. The article itself was fine, but edbrowse was consider a personal project, and not "noteworthy". And they were right. It existed only on sourcefoge and was not being distributed by anybody. The assumption, by their software, is that the conditions are as they were in 2010, and I'm just reposting it to be stubborn, and so it is marked for speedy deletion by the administrators. I found the place where I could make a comment and request that it not be deleted, speedily or otherwise. I pointed out that during those 4 years it had gone beyond a personal project and was now part of many distributions, including the references that would validate my claim. Soon thereafter the notice of deletion disappeared, leaving only the article, looking just like the one I last posted on this list, that we all agreed to. In other words, I think we were successful. It is there. Course it could be deleted next week for some other reason, but for now it is there. 1. Should I reference it in my users guide? 2. Should I include some of its paragraphs in my users guide? It is perhaps a better introduction than anything I have in usersguide.html. 3. Should I include the raw markup of the article in the doc directory? That would show people how to write wiki articles, if they wish, but it also runs the risk of becoming out of date as anyone on the planet can edit and change my edbrowse article on wikipedia. 4. At the end of the users guide, talking about various command line utilities, should I add a section about my experience posting the article, and how to interact with wikipedia, and it's markup language etc? Or is that such a rare thing to do that it's not worth talking about. Karl Dahlke