On Fri, 18 May 2012 10:43:01 -0300 Macxi <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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.
