Wikisource talk:Proposed deletions

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Personal attacks[edit]

I object to the accusation by Sjc that I'm trolling. He has provided no justification for the Korn scripts to be there, other than that they somehow save him time. It's ridiculous to think that the Korn microscripts are of any use to anyone: they should be blatantly obvious. --Eequor 16:06, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Eequor, I agree that the trolling accusations were quite unfounded. However, I think that you should probably give up trying to get the Korn scripts and a few other code bits that you consider "obvious" deleted. I understand that they are extremely obvious and basic to you, but Sjc finds them potentially useful and I, with no knowledge whatsoever of Korn in particular and only a basic understanding of Unix-like shells in general, could potentially use them at some point in time. Basically I think you're going to have to get along with the fact that there are some quite basic snippets of code around that you will never ever have any need to use, but other people might. As for the trolling comments, lets hope it doesn't happen again and lets all remember what we're arguing over: 7 or 8 little lines of code :) - Biggins 18:17, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I generally agree with Biggins on this. I agree also that the trolling comment was excessive, and that you were acting in good faith. But unless those accusations persist it is in the interests of harmony and good karma not to pursue that issue. I understand that you consider some of these items inferior, and that you can probably give strong support for that view, but it is also important to respect that others may not have reached the same level of enlightenment and may need more humble assistance. At the same time it is also clear that your assessment of some other entries was accurate, and they will in due time be deleted. Eclecticology 00:24, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pi to x number of places[edit]

Why was this deleted? I didn't know it was here and Yahoo! sent me to it when I entered Pi to 1,000,000 places. The article has a vote for deletion notice, but clicking it gives no information why it was deleted. Isn't Wikisource for this kind of stuff, or should it be at Wikipedia?

Well, there are several issues about hosting math pages in Wikisource. Some people think that this is not the place to host numbers. As it is mentioned on the page, this was decided by a vote. The question also arises about on which languages they should be, as there are already on the English Wikisource. See the discussion there. Yann 19:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC) vs[edit]

moved to s:Scriptorium


Won't this be archived? I don't see any archive links in the page? --Dungodung 00:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ehm, Dungodung is right. No archivesw indeed. I guess we should archive items that have been cleaned up, it could be usefull. -jkb- 21:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The English WS keeps archives of all of the items presented on it. It helps to streamline further deletions, as all we have to do is cite the entry in our archives for it. We might want to begin thinking about doing this. Although, any more, the number of items showing up to be deleted will be relatively small.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure. But if we have archives so it enables to show not only what has been deleted or not, but first of all the process of deciding, the discussion - the reasons why yes or not. This can help in the future. -jkb- 20:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, archives see Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archive, I started to do it. -jkb- 23:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

please help[edit]

I work with Georgian BIBLY which was on pageბიბლია . I don know why, but administration deleted his content. please give me way to cominicate wikipedia with wikisource. as I know we have no georgian page like 13:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)ქართული this is our- Georgian web page for wikisourceSurprizi 13:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Archives again[edit]

I think this page is too big now and needs to be archived. I want to move to archives all the topics which meet such conditions:

  • If there is any meaningful result (deletion or keeping the page(s)) has been elaborated and, if needed, explained (usually in the cases when decided to keep the page(s))
  • and there were not any comments made on that topic after the end of the previous (2014-th) year.

If any user have any objections from doing that, or wishes for performing archiving in some different way — please write your remarks here — today, or in the next two days (April 18—19). If no comments would be posted here during that time, I would intend to do archiving as I described above. --Nigmont (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

be free - and thanks for help! -jkb- (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your support! Seeing this I thought that awaiting 2 days was not needed, so I have already done archiving as described: I moved many threads to archive pages, and I kept the threads where I don't see any final result or where I was in doubt whether the thread is to be archived (e.g. September 2012 threads). Also I kept the threads of the current (2015-th) year, and older threads which have gained comments in the current year as well. --Nigmont (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)