QuackGuru ( talk) 17:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC) QuackGuru is correct. A fork could have the same number of pages or less or more. Tournesol ( talk) 08:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC) It is not redundant.
Isn't it a bit redundant to state that a less strict fork of something has more content than what it was forked from? The only situation in which this would not be the case is if the fork were a static copy of the original at a given point in time and the original then, despite its stricter rules, grew faster than the fork did. WP:RS is a necessary condition for inclusion, but it does not compel us to repeat anything printed in an RS, especially when no evidence is given for this and it is simply parroting a talking point from a company spokesperson. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC) QuackGuru and Staszek Lem: Yes Quackguru, we absolutely have to judge. If any source is neutral or wrong I don't judge. Everipedia is basically trying to be the largest encyclopedia on the Internet." This page states "As of December 2017, the site has over six million articles, more than in the English Wikipedia." The source says "With over 3 million unique monthly users and 6 million wiki articles, Everipedia already has more content than English Wikipedia." This page states "Everipedia wants to become the largest encyclopedia online." The content is sourced. The source says "I'm Sam Kazemian and I'm the CEO of Everipedia. (Of course WPedia themselves can brag as high as they wish everybody would know this is just PR shit.) Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC) The content does not state exactly state they are the "largest encyclopedia". Therefore if any "expert" babble that EPedi "has chance" to become largest, this would simply mean this expert is an idiot or a sell-out. And no one will prevent them to gobble EPedia in the same way as EPedia gobbled WPedia. There already exist aggregators which include Wikipedia. As for being "largest encyclopedia", this is clearly bullshit. What about "Everipedia intends to compete with Wikipedia." ? QuackGuru ( talk) 19:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC).Nobody can read other person's mind what this person "wants". The claim that A "wants" something can be attributed only to A or to reliable sources which clearly attribute it to A. We use an independent source and an independent source does not have to have a quote from the founders. I disagree it needs to be sourced to its founders.What Everipedia wants knows only Everipedia, and therefore must be referenced to its founders.
Just the source cited is rather outlandish.
I think you're referring to the MediaWiki category - I've removed that just now. It is built from the ground up on Django / Python - Travis Moore 172.91.65.151 ( talk) 19:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC) Travis Moore Also, we don't use MediaWiki software. No i didn't used the previous deleted version as a starting point - Arshlabbu ( talk) -Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC) You can actually see for yourselves as that version was userfied at User:Leprof 7272/Everipedia, which brings up a question: Arshlabbu:, did you use the previous deleted version as a starting point in any way? It's not a problem if you did, there will just need to be a history merge to retain proper attribution. If there are some issues you can correct them or just let me know i will correct it.) - Arshlabbu ( talk) 15:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Īs the previous deleting admin, I can confirm that there are significant differences in this new version compared to the previous version, so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. (Everipedia is one of the leading website for finding information online. This page should not be speedily deleted because.
0 kommentar(er)
