User talk:Nishkid64/Archive 28

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Sororities

Lambluv36 23:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Why shouldn't local sororities have a voice on Wikipedia? It could come of good use. If they are on Wikipedia, they could become colonized. It's valuable to girls on college campuses not only to see what is going on at other colleges, but also what's going on at their own colleges. According to the page you sent me, WP:ORG, an organization is defined as:[reply]

"... all groups of people organized together for a purpose.

Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities including, but not limited to, charitable organizations, educational institutions, institutions, interest groups, organizations, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, religious denominations, sects, etc."

Local sororites meet that requirement.

"This guideline does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people)."

Local sororites are not of blood relation familiy, entertainment groups, or any other example listed there.

"Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."

Local sororities impact their communities, providing community service and philanthropy, which is much needed in some areas. How do justify those actions not being notable? They are notable in our societies and the history of our collegiate establishments.

"... smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations."

Local sororities should be allowed on Wikipedia

The first quote you took was not giving a requirement--it was just summarizing organizations. Anyway, local sororities at a single university may have a local impact on surrounding communities, but in a larger perspective, they are not notable. They won't be documented in any reliable sources, and any articles on these sororities will have sources coming from the websites of these sororities itself. For those reasons, articles on local sororities for individual universities should not be included on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, notability is referred to not in the dictionary definition but in the project's guidelines, scopes, and policies. Cbrown1023 talk 23:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (better known as IAMLAME) 00:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 18	30 April 2007	About the Signpost

Students in Western Civilization course find editing Wikipedia frustrating, rewarding	Statistics indicate breadth of Wikipedia's appeal
Featured lists reaches a milestone	Backlogs continue to grow
WikiWorld comic: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Board resolutions, user studies, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OXERA

Sorry, could you bring back the OXERA page that you just deleted. I will appreciate if you did not use this dictatorial manners. Thank you.--Jorditxei 18:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS

Just in case you aren't aware, a policy was recently implemented by the Wikimedia Foundation, regarding access to nonpublic data (see [1]) Please note if you do not comply with these rules you should remove yourself from OTRS volunteering where your name is listed. Otherwise, please ignore this message :) Kind regards, Majorly (hot!) 18:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock of Kelly Martin

While I have no strong views on the validity of this block and agree it is more likely to inflamme things than calm them, I do think you should have discussed the matter with Mikkalai before unblocking. WjBscribe 20:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a novice and not a teenager. A wikipedian since 2004 must watch their tongue. Period. `'mikka 20:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert my admin action

It will not be tolerated. I am not a rogue admin running amok around here. `'mikka 20:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aeharris

Could you lend me a hand helping Aeharris understand that the articles he's creating are inappropriate? I've left comments on his user talk page about his articles MRSA Boil Homeopathic Treatments and MRSA Boils--Advice From Infectious Disease Specialists. I'm asking you because you "speedy deleted" the first one already. He's obviously new. Thanks! Jaksmata 21:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subscription to Unblock list

There is an application in your name to join the unblock list. Could you please confirm an address as nishkid64 @ gmail . com as your email address. Capitalistroadster 00:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OXERA

Please could you bring back the OXERA article. I would appreciate if you left at home your dictatorial manners. Thank you. --Jorditxei 18:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing dictatorial about my actions. Your article did not suit Wikipedia notability guidelines (WP:CORP), and it was deletable under WP:CSD#G11 because the article was written like an advertisement for Oxera. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but your actions were completely dictatorial. I wrote the entry erasing anything that could be viewed as an advertisement in order not to violate WP:CSD#G11. But obviously, if you write an entry about a company, you will have to speak about the company. Please, will you bring back the article as soon as possible or at least leave it for scrutiny of other users? Are you some kind of wikipedia director deciding what can be in wikipedia and what cannot??? --Jorditxei 15:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators are supposed to delete articles that go against policy. I looked at your article, and it still read like an advertisement for the company. Please see WP:NPOV and WP:CORP. I didn't delete it just because of WP:CSD#G11 but also because of the non-notability of the company (WP:CORP). Any article that doesn't meet notability guidelines is subject to deletion. I'll undelete the article for now, and you can make the necessary corrections to make it comply with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia does not allow WP:OR, so you must source information in the article. Also, I would appreciate it if you could stop calling my actions "dictatorial". I am just following procedure, and doing my duties as an administrator.Nishkid64 (talk)

Thanks

Thanks . Wish you a speedy recovery. :) --soum (0_o) 20:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

how do u make a colored font?

like this pink; hello??????? if not tell me please Sincerely Runescape playa

You can have colors by doing this:

Hello

Nishkid64 (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

king apparel

hi there,

sorry i'm new to all this. i noticed that you had deleted the king apparel entry. i didn't realise that the rules were so strict so i have re-edited it and will upload again in the next 30 mins. should it need changing please let me know before deleting it and i can make the necessary adjustments. i can be contacted at tim@king-apparel.com too.

i was wondering how brands like lrg get by when they are doing practically the same stuff as us?

also, how do i get a nice box to put my logo in like those guys? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timhoad (talk • contribs) 14:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The National Clapping Association

Hello ... would you please SALT this page ... see the log ... thnx! —Dennette 14:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

please explain what you mean before you delete my article. Hsus 16:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)hsus[reply]

It doesn't seem to be something of notability, which of course is needed for all WIkipedia articles. For that reason, I am going to delete the article. If you have any concerns, please address them at my talk page, and if possible, provide me with evidence of the subject's notability. See WP:NOTABILITY. I hope that can explain what I am referring to. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my page.

I was trying to create a page for a band I like, Rest Among Ruins. You deleted it for a second time and now protected it from being recreated. I just wanted to know why. The page was legit and complied with all wikipedia rules. The band is even published in two places. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awater3 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

From my searches on Google, I did not find evidence that the band met notability guidelines. There is a review in one local Baltimore magazine, but that doesn't necessarily justify that it meets WP:MUSIC guideline since a lot of new and upcoming bands are always being reviewed by critics. The magazine bit is a reliable source, but due to the fact that means there is only one source for the band, it would seem to not meet WP:MUSIC. Also, the band seems to be relatively new, which means there aren't that many reliable sources for the band's article. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary to the Rome Statute not suitable for Wikipedia?

Dear Nishkid64, You deleted the page Regulations of the Court which is a part of an attempt to provide the only online commentary to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Is this not suitable for wikipedia? If that is the case, I will not waste any more time on wikipedia and either do it on my own or with the help of a commercial sponsor.

With regards, Mark Klamberg

Rest Among Ruins

Rest Among Ruins is published in enough sources. Check out http://media.www.thetowerlight.com/media/storage/paper957/news/2006/11/27/Arts/No.Guitar.In.Qatar-2507487.shtml

They are published in a school newspaper which is read by 19,000+ students. They have also played with bands such as Threat Signal which have their own Wikipedia page. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awater3 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That's a trivial source. It's a college newspaper and is not really considered to be an established source. Also, the article has no context. There's no real details about the band and its members. Again, see WP:MUSIC. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial

I see that a college newspaper is considered trivial but it can be reviewed on a case by case basis. The Towerlight has its own Wikipedia page. Towson University is also a large, credible school. So, just let me create page.

There are also rules on Wikipedia that states that before a page is put up for deletion that it should be given time to be corrected. I was not given such time.

Many college newspapers have their own article. Per WP:MUSIC, a college newspaper can be considered trivial and reviewed on an individual basis, and I feel it doesn't count as an independent reliable source. Nonetheless, I will restore the article, and take it to WP:AFD, and you can spend some time improving the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Polymerase chain reaction

Please don't imply I'm in favor of "dumbing down" articles, I find it pretty upsetting given how much work I've been putting in to improving and adding stuff to wikipedia. Madeleine 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you got that impression from my comments. When I wrote that, I referred "we" to Wikipedia in general. I have seen some editors in the past who have tried to make articles more user-friendly by removing complex material from articles that might make the article unsatisfactory. I was referring to Wikipedia as a whole, not you. Anyhow, I looked at your edits before, and I thought they were perfectly fine. I think you've done phenomenal work in your editing of these biology-related articles, Madprime. Please understand that I was not trying to pin you for "dumbing down" articles on Wikipedia. My interpretation of your statement was taken in the wrong sense, and that's why it was inappropriately used. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blocked anon

Hi ... don't you think that this block was a little harsh? I mean, did anyone even bother to look at my Talk page, or give me any notice or time to respond? 68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 21:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA update

Beat me to it by mere seconds! Regards, (aeropagitica) 00:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I was afraid someone was going to beat me (again!). I spent so much time fiddling around with the template because I kept writing it wrong. It was Template:RfA talk and I typed in everything but that. Guess I should have used Copy and Paste. :-P Nishkid64 (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]