User talk:Nishkid64: Difference between revisions

Leave me a new message.

Please SIGN your comments using ~~~~. That way it'll be easier for me to identify who is trying to get a hold of me.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 2 days are automatically archived to User_talk:Nishkid64/Archive 28. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #55

Archives

July 1, 2006 - August 20, 2006 August 21, 2006 - August 30, 2006 August 31, 2006 - September 29, 2006 September 30, 2006 - October 6, 2006 October 7, 2006 - October 12, 2006 October 13, 2006 - October 19, 2006 October 19, 2006 - October 27, 2006 October 27, 2006 - November 6, 2006 November 7, 2006 - November 14, 2006 November 14, 2006 - November 23, 2006 November 23, 2006 - December 3, 2006 December 3, 2006 - December 9, 2006 December 10, 2006 - December 16, 2006 December 17, 2006 - December 26, 2006 December 26, 2006 - December 31, 2006 December 31, 2006 - January 5, 2007 January 6, 2007 - January 16, 2007 January 16, 2007 - January, 22, 2007 January 23, 2007 - January 29, 2007 January 29, 2007 - February 7, 2007 February 7, 2007 - February 16, 2007 February 16, 2007 - February 22, 2007 February 22, 2007 - March 2, 2007 March 2, 2007 - March 10, 2007 March 10, 2007 - March 23, 2007 March 25, 2007 - April 19, 2007 April 20, 2007 - April 30, 2007 April 30, 2007 - Present

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

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).

The National Clapping Association

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

Please explain

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

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)

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).

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)