User talk:XOgirl
Image copyright problem with Image:Img 5867.jpg
[edit]
Thank you for uploading Image:Img 5867.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: help
[edit]Oh dear, I do feel bad now for voicing that it should be deleted like that. Unfortunately, Wikipedia really is strict with its guidelines. I think that the biggest problem with this article is that it doesn't have any outside sources. Since Wikipedia doesn't rely on certified experts in the subject they're writing about, we need to use "reliable sources" in order to make the content verifiable. And since any person, organization, group or university could make claims on its website that are false or exaggerated, there's a rule of not relying on self-published sources. They're all considered non-reliable. Additionally, the requirement of using reliable sources greatly helps to establish the notability of the topic, since having sources unconnected with the subject of the article write about it suggests that it's important. Whether the media have written about something doesn't always relate to how worthy of note it actually is, but it helps.
In the current Cal Poly Week of Welcome article, not one fact has been substantiated with any external source. Some claims in the article appear to be original research, and again, there's no way of verifying those facts. While Wikipedia has an entirely open editing process, great efforts are made to find verifiable sources for every fact, and not rely on the knowledge of people connected with the subject.
So while the article is well written technically, notability hasn't been established, and most of the trivia in it really would be better on the Cal Poly website, not in an encyclopedia. E.g., the schedule of events is entirely unimportant in historical perspective.
If you can find independent mainstream sources writing about the subject, that will greatly help to establish notability and verifiability. Take a look at some of Wikipedia's featured articles and note how much stronger the sources are (in most cases). I think if you read up on all of Wikipedia's policies you'll see why people are voicing that the article ought to be deleted. I'm sorry if it doesn't seem fair, and I don't personally agree with all of it, but that's Wikipedia's rules. Hope these links help. • Anakin (talk) 13:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:Img_5867-2.jpg listed for deletion
[edit]An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Img_5867-2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
