User talk:Jennifer O'Side

Speedy deletion of INWYKIWYB
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as INWYKIWYB, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. -- Menti  sock  15:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. Wikipedia isn't Urban Dictionary. -- Menti  sock  15:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

--

What is the logic that you are applying to come up with, "vandalism"? This phrase is used all the time in describing favortism and unfair promotion. It is not "vandalism" to coin an acronym for a common everyday phrase.

PPS. Oh, Wikipedia doesn't contain "urban dictionary" definitions? Then could you use that logic to remove "BOHICA" also.-- Jennifer O&#39;Side (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

INWYKIWYB
There's no need to recreate this page. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia doesn't publish information that isn't verified by reliable source (no, urbandictionary.com is not a reliable source. There is nothing wrong with your name, but it's vandalism to write it on a bathroom wall.  There's nothing wrong with funny acronyms, but it's vandalism to add them to an encyclopedia.  Accusing others of favoritism before you have familiarized yourself with the rules is unwise.  Thank you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

-

FisherQueen - You have not addressed Wikipedia's definition of "BOHICA". Using your own words, what is the reliable source for this acronym? If you can't cite one then, I suggest you do one of 2 things here: 1 Leave the entry for INWYKIWYB alone. 2. Delete the "BOHICA" entry, due to YOUR own logic that it would fall under YOUR "vandalism" definition. Also, I consider you quite irresponsible to state, "Accusing others of favoritism before you have familiarized yourself with the rules is unwise." There was NO accusation on my behalf, so that does show how "unwise" you are. Your words - not mine.

Jennifer O&#39;Side (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any mention of an acronym called bohica in the article I deleted. If you think you've found another article that should be deleted, see WP:AFD for instructions on how you can request its deletion.  I'd be glad to undelete the article you created, but first I'll need three newspaper or magazine articles about the phrase, so we can add those sources and use them to expand the article.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

FisherQueen: BOHICA is listed in Wikipedia under "List of acronyms and initialisms: B" listing. It's definition on that page is: "BOHICA - (a) Bend Over Here It Comes Again", which coincidentily is what you are trying to do me. I can not believe that you can not understand that I am patiently trying to show you that if you have the entry "BOHICA", then you have to allow the entry "INWYKIWYB". All I am saying is that this example makes you look bad, not I. You are the individual that is in to deleting articles - I gave you an example - you do your own work - stop passing it off on me - delete "BOHICA" yourself. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Lastly, I really doubt that most of Wikipedia has 3 sources for each entry, it's lucky if it's got an average of 1 source per entry - nice try.

Jennifer O&#39;Side (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that you thought I was just acting as an individual, rather than carrying out rules the Wikipedia community decided on together. Here's your confirmation that these rules really exist: What Wikipedia is not, the notability criteria, the definition of a reliable source, and information on how and why articles are deleted..  All discussion about whether articles are kept or deleted focus on how well they meet those rules; if you read those and think you can write an article that follows the rules, there'll be no problem at all.  Yes, there are millions of articles on Wikipedia, and not all of them are perfect yet; we'd love your help in making them perfect. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)