User talk:Stevesciscione

A tag has been placed on Fellowship of the Hens, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. LittleOldMe 15:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

List of collegiate secret societies
There has been a great deal of nonsense added to the secret societies page, and as it now stands, anything which doesn't have a valid source is going to be deleted on August 1. If you want the Fellowship of the Hens to stay on that page, you'd better provide reliable sources. Corvus cornix 15:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a SECRET society...How does one provide "reliable" information on a secret group?


 * You probably can't. Which means, we can have no article.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, sorry. Friday (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so if it is an encyclopedia...from YOUR definition of the word,

"An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia[1] is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge."

I would certainly consider this to be in "ALL branches of knowledge," wouldn't you?


 * Encyclopedias are tertiary sources. This means we can use only information that's already been published in a reliable source.  No sources means no article is possible, sorry.  Try promoting your group on your own website. Friday (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So if I, according to your definition of "reliable sources" post a blog online, this is considered a "Self-published source," and hence acceptable enough to publish my article?
 * No. blogs are generally not considered a reliable source.  If there are newspaper, magazine or other sources which discuss this society (even the school newspaper), then they could be considered as reliable sources, so long as the society is the focus of the article which discusses it, and not just a tangential mention.  Corvus cornix 16:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I publish this "interview" online, and call it an "article" about the society, then use it as a source to get my orginial article published on wikipedia?


 * Please see Reliable sources. Some random website is not a reliable source.  Friday (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends what random is to you doesn't it? Wikipedia defines random as follows:

"The word random is used to express lack of order, purpose, cause, or predictability in non-scientific parlance. A random process is a repeating process whose outcomes follow no describable deterministic pattern, but follow a probability distribution.

Now, if randomness is lack of purpose, then you've got it all wrong...the article has a definite purpose...and cause...and predictability. So again, according to your own definition if I posted an article online, it really wouldn't be random.


 * Not interested in playing word games. Please, if you wish to contribute, stop ruleslawyering and make some small effort to learn what it is we do here.  Friday (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you spend that whole time looking for the word "ruleslawyering," which by the way, is 2 words, and used incorrectly when spelled with -ing. Thanks for your attempts to "answer" my questions. Perhaps we will meet again soon young jedi.
 * How is this attack helping you in resolving your disagreement with Wikipedia's policies? Corvus cornix 17:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've gained an appreciation for wiki-employees...their quick wit, wealth of knowledge, and ability to answer annoying questions. I've learned what a "reliable source" is, what the word "ruleslawering" means, and how serious Wikipedia really is. You provide a great service to society, and I appreciate all that you do. Although I would still like my article published, I understand you have a job to do, and today you have done it. I would like to recommend you for the medal of wiki-honor. Is that possible?
 * Thanks for the appreciation, unfortunately, we're not employees, just volunteers. :)  BTW, you can sign your talk page comments with four tildes - ~ Corvus cornix 18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)