User talk:MrVibrating

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 OiNK donation site 2 Martial arts 3 Arbcom elections 4 Pitzer College Site 5 Sport Aerobics "unverified content"

[edit] OiNK donation site

No problemo, This sort of sites are discouraged here in wikipedia. I seriously don't understand wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a fund raising site. Thanks for helping. Keep up the good work and welcome to wikipedia. --SkyWalker 05:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, That is right. After a warning is given then if the user does it again. He/She had to reported then action would be taken. --SkyWalker 06:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martial arts

I'd seen some of your edits on a couple of MA pages and wondered if you would be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 11:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look at it. MrVibrating (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom elections

Hi, I indented your vote for the second time, as you need 150 mainspace edits before november 1st in order to vote. I hope you don't mind. Thanks Secret ^account 22:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pitzer College Site

You seem to have made some fairly biased editing of the pitzer site, such as removing over half of the "noteable alumni" list because you said they were not noteable. That is a personal decision and does not reflect the fact that the alumni listed were Pitzer graduates and were in fact worthy of note for current jobs, accomplishments or publications. I added back in the list you deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rory Reiff (talk • contribs) 16:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In my edit summaries I noted that I was removing people without articles. My edits weren't arbitrary: I removed everyone w/o an article and kept everyone w/ one. Please see Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people, which states that the same criteria for having an article apply to people in such lists. MrVibrating (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sport Aerobics "unverified content"

Hi,

I don't think the whole section you deleted are unverified contents. Some of them are based on the experience of many authors. They just described the truth of that sport and their feelings to the status of that sport. They just reflected the truth, like "some people considered...". How can you claim that they are "unverified claims"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.118.38.178 (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not they're true or based on the experience of many people isn't what matters. They're unverified because they aren't backed up by citations from reliable sources. See wikipedia's policy on verifiability for more information. Remember, even if it's true it still has to be backed up. MrVibrating (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)