Talk:UP Sigma Rho
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the WikiProject and notice board for topics related to the Philippines. To participate, visit the Tambayan for more information. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Sigma Rogues
There has been conspicuous silence among the senior members of this gang. Johnyang2 06:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sigma Rho1.jpg
Image:Sigma Rho1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 20:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion of "deaths" article?
Can someone explain the frequent deletion of this section? It has been covered extensively by the media so it's perfectly notable to be included. --Howard the Duck 09:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Semi-protection
This article has been semi-protected for two weeks because of the edit warring over the "Deaths" section. For now, the section remains, however this is not an endorsement of the current version. Please discuss your views here. Thank you. Harryboyles 02:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think the current version is fine. I have no knowledge of the story in question, but it seems relevant for the article since references are included. I only noticed the edit war when I was scanning recent changes. It appears someone connected/sympathetic with the fraternity is trying to remove criticism.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Why should you put "Related Violence" unless you have a malicious intent in the first place? Up to this date, all of the info under Related Violence (though covered by the media) aren't verified and should not be considered facts (therefore should not be put here).
Why should you put "Related Violence" unless you have a malicious intent in the first place? Up to this date, all of the info under Related Violence (though covered by the media) aren't verified and should not be considered facts (therefore should not be put here).
- The information is there because it received non-trivial press coverage (as proved by the sources). You seem to have a conflict of interest with the subject matter. I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not censored. Your removal of this sourced material violates the neutral point of view policy. Please do not do it again. EnviroboyTalkCs 03:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This article should be semi-protected again for 1 week because User:Duck You always deletes Related Violence section.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok!, its good that this article will be protected.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
