Jump to content

Talk:Kappa Delta/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Philanthropies

Added the four philanthropies. AOT! Wxgirl 01:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a small paragraph discussing the fact that the women of Kappa Delta work hard to make sure everyone is confident everyday! AOT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.224.6 (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Chapter List

Can we add a chapter list as seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Delta_Pi#Alpha_Delta_Pi_Chapters

OR here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Theta_Pi#Chapters

I would be happy to help put it together if I knew it wouldn't immediately be taken down.

Why would it be taken down? I'll be happy to monitor it & any other changes to the page. :) AOT! %aidl% 18:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There's been a high amount of debate about chapter lists/links to websites because it can be considered linkscruff per WP:NOT. The general consensus lately is to put it into a separate page, but a few of them have been put up for deletion review as far as I can remember. --ImmortalGoddezz 18:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, after some discussion, I've looked around at enough of the other Greek sites and think we're OK with adding the chapter list as long it's on a separate page, so that's what I've done. Right now I'm trying to compile the years the chapters came to campus and everything. There's also an inactive list. If I could get help filling it all out I think it would be really great to have. And it would seem valid if we could get all the dates and everything because then it's more legit. Liz 14:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You can use chapter directory to find the info. I've completed through Indiana right now, but plan on continuing on throughout the day, but finding dates and inactive/closed chapters is going to take a lot of work. Liz 15:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
NC, NY, PA, SC, TX, TN and VA need to be completed. Someone added one or two schools to some of the states, but didn't complete them (if you see a partial list). Liz 19:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Completed list, no more states left. Liz 04:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Brand Identity

I'm very excited about KD's new brand identity imaging. I've uploaded the image "KD_Logo.JPG" but directions for using the image said to contact nationals, so I'm going to. Just wanted to throw out the discussion so that I remembered to check back for it later and see what anyone else thought about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AROY411 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Importance

This article has been changed from a Top rating to a High rating in importance. Please refer to This Chart for details. Acidskater 08:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kappa Delta crest.jpg

Image:Kappa Delta crest.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 16:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Help

I have added a section called "Social Initiatives" to the Kappa Delta page. Do you think this is important to note? Is what I wrote okay? Amrobin16 (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Not only is it important to note, there looks like some good potential there for an article about the Confidence Coalition. I have linked a few items in the section and other minor edits. Please note that when you add references, be sure to check if there is a standard way to include dates and try to go by that standard. The common accessdate on this page uses the format yyyy-mm-dd. Very well written and worthy of additional relevant material. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 08:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Answer attempt to help request

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hallo there Amrobin16 (talk) (contribs) and welcome to Wikipedia.
So you are asking:

  1. "(...) if it is important to note (...)"
  2. and "(...) is what you wrote okay (...)",

about adding a section called "Social Initiatives" in the Kappa Delta article.
IMHO I feel that there are consistent possibilities that you are lingering in a "Conflict of Interest" situation. I know it should be sounding funny than an italian national like me writes such a thing given the political problems he has in the country where he is living right now... but generally speaking on Wikipedia users should try to avoid writing articles where they are "directly involved".
So if you are a member of this sorority or a student, a professor or an employee of the Longwood University you should try to avoid writing about it.
Last but not least is good to remember that two the main Wikipedia behavioral guidelines are to "assume good faith" and "do not bite the newcomers".
Thanks for your recent contributions and please let's try to have fun in editing constructively Wikipedia in a non biased way.
Cheers.   M aurice   Carbonaro  07:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I feel that there are consistent possibilities that you are lingering in a "Conflict of Interest" situation.
I would like you to list your evidence for this serious accusation. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 08:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Hallo there – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX!. It's not an accusation but an allegation. Please let's take it easy and not take Wikipedia too seriously. What you are implying, instead, is that I am allegedly making legal threats. Let's try to have a nice and relaxed week end. Cheers.   M aurice   Carbonaro  09:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Forgive me if I used the wrong word, Signor Carbonaro. Allow me to rephrase:
I would like you to list your evidence for this serious allegation of wrongdoing on the part of this contributor whom we are supposed to be helping, not "biting". And may I remind you that it was you who began this serious subject. It would lighten things sufficiently if you were either to:
  1. Give your reason(s) for your feeling that there may be a COI here, or
  2. Give your reason(s) for bringing it up in the first place.
I don't mean to be too serious with you, but alleging that someone may be inappropriately editing an article with which they have a conflict of interest could indeed be a serious conjecture if not based upon evidence. Do please allow us to see yours? – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 10:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Paine Ellsworth Esq., please take it easy... it just looks to me that this conversation is heating up with no apparent reason. There is absolutely no "wrongdoing" implied in what I have written and if someone (like you) felt like there was some "biting" I do apologize.
Okay then, I will honestly try my best to lighten things up:
  1. After more than 11 years being editing on Wikipedia I noticed that I great percentage of newcomers start editing "stuff" in which they are directly involved. I am not accusing anyone. I am just reminding Amrobin16 (talk) that Wikipedia shouldn't be some sort of soapbox or means of promotion. I just found odd that after starting editing just two articles we had a "cry for help". Don't you agree on that? So that is why I had a feeling that there may be a COI here
  2. The reason for bringing it up in the first place is that the help template should NOT be used so "easily". I guess is a bit like switching on the Fire Alarm. Huh? Maybe this is the "serious atmosphere" you are feeling right now...
I understand you are a War veteran from your user page so you are definitely older than me. With all due respect Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a battleground. Because what I am feeling now is like you are starting to take it personally. If you feel in the mood for engaging in some more "serious stuff" than starting a quarrel for how I answered a newcomer... may I suggest you to please consider engaging in articles like "Iran and WMD" instead? I am honestly convinced that your experience could be of great help in articles like that... but pretty please consider taking a deep breath and stopping at once if we start hyperventilating. We shouldn't tamper with stuff like that if we don't know exactly where we are putting our hands on. Don't you agree?
I hope this comment of mine has helped somehow. Catch u L8R?   M aurice   Carbonaro  10:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Paine Ellsworth Esq., please take it easy...
Signor Carbonaro, firstly I am no "Esq.", nor if I were to qualify for such a pretentious-sounding suffix to my name, I am the type of person who would not use it. And I do take it easy, which is why I generally try to avoid such serious subjects as WP:COI.
There is absolutely no "wrongdoing" implied in what I have written...
It is good to hear you say that, Signor Carbonaro, because your first response to this newcomer was by no means crystal clear on that. You might want to consider that it sometimes does not take much to sour a newcomer to Wikipedia, and allegations will often be taken quite seriously by them, perhaps more seriously than you think they should be taken.
After more than 11 years being editing on Wikipedia I noticed that I great percentage of newcomers start editing "stuff" in which they are directly involved. I am not accusing anyone.
This is about perceptions, specifically the perceptions of newcomers. You may not feel that you've accused anyone; however, your words conveyed a different meaning than you expected or we would not be having this conversation. I am happy to assume good faith on your part, but I shudder to think of how many newcomers you may have turned away in the last eleven years by coming on just a little too strong. If you must judge newcomers, you might want to approach it on an individual, case-by-case level rather than to lump them into a large group that may or may not dictate their behavior.
I just found it odd that after starting editing just two articles we had a "cry for help". Don't you agree on that? and the help template should NOT be used so "easily". I guess is a bit like switching on the Fire Alarm. Huh?
I do wish I could agree with you, but please listen... If it is found that your allegation is true and this editor has a conflict of interest, then the only possible wrongdoing is that the editor went ahead and added information without first posting it on this talk page. Please scan WP:PSCOI, especially the emboldened hatnote at the top of that page. This newcomer did everything right, even if they were being bold by adding a new section. And that includes their usage of the {{Helpme}} template.
I do not wish to quarrel or battle you. My only wish is to convey to you that you will want to rethink making an allegation that is based upon a newcomer bias you've picked up over the years, that may very well be untrue for many beginning editors, and that may have negative effects on newcomers that could turn them off completely to Wikipedia. All I ask is that you try harder to see this situation from the viewpoint of the newcomer and reconsider the way you respond to these people who ask for help. Try to focus on their problem rather than on what may or may not be applicable. If you really feel that you must continue to advise newcomers about WP:COI, then please just do so and be done with it. Just give them the link to the behavioral guideline and don't go into a treatise about your personal situation. Cut quickly like a sharp knife and focus upon helping people with the questions they ask. And when other editors point things like this out to you, please try hard to not be patronizing to them. I have been civil to you so you have no reason to think this a battle or a quarrel, and yet that's precisely the way you've taken it. You seem to think I need help. Trust me, if I ever need your help I'll come to your talk page and ask for it. As long as I've been contributing and trying to improve Wikipedia, I still learn things from more experienced editors, and from less experienced ones, as well. Feel no further need to respond, because I will no longer monitor this page. If in the unlikely event you care to continue this discussion, or you have any questions, then feel free to contact me on my talk page. Best of everything to you and yours! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 20:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Kappa Delta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Kappa Delta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Famous Firsts?

This section (apart from having a mis-capitalized heading) has no sources and reads like an advertisement. Also, the paragraph about determining and then celebrating a cause on a specific doesn't fit with the section (it's neither a "first" nor especially famous outside Greek circles). This section should be broken up and incorporated into general history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.197.172 (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kappa_Delta/Archive_1&oldid=1238796819"