User talk:Arkelweis
Vandalism (?)[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Replies to common objections, you will be blocked from editing. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Whilst it's certainly possible to misuse comment-tags, i'm not sure you can vandalize an article with them as anything within comment-tags isn't displayed...
I read Your Message Arkelweis,
I read your post on my talk page...I would greatly appreciate any assistance you can offer. I have the code saved for the page and I am happy to provide it to you if you wish. Is there any reason I can not just undo what has been done? Instead of this activity, I would prefer to continue to work constructively towards making the page better. I have gone to great lengths to see that this is accurate and have reviewed other pages of schools where the content was similar but not targeted in this fashion. Please help. ThanksClou2epstein (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up: I am confused...I did have that tag in the code: Here is the code that was there in the info box: Before the image showed up and now it does not.
| The Epstein School | |
|---|---|
| Location | |
| , | |
| Information | |
| Type | Independent |
| Motto | Two Languages, One Community |
| Established | 1973 |
| Mascot | Eagles |
| Website | http://www.epsteinatlanta.org |
I read your reply: I understood that it was deleted. My confusion was more about how to go about restoring. I am hoping that the image will be restored. Any further assistance you can provide I would greatly appreciate. Clou2epstein (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, ok. well, AJcham seems to be addressing that issue now on your talk page.
- Note that if you want an image that you uploaded back for personal reasons, an admin would probably get it from the database and give it to you if you ask nicely; otherwize, if you want it restored for use in the article, you'll have to give an admin justification to why it wasn't neccesary to delete it (when i looked, it had until october 1st for discussion, don't know why it was speedy-deleted?). --Arkelweis (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
REQUEST FOR INPUT/ASSISTANCE:
Arkelweis,
Please provide me with input/guidance/assitance. Despite my continued efforts to act in good faith, I seem to have additional issues with misleading information that have arisen regarding COI. While I have hopefully clarified this, I would appreciate your input on my talk page and discussion page. Thanks Clou2epstein (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- answred here
REPLY:Thank you Arkelweis. The Epstein School article is a work in progress, but I continue to work diligently toward improvement. I have made substantial progress in the last three days; and while I have a long way to go, it is my hope to deliver on my promise of an article that will represent the educaional community well. Clou2epstein (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Welcome[edit]
|
Let's move the discussion here to your talkpage, as it is getting difficult keeping everything in one place. Let me boil down my position for you. The article does not stand the test of WP:N and WP:RS. I won't doubt that you watched a video that you honestly believe "proves" the existence of headfucking to your satisfaction. My position is that the Wikipedia guidelines for notability have not been met, and in my serious opinion, are unable to be met. The sources provided (Urban dictionary) do not prove either existence or notability, because the Urban dictionary is not considered a reliable source, for Wikipedia purposes.
You believe the act of headfucking exists, and I won't dispute your belief. Regardless, it is not notable, as Wikipedia defines notable. I have no desire to censor anything. I believe that headfucking is a not-notable neologism, unable to be verified or supported by reliable sources. The reason I brought the article to afd in the first place was to get a thorough discussion, to avoid any charges of censorship. Unless you can prove me wrong, I don't recall any guidelines allowing direct access to hardcore pornography videos. My intent was not to make you look bad, but to point out this seemingly glaring guideline violation. WP:BOLD and WP:NOTCENSORED do not even give nodding approval to this type of link. I appreciate the fact that you did not attempt to restore the link after it was removed. I also appreciate that you are willing to discuss the matter. I bear you no ill will, I just vehemently disagree with the position you have taken on this article (existence vs. notability). I hope we can work on future projects with no animus. I do wish you well on your future edits. Best regards. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I honestly appreciate the 'no hard feelings' sentiment, and return it. Am totally willing to assume good faith wrt to 'making me look bad' (probably accidental).
For what it's worth, I've also changed my 'vote' on the AfD to keep or merge dependant on notability; i.e., I acknowledge that there's a valid question as to wether the article is notable or not, and it may well not be notable enough to survive on it's own, and i'd have no problem with it being merged (or deleted, which seems to be how consensus is developing), so i think we agree there; I just vehemently opposed 'stunting' any potential the article has to develop whilst it's worthyness was under dispute (which includes the question of wether it can get better), tho like i said i'm not accusing you of gaming the system to push deletion or anything like that (oh, and i agree that Urban Dictionary is, at best, only a very slight indicator of potential notability, and it's not really up to muster on it's own)
re: the video, there's nothing (as far as i'm aware) prohibiting linking to hard-core porn in an article that is inherently hard-core-pornographic, if it's relevent. WP:CENSOR would seem to support it..?
thanks again for the message, and for talking rather than edit warring (I'll lay off too now, other editors can have a go ;-D) no hard feelings :) --Arkelweis (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
PRODs[edit]
I have nothing against footballers it's just that there are quite a lot of articles on footballers who don't seem to be at all notable. Spiderone 15:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- ah, ok. well, like I said on the AfD, be careful not to mistake 'not notable' for 'notable, but all their media coverage is in moon-speak' ;) --Arkelweis (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Pardon me for butting in, but I noticed you also removed one of my proposed deletions. I have no problem with that, but wanted to let you know that the football project has been working through the backlog of unreferenced BLPs on football players over the past several months (we still have more than 7,000 to go) and that is generating a lot of PRODs and AfDs. We are adding references whenever possible, but many articles have been created over the past few years on amateur or semi-pro football players (presumably by fans of their local clubs) which are impossible to find reliable sources for or for which only trivial mentions can be found. Some of the articles involve people from nations that don't have much coverage in English sources, but we do have Babelfish and Google translator to help (knowing their limitations). I hope you understand. Jogurney (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- no worres about 'butting in' ;) and glad to hear that you're trying to avoid English-speaker's bias :)
- The only real reason that I objected to the PRODs was that I felt it required somewhat greater attention from the community to raise the chance that a Korean-speaker would notice it and comment on the (korean-)notability, otherwize you can get a vicious-cycle whereby Koreans don't help out here 'cos there's not that much Korean stuff here, hence there's no-one to keep Korean-specific stuff from being deleted due to lack of notability, hence there's less Korean stuff here, hence less Koreans, hence less Korean stuff etc. etc. etc. --Arkelweis (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's understandable, but I don't think it's a major concern. If you check Category:South Korean footballers, you will see that there are more than 600 articles about South Korean footballers (there are also several dozens on players from the North). Nearly every single K-League (a fully-pro league) player in the past 3-4 years has an article, and most players from longer ago who had significant achievements in international football have articles as well. I think it would be nice to have more articles about players from earlier periods, but there is really no need for amateur and semi-pro players unless there have some achievements that gained significant coverage in reliable sources (it happens, but infrequently). Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, yes, as long as Korean papers etc. are included in 'reliable sources'; tbh, it does seem as if you're doing OK, but I dunno, i'm not Korean either ;) Only thing I can really add is that, due to the potential to accidentally drop a notable (BUT un-notable within the English-speaking world) person, maybe you could address this issue? maybe find some Koreans to check, or batch AfD each deletion rather than PRODing (to get greater community attention)? Just some ideas, and good luck if you do :) --Arkelweis (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's understandable, but I don't think it's a major concern. If you check Category:South Korean footballers, you will see that there are more than 600 articles about South Korean footballers (there are also several dozens on players from the North). Nearly every single K-League (a fully-pro league) player in the past 3-4 years has an article, and most players from longer ago who had significant achievements in international football have articles as well. I think it would be nice to have more articles about players from earlier periods, but there is really no need for amateur and semi-pro players unless there have some achievements that gained significant coverage in reliable sources (it happens, but infrequently). Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Shawna_Leneé.JPG[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Shawna_Leneé.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
ok bot, added (c) template :-p --Arkelweis (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
July 2011[edit]
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to V for Vendetta (film). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)