User talk:Archifriendly

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits, such as those to Juan Navarro Baldeweg, appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. -ELEKHH^T 09:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly disagree with your accusation. As a new wikipedian I have learned that it is important for an article to have more than a single source. In my research I spent a dozen hours finding diverse, independent and credible sources. When you so arrogantly drive-by tagged my first article, left unconstructive and arrogant comments on the talk page, I sought to see what kind of thoroughness you take with your articles. I found unsubstantiated claims, large statements not backed up by enough sources, and articles relying on a single source, and a link pointing nowhere. Perhaps you should improve your work and live up to the standard you are holding others to. Archifriendly (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if any of my edits could be perceived as arrogant - believe me it was not my intention. The links I provided were intended as constructive hints as to how to improve your article, and do not disrupt other's work. Have to add to that WP:CIVIL, given that your last edits were misguided taggings of stubs I started. To elaborate: (1) it is not the number of references but their quality that matters. An encyclopaedia or an independently published monograph is different from a magazine or newspaper article; (2) Sources do not need to be online to be valid; furthermore if you try now that link that did not work yesterday you might find it works again. (3) a stub can rely on a single source, as long it establishes notability. Regarding Jeffrey Eyster, things like a museum exhibiting a photo of a building designed by an architect do not make the architect automatically notable. I tagged the article instead of nominating it for a deletion discussion precisely so that you can familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and improve the article. --ELEKHH^T 04:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The snippy and arrogant "not quite" comment you posted on the article talk page does not help this new editor improve. Firstly, its not just a 'photo'. Peruse the link of Julius Shulman and familiarize yourself with his history of selecting and elevating the status of young architects as an editor. If the architecture by the architect was not of monumental status would it have been curated? Would it have been photographed? Why would a 98 year old juggernaut of art and architecture history spend a moment on it? Three independent architectural editors, domus, LA times, and Shulman have made the architect notable. How can I present the references better to improve? Archifriendly (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Hollywood Hills Box House.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Hollywood Hills Box House.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nthep (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]