User talk:Arcmind

Welcome!

Hello, Arcmind, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Solar Wars, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Animalparty! (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vekrion

You accidentally created a new article named Vekrion in articlespace, when your edit summary made clear you meant to create/edit your sandbox. As such, I've moved the article to your userspace. You can now find it at User:Arcmind/Vekrion. Have a nice day, AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again everyone, i hope i am writing this in the right place, this message is particularly directed at animalparty, thank you for the welcome. As for Solar wars, that was Not supposed to be live, it was just me experimenting with the way stuff around here works. If there is any way to move it to my sandbox and off wiki, then please let me know. Also, how can i create more subpages for my sandbox?

You can work on draft articles in your personal sandbox when logged in, or in the Draft namespace (see also Help:Userspace draft). But drafts and other works in progress should be for the purpose of building a factual encyclopedia: see What Wikipedia is not and the three core content policies. The links in the Welcome! message above contain more info on policies and guidelines. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Solar Wars

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Solar Wars, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Theroadislong (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, i have no problem with you guys deleting the page, forgive me, i am fairly new here and did not know that that article was live. I will try to make sure it will not happen again.

As it's clearly a misplaced draft, I've moved it to User:Arcmind/Solar Wars. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience and understanding, i appreciate it!

A page you started (Colony Ships) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Colony Ships, Arcmind!

Wikipedia editor ThePlatypusofDoom just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I really don't think this is a good article to create. Unless this is a very major part of the game, not worthy of inclusion to wikipedia.

To reply, leave a comment on ThePlatypusofDoom's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colony Ships, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Collapse and Old Russia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i am sorry for the incorrect links, the article was not supposed to be live, i thought it was a sandbox, i guess i have to rename it, i was just experimenting with links, and how to set them up or connect them. I will move the article now, when i am finished experimenting the links will be gone. Thank you.

Moving pages

I know you were just testing but please be careful where you move pages to. Please move to your own userspace i.e. pages start User:Arcmind. You moved Colony ships to another users area although as the name was User:Sanbox I suspect you were actually intending to move to User:Sandbox/Colony ships - still wrong. Nthep (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my gosh, i am SO sorry, i moved it to the wrong place, it should have been User: Arcmind/sanbox colony ships, right? If so forgive my error i will fix immediately.

Not to worry, no damage done but practicing on the main article space isn't the best way of trying things out :-) Nthep (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, i understand what you mean. Just to be sure though, i really did not mean to be on the main article, i was trying to change the name, but i guess it went live before i could. I will do my best to make sure it does not happen again.

Freeloading

I have ceased to believe the claims you made at User talk:RHaworth/2016 Apr 18#Arcmind. If you have not leaned how to edit after three weeks and three hundred edits, then you never will. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Three Hundred Edits" Actually, i have got the hang of alot of things, if you have really been monitoring my work, you will see my experiments, and the fact that i never leave my test work on wiki for longer than a few days, before i delete it. And, if you actually viewed my activity you will see that i have experimented and not "Mooched" as per my conversations with other wiki editors. The article you deleted, was not even going to stay over night as i was in the process of editing it into a legitimate article, but did not save it and thence it did not register over the previous article. I have several commendations on HTML, which, if you don't know, is the code used to create websites, which means that i don't need wiki to be a "free web host". Now, the article you deleted was not important, and was one i was myself looking for a way to delete, ( not erase the text) but actually delete. I don't mean to be rude, (Like you) but i think you go a little gung ho with the deleting. You should at least contact editors before deleting, instead of just running around accusing real people who spend their time trying to learn the standards of how to contribute to a community that has helped them so much that they are bullshitting. If you take offense to what i am saying, i am sorry. i do not want to get on anyone's bad side. Just trying to clear up a misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcmind (talk • contribs)

Okay, i just went to your talk page, and i see now where you came from in terms of what i deemed "rude". I apologize. I too believe in being tough with others, as i have grown up in that environment and still exhibit those philosophies at times. I thought you were trying to be overly and unnecessarily rude and accusational, but i see now i misjudged you. I thank you for your advice, but still wish to inform you that i am not a freeloader or someone who is trying to take advantage of this site. Wikipedia has been my constant companion and teacher for years. I signed up because i appreciate everything it has done for me over the years, and wanted to give back to the community. When i joined i saw that wiki had article styles, layouts, standards ect. So, not knowing Every intricate detail, i chose to use my sandbox to experiment with all of those things. Yes it has taken three weeks, as i have learned the mechanics of the software, but i was still working on my language mechanics as i am not very good. Whether you believe that some people can ever be wikipedians or not is a matter of your own opinion which others do not necessarily subscribe to and others are entitled to their own. As wiki states, there is no editorial board. so no one is in charge, only people who enforce it's rules, which means, if it takes me 20 years to learn how to use wiki, as long as i do not violate it's policies, i can learn for 20 years. However i have not been here for twenty years, and you should not have started accusing me after three weeks, as you did not become the admin you are now in three weeks. As i said before, i have several degrees in HTML computer coding allowing me to create websites and pages without a web host simply by opening notepad therefore i do not need wiki to do that for me.If you have looked at my record you will see nothing has been there permanently. Which should be an indication of the claims you deemed false. I really like wiki, and do not wish to cause anyone grief, but i do not like to be called a liar without a proper trail. If you still doubt me please consider taking this matter up without being irrational and quick to judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcmind (talk • contribs)

Update

I know i am a minuscule part of wiki, but i am just putting this up for people who might need to know, i am currently working on an article for wiki, but since there have been several issues regarding my sandbox, i am working on it from an outside source, particularly open office. When the article is complete i will post it in my sandbox and request it's submission. Hopefully it will avoid further confrontation, and prove my reputation to the community. Until then, Have a good one! Arcmind (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Outside source". What a strange attitude. Do you think I am incapable of recognising useful stuff? If it is genuine then of course you can use your sandbox. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no Rhaworth, i am not second guessing your knowledge, or your wisdom in this field. I am simply trying to avoid misunderstanding. Like i said many times, i came to wiki to have a good time participating, not warring with it's admins, i feel that as an amateur, it is not my place to challenge anyone's authority. All i was doing was working on learning navigation and the utilization of wiki software. After i had a good grasp of it, i was working on my language because i did not want to submit an article to have it denied due to poor writing quality. An example is most of the articles here, are worded so well, i was trying to work on my wording by articulating vast amounts of useless and fictional writing. I had no idea that anyone would be monitoring it and taking offense to it. I have a website on Wordpress as well as the html i mentioned so there really is no need to worry.

So if you have a website, why not link to it? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, this is the link to my website: https://thevoidbeyondblog.wordpress.com/ If it does not show, let me know so i can fix it, i previously had the site as a private one while i updated it, but i am finished now. I copied parts of my personal work to my wiki sandbox as my guinea pig so to speak while i experimented on it using wiki software. I did not have an article yet of my own to work on, so i used my work as a substitute. Just let me known when you see it, so i can mark it for editing again will you? Thanks! Arcmind (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Vex Robotics

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Vex Robotics, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
It appears to be a clear copyright infringement of http://www.innovationfirst.com/about. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. /wiae /tlk 23:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, did not read these articles, and i wrote this article too soon. please go ahead and delete the article, and i will rewrite correctly. Thank you!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vex Robotics Design System (May 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Vex Robotics Design System and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Arcmind, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recore

Please be aware that you appear to be engaged in an edit war and at risk of violating the three revert rule. Please stop inserting the new content that has been disputed and use the talk page to discussion the additions you want to make. -- ferret (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i understand, it is just that two other editors are deleting my edits for objectionable reasons.Arcmind (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would highly suggest that you cool down a bit regarding this page. There are dispute resolution procedures available for you to make use of. Attacking and arguing with other editors likely will not help your case. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Man, have you been reading the message history so far? If so, then you will see that i am not the problem, and it is not my lack of communication that is causing the situation. As I said to User: Ferret So far, all I have done is become rather agitated by a certain editor who seems to take a liking to undoing edits. If you read the edits they made to the article i was working on, none of their remarks offered anything to edify me in the way of what they were requesting I do, or why they continually forced their opinion of whether it "sounded different enough" on me. As a matter of fact, I tried to fix the article three times, and all of which were deleted without any explanation as to how they could be fixed despite the existence of several wiki policies that I quoted for her edification. In reality, I made no attacks, but rather advised against further contact with me due to her unhelpful, rather frustrating edits which only wasted my time, and made things harder and more frustrating for me. If you are a fair judge, you will see that I have had no desire to fight with anyone, as you and i had no problem working things out when you explained the situation. Therefore i have simply asked for the opposing editor to back down, or for them to at least present their reasoning directly as no consensus can ever be reached with someone who expresses no interest in reaching such an end and lacks the ability to communicate. This situation is actually brought on by a lack of communication on her part not mine. Arcmind (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot control other people's behavior, but you can control yours. As you seem to be aware, the 3 revert rule applies whether you are correct or not. Even if you are right, you should not continually make reversions. I don't play the game, I don't know who is correct, but this needs to be worked out. I again urge you to use the procedures available to you. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I get all of that. However this is not a situation that warrants a huge police scale investigation (just exaggerating) all that needs to happen, is for the other editor to explain the reason they are making edits that don't actually improve what I have put, but rather just destroy it. If you see someone building a tower, why destroy it before they finish, don't inform them of the regulations, and then just take off without an explanation?

It is true that others need to explain their edits when requested, but it is also true that you have to accept that when you post something to Wikipedia other users are going to change it eventually. They likely see it as an improvement, while you may not. They might be right, you might be right, or you both might be wrong. You need to explain, if you feel no changes are needed, why that is the case and not just criticize others for 'destroying' what you wrote. Collaboration is a two way street; others must work with you, but you must work with others too.

You don't need to start a huge discussion, but if you don't think you can resolve this between the two of you and want outside assistance you could start with the informal dispute resolution noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know other will edit it. I see the warning every time I go to edit a page. But there is such a thing as improve and disprove. And a sensible editor will see that anything that subtracts detail in exchange for vagueness, is clearly against the benefit of the wiki. I have already sent the other editor a message inviting them to speak their view and reason for their actions. If we cannot come to an agreement from there, than i will most likely post the issue where you suggested. Arcmind (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Cognissonance. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. It is getting difficult to see your side of this situation; please stop making personal attacks. Same goes for the other user. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I DID NOT ATTACK! This editor is fueling a fire that has no desire to burn. If you really want to help, stop warning me, and get an admin to resolve their side. The funny thing here is that you guys are all fully aware of the situation, and are deliberately staying out of it, all the while allowing the other editor to violate the rules "calmly" and are scolding me for something you know is a response to a particular action. You guys are not robots, use common sense and your own judgment. Rules are created to help guide common sense, not to abolish it. I have no quarrel with you, or anyone else. On most wikis I edit something, someone adds to it, or improves the facts. Here, I add something, people delete it, and insult it's quality. If she is claiming to be an artist, then she should know that great works take time and patience. If she is wiser than me, she should know what might set someone off, and then try to avoid it, not then make it worse. I opened a case already where you stated, although it is under my IP as my pc logged out, but I am going to see what happens, and how "fair" this system is. I implore you to speak with the other editor, get them to back down or something. If you guys can't or don't want to get involved, then please do not come and tell me to swallow it. That ends in Tyranny on their part.

Your draft article, Draft:Vex Robotics Design System

Hello, Arcmind. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Vex Robotics Design System".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]