User talk:Arkenstrone

Welcome!

Hello, Arkenstrone, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: The five pillars of Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page How to write a great article Manual of Style I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Apocalypse

Never change sourced text just because you don't like it or consider it wrong. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no citation for that text where used. What source? Arkenstrone (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't have to be a source where used, see WP:LEAD. Sources are meant to be in the body of the article, although sometimes there are also sources in the lead. Doug Weller talk 09:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the word "pseudoarchaeological" that appears in the lead, and it doesn't appear anywhere else in the article nor is it cited. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:Ancient Apocalypse. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Doug Weller talk 18:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I thought I was treating others with respect, civility and assuming good faith. Was there any specific comment you are referring to? Arkenstrone (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Your WP:BLP comment is rather ridiculous. " Doug Weller talk 09:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Arkenstrone (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still January 2025

The reason I archived that discussion thread is because it was going nowhere. When an editor who is otherwise uninvolved in that conversation comes along and does this it's generally a good sign that you are in WP:DROPTHESTICK territory. Now I'm not about to edit-war on an article talk page. You don't want the article thread archived, fine. But consider this a warning. WP:BLUDGEON is disruptive behaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"it's generally a good sign" suggests that you may be jumping to conclusions. Talk page discussions are for discussing. Your archive was premature and disruptive as it sought to halt any further discussion even though the discussion was ongoing. A warning was placed on your talk page to this effect. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, you're exhibiting an WP:IDHT approach. Recommend you either open an RFC for what you're proposing or except that you don't have a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not responded to my statement that overwhelming RfC consensus was already achieved at Talk:2021 Canadian federal election/Archive 2#RfC about the 2021 Canadian election results. To me it appears that you are the one exhibiting WP:IDHT. You said that that RfC applies to the infobox only, but this is factually incorrect, as the RfC shows. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That ONLY covers the top infobox. Your REFUSAL to accept that, is your problem. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the RfC states:

"Should the People's Party of Canada (PPC) be included in the results of the 2021 Canadian federal election?"

There is no mention of infobox only. That is your interpretation which is not born out by the facts. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not permanent and unchanging, regardless. Have you considered creating a new RfC rather than a circular argument where two entrenched sides both keep making the exact same argument? Simonm223 (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Similar behavior at Talk:Ancient Apocalypse - see the last two threads. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from veiled personal attacks as per WP:NOPA and instead focus on the issues and content of arguments. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this meant for User:GoodDay's comment about " exhibiting an WP:IDHT approach."? Or are you denying that you are showing similar behavior at Talk:Ancient Apocalypse? Doug Weller talk 09:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, please focus on the issues and content of arguments. Arkenstrone (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, who was this meant for? The problem seems to be that you don't see a need for consensus because you are convinced that others are not following policies and guidelines based on your opinion, and you keep repeating this. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]