User talk:Arkmanda
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Arkmanda, 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 and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Arkmanda (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I have been locked out of this account for a while but figured out how to get in through the secure server. I wish someone could help me because I can't figure it out. Anyway, the secure server is good enough, but I think the other thing is still a problem. Arkmanda (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think you should request Wikipedia:IP block exemption, which you can do by following the link and reading the instructions.--Breawycker (talk to me!)
OK thanks. Arkmanda (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikify tag - please clarify
Since you disagree with my removal of the tag[1], could you please identify what the specific problem at Talk:Jawan Sikandarpur so that it can be rectified? Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
What does your screen name mean?
- It's a reference to Zaphod Beeblebrox, a fictional character from one of my favorite books. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw that, but wondered, have you ever heard of a cat named this?
- Never mind, I found the answer I was looking for. Arkmanda (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Pic
Hi there. I see that this is a new account, so perhaps I should explain why I've removed that comment on the shock photo that you added to the Somalia article. Per WP:EVENT, "routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Please also note that Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Wikinews offers a place where editors can document current news events, but not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article." In future, if you have any questions on policy and such, please do not hesitate to contact me and I will assist you as best I can. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for keeping me informed, I appreciate that. I actually already saw what happened and commented. I hope you are wrong because like I did say, a policy like that would hurt Wikipedia instead of help it. I thought I did pretty good spotting this current story and getting it in before someone else. I guess we'll see. Arkmanda (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's part of the problem. Per WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Middayexpress (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think you are missing something here. This is not routine, This is a major US newspaper publishing on its front page an image that until today would have been deemed "too graphic". They modified their own policy in doing it. If that isn't more significant that what you call routine, we again disagree, Arkmanda (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Understood. But kindly also note WP:NOT#JOURNALISM: "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources." Middayexpress (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please also note that, per WP:TOPIC, material must actually be on-topic; and the topic of the article is not that graphic photo. Middayexpress (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- It sounds like you are upset about the starkness of the image and attempting some form of censorship based on it being grotesque. I agree that it is shocking, but that is why I think it belongs. And the section is titled "Health" which this directly relates to. Now I'm the new kid on the block, so I'm not claiming to know policies better than you. And I am not about edit waring, which is why I didn't put it right back in. But I have not fully adopted your position yet. Please don't misunderstand that we disagree. It does not imply that I don't respect what you are trying to do, or that you have spent your own time, trying to help me. I appreciate it. Arkmanda (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I have been nothing but polite and civil toward you. I realize that you just registered this particular account, but kindly stop discussing me/the contributor and projecting imagined intentions onto me (it's the article itself that you linked to which describes the image as "shocking"). WP:NPA stipulates that editors should not "comment on content, not on the contributor", so please try and respect that too. Everything that I've written you is policy-based, as can easily be seen above. Again, per WP:NOT#JOURNALISM: "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources." Middayexpress (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- I never meant to imply that you haven't been polite to me. I'm not sure what you mean about discussing you, I did ask another person to offer an opinion but that was not meant against you. Anyway, I will let it go, and I will apologize one more time, even though I don't know what I did. If you accuse me again of being uncivil, I will have to insist that you show me where I have done the things you are alleging. Arkmanda (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- To address your statement that you are not sure what I mean, this is what that WP:NPA quote above refers to: "It sounds like you are upset about the starkness of the image and attempting some form of censorship based on it being grotesque". Whatever the case, apology accepted again. Middayexpress (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I see what you mean. I truly didn't mean that as an attack, but I see how it could have seemed that way. I only meant that I agree with you that the image is disturbing. I do realize now that you were not justifying its removal on that basis. So it was at best, out of context. I'll be much more careful about not making these kinds of insinuations. Arkmanda (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- To address your statement that you are not sure what I mean, this is what that WP:NPA quote above refers to: "It sounds like you are upset about the starkness of the image and attempting some form of censorship based on it being grotesque". Whatever the case, apology accepted again. Middayexpress (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- I never meant to imply that you haven't been polite to me. I'm not sure what you mean about discussing you, I did ask another person to offer an opinion but that was not meant against you. Anyway, I will let it go, and I will apologize one more time, even though I don't know what I did. If you accuse me again of being uncivil, I will have to insist that you show me where I have done the things you are alleging. Arkmanda (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I have been nothing but polite and civil toward you. I realize that you just registered this particular account, but kindly stop discussing me/the contributor and projecting imagined intentions onto me (it's the article itself that you linked to which describes the image as "shocking"). WP:NPA stipulates that editors should not "comment on content, not on the contributor", so please try and respect that too. Everything that I've written you is policy-based, as can easily be seen above. Again, per WP:NOT#JOURNALISM: "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources." Middayexpress (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- It sounds like you are upset about the starkness of the image and attempting some form of censorship based on it being grotesque. I agree that it is shocking, but that is why I think it belongs. And the section is titled "Health" which this directly relates to. Now I'm the new kid on the block, so I'm not claiming to know policies better than you. And I am not about edit waring, which is why I didn't put it right back in. But I have not fully adopted your position yet. Please don't misunderstand that we disagree. It does not imply that I don't respect what you are trying to do, or that you have spent your own time, trying to help me. I appreciate it. Arkmanda (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please also note that, per WP:TOPIC, material must actually be on-topic; and the topic of the article is not that graphic photo. Middayexpress (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Understood. But kindly also note WP:NOT#JOURNALISM: "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources." Middayexpress (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think you are missing something here. This is not routine, This is a major US newspaper publishing on its front page an image that until today would have been deemed "too graphic". They modified their own policy in doing it. If that isn't more significant that what you call routine, we again disagree, Arkmanda (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's part of the problem. Per WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Middayexpress (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)