User talk:Arnold1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:


Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

ClockworkSoul 17:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, you left a note on my talk page that Image:John.patrick.ennis-mugshot-20050303.jpg had been listed for deletion. I can't find it on the images for deletion page, though. What did you mean by this? Thanks, silsor 18:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It has now been listed for deletion.

The image has no source information. Source information must be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others. Unless you can show the source, the image must be deleted within 7 days. Arnold1


[edit] Prophecy

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Prophecy, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Another editor re-reverted your re-insertion of information from Sollog's website to this article. Wikipedia requires reliable sources and specifically prohibits self-published sources whose reliability has not been independently reviewed. I've reviewed your edit history and it seems to have consisted almost entirely of adding statements about and links to Sollog and his web site(s) to various articles, so I also need to warn you about the SPAM policy, which prohibits using an account to promote an individual or cause. If you continue to to use general Wikipedia articles as places to post material about and links to Sollog, your editing privileges may be suspended per the Blocking policy. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What you have written is total rubbish. I added links to Sollog in various articles related to what Sollog does, such as the numerology, list of mystics and prophecy articles, because such links were missing from those articles and that is what he does. How ridiculous is it that i can be accused of spamming when all i've done is improve wikipedia.Arnold1 (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Rather subjective, isn't it? Obviously adding Sollog material to pages improves it from your point of view, but not from the general point of view. Enigmaman 05:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmaman
Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view. Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. But in articles such as prophecy only your point of view is allowed, the skeptics point of view. Don't you think the article would be improved if both points of view were shown there without bias? Arnold1 (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does have a NPOV policy and that's one of the reasons why what you added does not belong in the article. Enigmaman 19:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmaman (talk • contribs)
Wikipedia does have NPOV but the article on Prophecy doesn't. That is the point I am making and that is the point you are not addressing. The article on Prophecy only represents the point of view of skeptics like you. It does not represent the view of people like myself. I don't have a problem including your point of view in the article so, why do you object to my point of view being included? Including time-stamped prophecies would show a more balanced approach and would improve the article. The article needs both skeptic and non-skeptic views represented, so how would you suggest making the article more neutral? Arnold1 (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The WP:NPOV policy covers this situation. The key WP:NPOVrequirement is that material has to to represent a significant point of view to be included. The policy also prohibits giving material undue weight. There's not only no evidence that Sollog represents a significant point of view, he seems to come within the definition in WP:FRINGE that requires that fringe points of view be excluded. As WP:FRINGE says, "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents." The Sollog article shows sources indicating he is a notable individual, so he has an article, but this does not mean that what he has to say represents a significant contribution to the subject of prophecy. That has to be independently sourced. Best,--Shirahadasha (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sollog

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Gamaliel (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You are now in violation of the 3RR and are subject to blocking. Please use the talk page to discuss the issue instead of continuing to edit war. The word "tabloid" in this case refers to the dimensions of the newsprint used, not the content. If you disagree, you are free to visit the BLP noticeboard or start an RFC, but you are not free to edit war and violate the 3RR. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If you keep edit warring on the talk page, you could be blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I will not stand idly by, as you are doing right now, while someone is being libelled on wikipedia. Shame on you for doing nothing to stop it.Arnold1 (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)