User talk:Arzk02587k

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Arzk02587k, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Sorcha Faal, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

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 New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} 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! Osarius - Want a chat? 14:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sorcha Faal for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sorcha Faal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorcha Faal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Osarius - Want a chat? 14:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Sorcha Faal has been reverted.
Your edit here to Sorcha Faal was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9QtZkT8OBQ&feature=player_embedded#!) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sorcha Faal with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arzk02587k. You have new messages at Jim1138's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

In response to your feedback[edit]

Good for you! If you ever need help editing, please try Help desk and the help pages. Hope you have a great time here!

Vincent Liu (something to say?) 04:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]

Hello! Arzk02587k, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!

I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

notice[edit]

On wikipedia we don't accept original research. The material you add has to be directly supported by the references. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also your insistence on "facts" without references is troubling, see WP:V. Whatever a wikiproject says is not a guideline, wikiprojects don't need to represent wikipedia consensus on issues. If you want to see the actual relevant guideline see WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Notice[edit]

Deleted from User talk:IRWolfie- talk page: You're continued failure to follow guidlines relating to this entry are puzzling, to say the least. Granted, this entry is one you'd like to see go away, but with your not offering any rational explanation for same. Here are the FACTS: 1.) Sorcha Faal reports WERE used by the US Department of Homeland Security 2.) A Sorcha Faal report WAS used by Hugo Chavez as the basis of his claim (since retracted)the US used an earthquake weapon against Haiti. With those FACTS being not in dispute it would seem that your effort would be better served assisting in finding the "sources" that are acceptable to you instead of your wholesale deletion of same. I'm sure you know how to do searches (in any language)like everyone else, so please help with this, not hinder. Thanks.

The Sorcha Faal entry falls well within the guidlines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views that says:

Wikipedia's policy is to write articles from a neutral point of view describing not just the dominant view, but significant alternative views as well, fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Because alternative views lack the widespread acceptance enjoyed by dominant views and often suffer from a lack of coverage in verifiable and reliable sources, fewer editors know or care about them, and this imbalance puts alternative views at risk of neglect, misrepresentation, and a level of coverage not in keeping with their relative notability. This project aims to counter that tendency by facilitating collaboration among interested editors. This should all be done while following our basic content principles. It should not be an excuse to correct supposed suppression from the mainstream orthodoxy, to engage in original research, or to use sources that aren't verifiable and reliable. We are not here to correct real-world coverage. We are here to report real-world coverage. We are not here to counterbalance real-world sources. We are here to balance according to real-world sources.

As per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution that says: When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it. You're being requested to abide by same. Thanks. Arzk02587k (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sorcha Faal[edit]

The article Sorcha Faal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Little evidence of notability, low quality references, problems not fixed for years

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David Gerard (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]