Talk:Arcade (architecture magazine)

References

Sources for this information need to be cited better, i will be adding them as soon as possible. most of this information was gathered from the orginizations website. i realize this may not meet your credibility guidelines and im working to fix this.

This is a nonprofit orginization and this article is not intended to serve as advertisment. Please allow some time for other people who have read this publication to help cite sources and fix these problems 68.178.97.212 (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC) steve

Title

Is it possible to change the title of this post to ARCADE magazine as the publication is commonly referred to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartermaster (talk • contribs) 20 August 2008

If you create an account, wait a few days and make a few edits to become autoconfirmed, you can do this yourself. While you're waiting those few days, take a minute to read WP:NAME so you'll know what the naming conventions are. Hope that helps!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved it to ARCADE (magazine), as is a magazine, not a journal. --Elekhh (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome and don't be afraid

Ok. There's something called "don't bite the newbies" which means "new people aren't experts and don't know the ropes, so don't jump all over them." A lot of wikipedia communication is arcane and in short hand (I hate statements like "This obviously violates WP:CONFLICT and WP:BS). I would rather people use plain language, which I try to do.)

I'm addressing that here, in an imperfect way, because I consider myself a "newbie" even though I've done a lot of stuff and have been around a few years. I still feel clueless.

Be honest. Have a thick skin. Relax.

You may want to spend some time learning the ropes here (I'm still doing it). In any case, if you believe you have something worth contributing, it won't go away. You can ALWAYS come back and contribute the same thing, just later.

Don't take things personally. Those of us who have been here a while (though still a bit clueless, like me) learn to relax.

There is a hive mind. There isn't one central authority. People can be jerks. YOU can be a jerk (and not know it). I HAVE BEEN A JERK.

Just want you to not be scared off of here. Your motives are ok, you're likely to ruffle some feathers (welcome to being alive), and life goes on.

Go to my user page. Look for the link on the left that says "E-mail this user." You can contact me and ask honest questions, and I'll give honest answers. If you wish.

--Quartermaster (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Try not to undo or blank things

I saw that you blanked this page. This could have been by accident. In general, wikipedians like transparency, so blanking a page is seen as, at the least, impolite. I urge you to leave all comments and tags left by other users on you pages (biggest exceptions are vandalism, obscene attacks, things like that). --Quartermaster (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Which edit are you referring to? I can't see any evidence that anyone blanked this article at any time.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, might not technically be a "blanking" but, in the spirit of my original comment (meant constructively), this is pretty close. Removal of lots of context and tags. That's all. I want to encourage this editor to keep working and would rather avoid distractions. My comment was directed towards the original editor (a newbie we can assume?) rather than to experienced wikipedians (I am not one). I can be wrong, so apologies if I am. No malice here. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, not a blanking at all. (You may notice this was my edit, not the IP user's). Your speedy deletion request claimed the article was spam; after a brief google search, I determined the magazine was probably notable, and so it was worthwhile to remove the spam and make the article a valid stub rather than delete it as you requested (which would truly have blanked the article *grin*). All maintenance tags that were removed were removed because they no longer applied. This was very briefly explained in the edit summary.

If you feel any of the spammy content I removed should go back in, feel free to do so.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ARCADE (architecture magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517162437/http://www.aiaseattle.org:80/news_0504_honors05.htm to http://www.aiaseattle.org/news_0504_honors05.htm#Arcade

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)