User talk:Arcadia16

July 2022
Hello, I'm Mustermaster. An edit that you recently made to Pokémon Pocket Monsters seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Mustermaster (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Who Can It Be Now?, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at J. G. Quintel, you may be blocked from editing. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding unreferenced content to month articles
Please be aware that month articles are subject to the same rules as any other article. Entries must be supported by a citation. The fact that some of the older ones don't have citations for some of the older entries doesn't alter the requirement to include citations for any new entries. Deb (talk)

Thank You
I am aware that I have not added sources to articles I have added. I will add sources to articles from now on. Arcadia16 (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Month articles
In your edit summary, you wrote: "please quit changing the images as these changes are only minor changes". That is irrelevant. Deb (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello @Deb, I was saying that because you removed the "|thumb|" from the U-Thant image which makes the image center and for mobile users, the image looks out of center. I hope this clears up why I said that and if I sounded passive-aggressive about it, I am sorry. Arcadia16 (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited May 1965, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kells. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Hi Arcadia16! Thank you for your edits to September 1968. It looks like you've copied or moved text from Rodney Alcala into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I am sorry. I should've credited the original contributor(s) however failed to do so. I will remember to credit them when I borrow text from other articles. Thank you for the message. 👍 Arcadia16 (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited September 1962, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laver.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we can avoid an edit war

 * Greetings, Arcadia. I will keep an open mind, but I'm curious as to your philosophy as to importance of various items when it comes to repositioning of entries. Just going by March 1962, I'll ask the reasoning behind higher priority for
 * A memorandum from Harold Johnson (March 5) vs. a change of government in the nation of Malta;
 * Scott Carpenter and Wally Schirra beginning water escape exercises vs. the opening of an 18-nation disarmament conference;
 * Kilmarnock FC having a record breaking attendance vs. a new constitution in Morocco; (March 10)
 * Two awards by McDonnell Aircraft to subcontractors; (March 19)
 * A contract being awarded to Aerojet for development of engines for the Gemini program vs. the president of South Korea resigning;
 * The publishing of a Gemini development plan vs the creation of the first-ever noble gas compound.

We all have our opinions about what's significant in history. There are cases where the significance of an event may not be obvious at first glance unless it's looked at from a different perspective. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have about choices that I've made; and to hear any complaints that you might have. In any event, let's talk. We both have strong values and we both enjoy writing on Wikipedia. Nobody wins in an edit war. Perhaps we can come can come to an understanding. Mandsford 19:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey thanks for replying Mansford, the reason why I edit so much (such as in March 1962) was because I placed all of the entries in order of the amount of paragraphs and sentences they have. I like to keep things like that for the entire 1960s Wiki so they could be kept clean and not mixed and unorganized. Thanks for understanding 👍. -Arcadia16 Arcadia16 (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the reply, Arcadia-- Regarding the U.S. space program (which has a lot of sentences), however, most of the entries are routine NASA news that were originally drawn, verbatim, from a book by Ken Grimwood, and later paraphrased and trimmed. If the idea is to place those at in the same place in each section, then they should not be at the beginning of the section, since this is the events of all the 1960s and not a particular aspect. If they should be in the same location for consistency, it should probably be at the ''end of the news and before the births and deaths. The alternative would be to delete the ones that seem insignificant, and I'm not in favor of that either. User:Gildir, who does excellent work, did the original placement of the NASA news within a section.
 * I appreciate that you avoided the practice of labeling an item (e.g. "World War II:", or "Nadir of race relations:"), so I say thanks for not having "American space program:" label. Still, I think that recurring subjects should not overshadow the big news of the day. As far as my own idea priorities, my belief is that a "first ever" event should be at or near the top, and that a major event (such as a disaster that caused a large number of deaths, or a change of regime that affected an entire nation, or an event that made headlines worldwide) should have high priority. That said, both goals are possible in beginning each date with a major item of the day, and maintaining a consistent location within the paragraph for recurring items. You, and I, and Gildir and the original editor who started the 60s pages (User:Deb) have been the most prolific contributors to summarizing the decade's events. Let's see if we can come to a mutual understanding. Thanks, and I'm glad to understand your objectives more than I did before.Mandsford 13:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC).
 * Hmm, not sure I understand this, but I think it's all more complicated. There's a tendency to place events at the top of the day that are minor in the context of a bigger ongoing event, sometimes at the expense of major events - especially if the latter occur outside the US. We need to bear this in mind, otherwise we are at risk of West-centricity. Deb (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't think that there's intentional bias (as described in WP:BIAS), but what I see in this particular article is an overemphasis on the American space program at the expense of other items. User:Gildir never intended that, and he or she placed NASA items at different locations in each paragraph based on relative importance, and later compressed some news or even deleted some entirely. I might be misunderstanding Arcadia's philosophy, and if so, I apologize, but I think that choosing decisions on placement in favor of whichever subjects have the most entries favors one individual's contributions rather than the group as a whole.Mandsford 13:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * When I originally added the NASA items, I was ordering the entries using a method that I've now partially abandoned, since I've realized it was unsustainable and a bit silly.
 * I was trying to put the entries for each day in the closest possible approximation of the chronological order of when they happened during the day. However, since I usually didn't know at exactly what times they happened, the best approximation I could make was to place them in geographical order from east to west, from International Date Line to International Date Line.
 * If I did, in fact, have more precise information about when they happened during the day, I would follow that. Also, I never wanted to abandon the rhetorically effective use by other editors in the entries for November 22, 1963, and January 27, 1967, of the phrase "Earlier in the day" referring to positive events that ironically preceded related tragic ones (JFK calling John Nance Garner on his birthday and the signing of the Outer Space Treaty).
 * Since NASA is an American organization, this method usually placed the NASA news items toward the end of the day, since North America is the farthest west of the continents. As User:Mandsford mentioned, I later compressed many of the entries (and was pleased that Mandsford compressed others) because I was conscious of the fact that my additions led to an overemphasis on the space program.
 * There are, of course, occasions when the chronological method is problematic. For example, at some point prior to User:Arcadia16's edits, I believe I had arranged the April 4, 1968, entry to lead off with the failed Apollo 6 launch at 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time, followed by Archbishop Cooke's investiture at 1 p.m. and Jozef Lenárt's resignation as Czechoslovak Prime Minister (in the evening in Europe), before getting to that day's monumentally important and tragic event, Martin Luther King's assassination, at 6:01 p.m. Central Time. Dr. King's death now comes first, as it should.
 * The last version of April 1968 that I edited also had a photo of the Apollo 6 launch in the April 4 entry, with a photo of the Lorraine Motel at the top of the article. The Apollo 6 photo was very small, but Arcadia16 was probably right to remove it and place a different Lorraine Motel photo in the entry for the day -- although this means the article no longer has a picture of the Apollo 6 launch.
 * Lately I've been trying to place new entries in the "Months" articles more or less in decreasing order of importance within each day, to the extent that I can determine that, while sticking with the chronological/geographical model when I don't have any better ideas. I hope this information is helpful to the discussion. Gildir (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC) (he/him)
 * My suggestion is that we should come to a consensus on what's the most important event of a particular day, and give notice about the intended change. Everyone here can participate; Deb, Gildir, Arcadia16 and I have a good handle on what's historic and what isn't. None of these articles is the property of one person, and my feeling is that there is quite a bit of rearranging of things that have never needed to be rearranged. Constructive edits are always appreciated, and all of us have done that in the form of making additions of significant events that may have been overlooked. Over the last 15 years since this project started, we've encountered quite a few disruptions from editors on a campaign to remake individual articles to suit their personal preferences. Before anyone here invests a lot of time on rewriting, I'll say that, generally, major rewrites eventually get reverted. The objective should be to make the entries on these pages as interesting and informative as possible, not as orderly as possible. I hope we can all concentrate our energies on adding to these articles and not in revamping them.Mandsford 17:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * People will see the articles eventually and see what the article is talking about. All I wanted to do was to organize the articles in order and have spent 2 months doing so, I don't want my work go to waste and making it all of that time for nothing. Arcadia16 (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We feel the same way about our work. It's taken years for various editors to research and write 120 articles about the 1960s. Nobody wants to delete anything that you've added to it, but the objective has always been to place significant events ahead of mundane, and we don't want that work to have been for nothing. At least, please take a look at what you honestly think is the most significant or interesting event of the day.Mandsford 15:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I feel like the way I organize stuff isn't gonna ruin the significant events IF their are mundane ones placed on top first. I don't think they are any demands of significant events being placed up first because in all honesty, people only come to read what events happen whether it be mundane or significant events first. It's not breaking any of the Wikipedia rules and only organized it so it won't be a jumbled mess. I don't see how the way I edit stuff is a problem. I never want to be the only person to edit the 1960s pages because I want other people to get a chance to edit stuff too. Plus, you've been here for twice the years I've been a Wikipedia member so obviously you've been a huge help to this site too. I also want to help out on this site. But right now, I'm not seeing eye to eye with this. Arcadia16 (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Everyone has their own ideas of organization, of course, and you're correct that we don't see eye to eye. I don't see that any of these articles are "a jumbled mess" nor is it clear in what way your rearrangements are an improvement. In many cases, they appear to be on a whim. The editors are encouraged to briefly describe their changes (the edit summary box below) and that would give an explanation on your reasoning. My thoughts are that (1) Trying to take on the rewriting of an entire decade all at once is a cumbersome and risky task, and if you're trying to implement a better way to do things and perhaps you should try your plan out on a smaller scale; (2) You can't expect to go unnoticed if make hundreds of edits on an existing article built by other people; and (3) I'd encourage you to build a "month article" so you can better understand the amount of work involved in constructing one. For instance, the year 1957 remains untouched, and January 1957 (currently a redirect) would be an example where you would set the standard and create it in your own image. I think you can be a great contributor to Wikipedia, and you seem to have talent in researching and writing. I also think you'll have to learn to pick your battles as an editor.Mandsford 16:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, for a Wikipedia editor for only about 2 years, I am still kind of new here and I still want to learn how to contribute on bigger projects on this site. Right
 * ,my only wish is to give me time on my edits. I want a good amount of time to pass until I can really come to a conclusion since I just finished editing everything 2 days ago and need a break from this. It's not easy to come up with one right now as (again) I'm not really seeing eye to eye with this.
 * y edits and Arcadia16 (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * (Fixed paragraph) I understand what you are saying, for a Wikipedia editor for only about 2 years, I am still kind of new here and I still want to learn how to contribute on bigger projects on this site. Right now, my only wish is to give me time on my edits. I want a good amount of time to pass until I can really come to a conclusion since I just finished editing everything 2 days ago and need a break from this. It's not easy to come up with one right now as (again) I'm not really seeing eye to eye with this. Arcadia16 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable request. I'll pledge to avoid any change on your edits for 30 days for the articles January 1960 to December 1969, so you can evaluate them. In return, I'll ask no further reversions, during the same 30-day period, for anything I've placed in the same articles over the last 10 years.Mandsford 21:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I wish to evaluate my edits until some time in August. This is a really big thing to think about and i'll be way to busy for IRL stuff for all of June and July. I'll remind you when I'm free to talk about this by then. Arcadia16 (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We'll talk again in 30 days. Until then, I'll abide by my pledge, so long as you don't change the order of entries during that time. It's easy for me, and for other editors, to explain our organizational system, which is grounded in the principle of WP:GNG. The objective measure of which events have more significance or notability than others is the extent to which an event is the subject of books and news accounts. User:Deb, User:Gildir and many of the other contributors have tried to go with this idea. If you're proposing a different system of organization, we'll be interested in hearing how you prioritize what should be mentioned. If events are shuffled around within a section without a reasonable explanation, then most people would consider that to be disruptive.Mandsford 16:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, I'll be **busy** by that time, I'll try and talk then but please don't edit my stuff, you kept your promise so don't break it. I want my edits to at least succeed till mid-August since I'll be more free. Thank you. Arcadia16 (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I will try and talk in 30 days but my only request is that if we do plan on changing my edits, I want to begin in mid-August, the reason why is because I will be more free to collaborate around that time. As for my editing, I will try to limit my editing till then so I will not be a disruption as long as you keep your word to not change my stuff until it is time to do so. I don't like promise breakers. User:Deb, User:Gildir, I hope that we can talk about this and come to an agreement soon. And sorry for my last reply, It felt passive-aggressive and I wanted to be more specific in this one. Arcadia16 (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds perfectly acceptable. I would have to warn you, though, that we are not the only people who might edit these pages and we can't necessarily stop others from doing so in your absence. Deb (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is why I'm requesting to begin editing in mid-August, I'll be more active to look over the edits, no matter how many people there are. Arcadia16 (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The proposal is only for a 30-day mutual pause on editing the month pages for the 1960s. By the end of June, you should be able to explain your concept for an ideal organizational system. If you wish to message any of us, please go to the users' talk pages.Mandsford 20:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

June 1963

 * Hello, Arcadia16. I appreciate your statement on my talk page. Please feel free to put put the Vietnam riots entry on top of the June 17 section if you believe that that event is more notable. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and perhaps the Vietnam riots were the more notable even of the day. In addition, additional events that you've discovered through your own research are welcome anytime. However, I've seen from your talk page that you seem to believe that everyone else who has done the work of researching and writing has created "a jumbled mess" and that you intend to re-arrange items to satisfy your criteria that you have "changed all the stuff in order of how many sentences they have." Notwithstanding that this number-of-sentences isn't the way that almanacs or encyclopedias are usually organized, or that by that measure a person could move an event upward or downward by adding or deleting sentences, there is a policy summarized in Notability (events), in particular the section about Inclusion criteria (which can be found at Notability (events). The ranking in the criteria includes "enduring historical significance" and "widespread (national or international) impact" or having been "widely covered in diverse sources", or having the notability of being re-analyzed afterward. You asked whether your edits are breaking any rules, and I would note that "changing all the stuff" in an arbitrary manner would likely be considered disruptive editing. You aren't the first editor to attempt a mission of wanting to change everything, though attempting to change all 120 of the 1960s articles is a wider ambition than we usually see. Rather than looking at the other editors as unworthy opponents, joining us in collectively building and adding to a project. We've worked hard on building these articles, and we invite you to add to them, as well as to add to the project by addressing those that have not been covered (an example cited before would be January 1957, which is simply a redirect to 1957. You can make a lot of great contributions to Wikipedia. However, attempting a massive overhaul of what others have done will receive a response.

Mandsford 15:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)