User talk:Mark Arsten/Archive the fourth

Main page appearance: Alexis Bachelot

This is a note to let the main editors of Alexis Bachelot know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 22, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 22, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Alexis Bachelot (1796–1837) was a Roman Catholic priest and first Prefect Apostolic of the Sandwich Islands who led the first permanent Catholic mission to the Kingdom of Hawaii. He arrived in Hawaii in 1827, expecting the approval of King Kamehameha II. He learned upon arrival that the king had died and that the new government was hostile towards Catholic missionaries. Bachelot converted and then quietly ministered to a small group of Hawaiians for four years before being deported on the orders of Kaʻahumanu, the Kuhina Nui of Hawaii. Bachelot traveled to California, where he served as an assistant minister. In 1837, having learned of Kaʻahumanu's death and King Kamehameha III's willingness to allow Catholic priests, Bachelot returned to Hawaii, but found that Kamehameha III had changed his mind. Bachelot was removed from the island and confined to a ship for several months. He was freed after the French and British navies imposed a blockade on Honolulu harbor. He later secured passage on a ship to Micronesia, but died en route. His treatment prompted the government of France to dispatch a frigate to Hawaii, an intervention that led to the emancipation of Catholics there. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Help with History of Gibraltar GA review?

Hi Mark, I wonder if I could ask for your help with a current project of mine? I'm working on History of Gibraltar with the aim of getting it to FA by 11 April, the 300th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Utrecht, under which Spain surrendered Gibraltar to Britain. I should have the article ready for a GA review within about the next week to 10 days. As the bulk of Gibraltar's history involves sieges and battles, it's pretty much a straight-up piece of military history. Would you be up for doing the GA review? It would need to be turned around pretty quickly (say within about 2 weeks of nomination) in order to leave enough time for it to go through FAC. Prioryman (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that does sound interesting. No guarantees, but I might be able to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, I'll plan on doing the GA review when I see it nominated. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll let you know when it's ready for a review. Prioryman (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I've got through it faster than I anticipated and History of Gibraltar is ready now for a GA review. I've nominated it under the World History subtopic. It would be great if you could take on the review of this. Prioryman (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've picked up the review. Hopefully I'll be able to work somewhat quickly. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, I made a few more changes yesterday from a new source I found but that really should be it from me now. I see you've already done some work on it, so thanks for picking it up so soon. Prioryman (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your review comments. I've replied to all of them, but have a few followup questions for you. Prioryman (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to get to them soon. I have a few more comments to post too. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Fram

When you said "My advice to Fram is to walk away from this conflict before he gets himself in any more trouble. Sometimes it's best to say "mistakes were made" and find something less controversial to occupy oneself with.", did you mean from the AN discussion with Demiurge and so on, or did you mean specifically from Kumioko? The former I will leave alone, but the latter I can't walk away from, since I am the one being followed around. Fram (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, what I was thinking more along the lines of: when you're "under the microscope" (having an AN open about you) anything you say has the potential to be used against you, so it's best not to post too much. But disengaging from K is a good idea, and hopefully Demi will de-escalate too. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, although I believe that during the AN discussion, my behaviour or comments weren't really problematic. As for the disengaging, I'll not follow either of them around, but if the opposite happens (in a disruptive way), I'll calmly open an AN discussion if necessary. Fram (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sexology arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 22, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Student of the Year

Mark, you deleted the above article based on an AfD. However, the article still exists. The only thing that I can see that may have recreated it is User:Pleasant1623's move of the protection settings from Student of the Year (film), a redirect, to Student of the Year. If that's not it - and I'm not sure why that would recreate it anyway - I'm at a loss. If you can shed some light on this, I'd appreciate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, this is very confusing, yes. Ok, I did some poking around, and I figured it out. I deleted an article "Student of the year" and then after it was deleted "Student of the year (film)" was moved to that title. If you check the "view or restore deleted edits" you can see the version that I deleted. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw the move of the protection settings, but I didn't see the move of the article itself. Now I see it on the move log of the redirect. But why? Shouldn't both pages be deleted?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, there was "Student of the year" about a non-notable program in New Zealand and "Student of the Year (film)" about an apparently notable Indian film. After the former was deleted, the latter was moved to the former's title. So I don't think the film article needs to be deleted. Hope this makes sense. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, I should have looked more closely at the content. Thanks for bearing with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Nuclear program of North Korea

You recently changed this article from a disambiguation page to a redirect, based on a brief discussion of articles proposed for deletion. I'm not sure this was the right decision, since North Korea ostensibly has both a nuclear weapons program and a nuclear power program, both of which have received news attention of late (see isis-online.org). But my main question is how was I to know that this article was proposed for deletion. I follow the article's talk page and didn't see any notice there. If I had been aware I would have commented. NPguy (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the consensus at the Afd was to use a hatnote instead of a disambiguation page, so people will still have the option to view both topics if they enter Nuclear program of North Korea into the search bar. This edit added the Afd notice, although there was another edit soon after, which probably prevented people who had it watchlisted from seeing the Afd edit. No rule was broken though, it's just a quirk of the deletion system that puts the responsibility on interested parties to find it rather than the nominator to reach out to interested people. If you'd like, you can take the deletion decision to WP:DRV to try to have it overturned. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You say no rule was broken, but that does not seem to be true. The AfD notice contained the following:

<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled -->

but the AfD notice was deleted before the issue was settled. It seems to me the change should be undone and the discussion reopened. NPguy (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that it was left there until the discussion was closed. This is the last revision before I redirected it, and the notice is still there. If you believe the closure was seriously flawed, you are free to take the matter to WP:DRV and petition to have the discussion re-opened. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess you're right. I just missed it. Strange. NPguy (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Freelancer

Please stay away from freelancer.com. You are biased or an employ of freelancer.com. Please leave wiki from your vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.75.49 (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I assure you, I am neither. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Laugh! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Freelancer.com is having a practice of vandalism of wikipedia. If anybody write about their malpractices they immediately mark it vandalism. read below

http://getahindu.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/freelancercom-privacy-policy-and.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajith90 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

While it's true that negative information about a company does not qualify as "vandalism" by Wikipedia's definition, Blogspot is not a reliable source (WP:RS), so it shouldn't be used to cite information in articles. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:REX#Journal of the South African Dental Association 2

Resolved

Hello! I've got the article now. Where have I to send it to? -- Doc Taxon (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, glad to hear that. Please send it to arstenmgmail.com. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Austrian School Protection Needed

Hello. I request that you protect Austrian school for an additional week. An editor reverted content today with no prior discussion on talk. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to hold off on re-protecting for now; right now it seems like we have the "B" and "R" of WP:BRD, which is Ok. If there are more reverts that could be a problem though. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I don't know whether you are aware of the history of this content. The content was edit-warred at length by one editor against a number of other contributors to that article. There was an RfC which was decided against the view of user Byelf2007. He subsequently denied the validity of the RfC process to settle an edit disagreement and resumed warring. That was the occasion at which you were initially asked to protect the page. If you were not aware of this when you made your decision, I would appreciate any further consideration you might give the matter. I am afraid we are going to get into another mess with the article. Thanks SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see. If he restores it again, I will take action. I'll leave a note for him. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, it does take two to edit war, so you might want to open a noticeboard discussion instead of reverting him again. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mark Arsten. User Byelf2007 has again begun to edit war with 4 recent reverts on the Austrian School article. I undid the first and asked him to desist, but I just returned to find 3 more of his reverts in the same section of the article. 4 Reverts here: . Maybe you can help him to decide to undo his reverts and to join the rest of the editors in a hands-off this content. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I considered blocking him, but went with page protection instead. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Johnson (reporter) and James Brandon

Mark, As the editor who closed the AfDs of Anthony Johnson (reporter) and James Brandon, I was hoping you could move the deleted articles from the archive to my subpages for salvage. In both cases, the number of votes were few, the assumptions about Wikipedia policy were flawed, and there were factual errors in the nominations. I have been able to salvage other articles in the process of AfD or in the aftermath, such as in the case of Assaf Abu Rahhal. Crtew (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Johnson (reporter)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Brandon

Sure, if you think you can improve them, I'll userfy them for you. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Crtew (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intrasomatic model

I'm puzzled as to why you created the redirect, given that there seemed to be something of a consensus not to do so. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure there was a consensus not to redirect. In any case, the redirect was done in my capacity as an editor rather than as a administrative enforcement of consensus (i.e. the discussion was closed as "delete" not "redirect"), so you are free to send the redirect to WP:RFD if you feel it is not a good redirect. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion given that the target section in NDE isn't there anymore. Mangoe (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support

Mark, please accept my thanks for your support during my RfA. I hope my performance as a candidate did not prove too great a disappointment. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Glad to have supported. I'm sorry you weren't successful; this has demonstrated once again that WP:RFA is a failed system. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Malcolm Mejin

Hi, Mark. I was about to create an article on Malcolm Mejin, but realized it was deleted. Would it be possible to have it reinstated? There is recently quite a coverage on him, albeit not internationally, but nationally (state and community -wise). Can we have it up in Wikipedia? Many thanks.

Regards, Bluemoon. 01:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.141.53.88 (talk)

Possibly, could you show me some of the sources you plan on using to create the article? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I read an online article and I was going to write a short Wikipedia entry on him based on this news. There are other online news about him, but I find this more interesting. http://www.theborneopost.com/2013/02/06/malcolm-mejin-to-write-about-gays-next/ Regards, Bluemoon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.165.98 (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I am willing to userfy the deleted content for you to work on. I can only do that if you register an account though. Please register and I'll create a userspace draft for you. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. I've created an account. Guide me to the next step if any. Thanks, Bluemoon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemoon989 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Voice of Shahbag Square

Hello Mark, I see you have protected 2013 Shahbag Protest. I wonder if you could do the same or delete and salt Voice of Shahbag Square. A user has posted a somewhat rambling manifesto (I think that's what it is) on it. I have cleared it and redirected it to the main article on the protest but they have reverted it once already. It could probably do with being protected if the redirect stays or salted if deleted. Cheers, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've protected. In return, could you explain things to the user? It seems like he's new and may not understand how things work here. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll get on that. Thanks Mark. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for removing sourceless material from 2013 Shahbag Protest

Dear Mark, you have protected this article for User:‎Reason.upholder's vandalism. But he put a section named "Large Issue" just after lede, which don't have a single line of reference. He don't have basic wiki editing skill and even don't know where to comment. Would you please remove that section?--Freemesm (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit conflicted, I would like to remove the sourceless information but WP:PREFER suggests removal after full protection only in cases of vandalism, copyvio, or BLP issues. Do any of those apply here? It seems like it should probably be removed, but I don't know that it's urgent enough to do it through protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read the section. It is totally editors opinion it is clearly WP:OR violation and off course is a vandalism.--Freemesm (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is OR, I'm not sure it's vandalism though. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This section clearly defaming the judges and leaders of the government, it has no verifiable source and it violates NPOV, then off course it is BLP vio.--Freemesm (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, you may be right, I'm not sure. I suggest you ask another admin, or maybe use the {{edit protected}} template to make a request. Sorry! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, got it bro, The total section was copied from this blog!! Which is clearly copyright vio. Can you revert it now? I am also adding other vandalism issues on that article's talk page with {{edit protected}} template.--Freemesm (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Done! Glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Come to disturb you again sir. Please There are more sections, which are copied from that blog and pasted on that article. Here I describe them under {{edit protected}} template. Would you please check that?--Freemesm (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Sorry bro, you have already reverted them. Thanks a lot. Actually I have sped hundreds of hours to collect reference and make this article decent. That's why I care about that.--Freemesm (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Ok. Then it does look like a lot of work has gone into that article, good job! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Help required to report 2 vandal

This account is continuously vandalize the talk page of 2013 Shahbag Protest article. Ho dont have basic idea of editing wikipedia and don't even know where to write in talk page. He was tried to push a blog content on that article. Another account is this, who was engaged in edit waring and revert about more than 10 times. How should I report them? Would you please help me? Which one will be appropriate 3rr or vandalism report?--Freemesm (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Generally, only the most obvious vandals should be reported to WP:AIV (adding profanity, blanking articles, etc.) If someone is repeatedly reverting other editors (4 or more times in a day usually is the mininum for a report, WP:AN3 is the best place. For more complex issues like failure to discuss questionable changes, copyright violations, pov-pushing, you would want to go to WP:ANI. Hope this helps! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bro, Here I report one of them in 3RR. It is my first reporting. Don't know was I right or not. If you have time, can you check it please. I understand that fro yesterday I am disturbing you. Sorry bro.--Freemesm (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The report looks good, there's sometimes a bit of a backlog on that page but someone should get to it. I'll let an uninvolved admin handle it, since it's often good to get new perspective on these things. You're not disturbing me though :) Mark Arsten (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Vegetarianism article

Mark, as the semi-protection you put on this article expires today, do you mind keeping an eye on it for a few or several days after the semi-protection expires in case the same problems that caused you to semi-protect the article reappear? Flyer22 (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll keep an eye on it. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Modern School (New Delhi) article

Mark, the article on Modern School(New Delhi) has been subject to vandalism. Someone has falsely written my name(Rijul Rajesh) in the list of notable alumnis in the public service section and written obscene words in my native language against my name. As this article is protected i cannot edit it and would like if you address this problem at the earliest.Thanking You! Rijul Rajesh 19:30, 14th February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note, I've removed it. Let me know if you need anything else. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Mother India

Hi Mark Arsten, we last worked on Ahalya, that you helped reach to FA. Dwaipayanc and I are working on the iconic Indian film Mother India to take it to FA in celebration of 100 years of Indian cinema. Can you look at it and give some constructive criticism to improve it to FA standards. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The peer review.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. I'm in the middle of a couple reviews right now, but if I get time I'll look at it. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark Arsten, we are looking to start a FAC early next week as we wanted this article on main page possibly in late April to celebrate 100 years of Indian cinema. Please take a look.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I finished up one review and did some more progress on another. I should be able to take a look at it this weekend. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit edit. Prose runs better. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'll try to do more soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mother India/archive1: Thanks for participating in the PR (Wikipedia:Peer review/Mother India/archive1). Mother India is now at FAC. We hope we have answered your PR comments properly. Sorry, could not get your input on them before closing PR as we were in a bit of a haste to nominate on FAC yesterday, on auspicious Saint David's Day. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Post-Finasteride Syndrome

Could you restore the history for this? I understand the article was deleted and I'm not disputing that, but I don't see a policy reason for making the history unavailable prior to your conversion of that title to a redirect. I'm interested in researching what was contained there.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it's at User:Brian Dell/Post-Finasteride Syndrome now. (Check the history for details). Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the work you do not just for Wikipedia but for an individual request like this. I've now saved it so I have no objections to having that newly created userpage deleted (although I have no objections to it remaining either).--Brian Dell (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Help with Papal_conclave,_2013

I've requested user Surtsicna to stop editing the page. I've requested semi protection for this page. Will edit tomorrow the page to avoid restrictions. Is not the first time I've engaged on this "war", still . Please lock the page and request citations why there should be on the page because is a non catholic media guess and there are no references in Catholic Church sites to this. I've made this change in the same article in Wikipedia Spanish (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%B3nclave_de_2013). I will edit the full document to fit Spanish one that has more information. Thanks.

Hello, the best thing to do would be to continue to talk with Surtsicna on Talk:Papal conclave, 2013. I would prefer to avoid locking the page if possible. If you feel that your conversation with another user has become fruitless, it may be best to approach other interested editors (those editing the page/the talk page etc.) and ask for their opinions. If that doesn't work, you can always consider Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for your all-round constructiveness. You're a real asset. Pass a Method talk 21:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, I appreciate the barnstar! Mark Arsten (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Winter storm naming

I just wanted to make you aware of this discussion I started at Winter storm naming. I have no intentions of making any changes to the article myself, but was just hoping to get input from editors previously involved in the article (or recently-closed AfD) in an effort to improve the article and clarify its purpose. I will leave any changes to the consensus of other editors who decide what's best. Your participation would be welcome, regardless of your views on the issue. Thank you. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you!

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		Many thanks for all your help in reviewing various articles I've written, and in being such a diligent and conscientious reviewer - it's been a genuine pleasure. Prioryman (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the barnstar, you are very welcome. It's been a pleasure reading your creations! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, that's kind of you. :-) I've nominated the article for FA now; I don't know if that's your forte at all but I thought I'd let you know anyway. The nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Gibraltar/archive1. Prioryman (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

AfD question

Hello Mark. For the past few days I have been involved on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo where I see you have amended security settings. My question to you since you operate in that field is, what happens in cases like this when votes are roughly tied? I know that measures are not taken on account of one side achieving more votes than the other but what are the factors that influence whether a page is deleted or remains? How many admins are involved in the decision and what signals the green light to move in? I mean, is there a time frame? I am just curious. Out of interest, this is how the article looked at the point when the discussion began, Now the page has had quite a facelift. Although I have made a fair few edits, I question whether it is worth it in light of the fact it may be wiped out. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 03:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, there are a few things that determine what happens in this situation. An admin could just close it as no consensus, but it's possible that it could be closed as keep or delete if an admin spends a lot of time looking into it and feels strongly that one side of the debate is using particularly poor arguments. A number of sockpuppets on one side could also lead to a keep or deletion. Improvements to the article should be considered, but there's no guarantee that they will. It's hard to predict what will happen; a lot depends on who feels like closing it. A lot of admins shy away from closing long, complicated Afds like this one because it's more difficult than the normal ones and likely more acrimonious too. As far as time frame goes, we're really not supposed to leave them open for longer than three weeks (that sometimes happens though). You could try listing it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure though. Hope this helps answer your questions! Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mark, it answers everything. Unfortunately that discussion is on the acrimonious side and I have to take my share of the blame. I am now keeping away from the discussion itself but will continue to improve the article where I feel I can. As for sockpuppets, the discussion is not as dominated by them as it might seem: one confirmed sockpuppet on each side, both struck out, the problem is that accusations of socking have flown about and tarnished the project page and this is what sticks out. Thanks for your time Mark, I'll see about declaring the page at RfC. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello, Mark Arsten. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Review request - Chappaquiddick

Hello Mark - My recent submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chappaquiddick incident conspiracy theories was rejected by reviewer User:GAtechnical on the grounds that the article "reads like an essay". I understand the difficulty in evaluating these postings, but I wonder if you'd look at it and determine if it's fundamentally flawed in that respect.

The subject of "conspiracy theories" no doubt raises red flags with some editors, but as encyclopedians, we should maintain a dispassionate approach. Can you give me a frank evaluation of the article? I would encourage you to take a look at some existing articles - John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories- for examples of "essay"-like contributions. I feel fairly certain that the article I've submitted avoids these "literary offenses" and provides adequate secondary sourcing. 36hourblock (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, to be honest, I don't think I've ever reviewed an Afc submission before. It looks like they have a place where users can ask questions (Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk), so you might be better off asking for a second opinion there. Sorry! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding marginally notable Wikipedians

Hi. After the deletion discussion settles, I wonder if we couldn't get Justin Knapp merged into some other article. It's fine as a redirect, but a separate article really doesn't make any sense. Maybe a merge/redirect to History of Wikipedia, as I said in the deletion discussion? But I was also thinking about a redirect/merge to Notable Wikipedians with subsections for a few different people. That might be able to finally kill off the Simon Pulsifer article as well, and perhaps some others. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, merging Knapp to History of Wikipedia would be a good idea. Some kind of Notable/Prominent Wikipedians article might also work, good thinking. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Please allow modification to deleted page: Tai Urban

Regarding - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tai_Urban

Basically, I would like a chance to rewrite this section and improve it with the notes that you have provided in the deletion.

The notability for martial arts referenced his gold and bronze medals in Junior Olympics in Taekwondo. Junior Olympics is a prestigious event for people under a certain age that are unable to qualify to Olympics due to their age. He is also a repeated gold medalist (1st place) winner in several martial arts. Please undelete this section, so that it can properly be referenced for review.

The notability for actors is his significant roles in multiple notable films and TV shows. The actor was in a Disney TV show called Pair of Kings. The actor is also a host for a TV show called Talent Watch. He has over 40 credits on his imdb. The significant fan base can be shown by going to google and searching "Tai Urban red carpet" to show more sources regarding the individual.

The notability for his photography career is that he has photographed many celebrities. These can be found by going to google and searching under "Tai Urban WENN" to locate links (sources) of the many celebrities and entertainers that he has photographed.

There is also a couple magazine articles that have written about him. Please allow me to update the sources for this.

The reliable sources were incorrectly formatted and I would like a chance to fix this. I am working on that person's talk page to show corrections. Jennajjen (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)jennajjen

I'm a bit skeptical whether he is notable, but I'll userfy it for you to add references and proof of notability. I've put a userspace draft at User:Jennajjen/Tai Urban. You can work on this and improve it here. When you are finished with your improvements, you can apply to have it reinstated as an article at WP:DRV. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song)/archive2

I know you c/e it, but can you please comment on the FAC? Thanks. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 14:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at it soon, although it keeps reminding me of why I dislike FAC. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you please c/e this, I did some rearranging as Jivesh boodhun (talk · contribs) thought the section was not nicely mixed (instrumentation, vocals, lyrics). Thank you for everything !!! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure there's any more copyediting needed on that. Unless I'm overlooking something due to familiarity at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ivy Sports Symposium

Hello there, I was taking a look through Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ivy Sports Symposium and think that it is sufficently well written and referenced to make it's debut in Article space. I observe that you are the an administor who previously deleted a version of this article. If you could take a look at the AfC submission and see if it meets your criteria, move it to article space, that would be great. Thank you for your time. Hasteur (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure. It might be best to bring it to WP:DRV, to be honest. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Mark

When you get a chance, can you please redirect User:Status to User talk:Status for me? Thanks.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Undo. I'm fine now.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You must hate me! Haha, thanks!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem, that was easy. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Lee Ward

I see that a page under my name was delted in October. I didn´t create the page but am puzzled as to why it was deleted? --177.32.135.211 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You can see the reason for the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Ward. Basically, it was deleted due to a lack of coverage of Ward. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

National Heroes

Hi Mark, if you have time could you give a copyedit/comments for the soon-to-be FLC National Hero of Indonesia? It would be really appreciated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I think I can help with that, no problem. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Skip to bottom

Are you sure that this template's high visibility justifies "full protection" rather than "semi"? --George Ho (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't 100% sure exactly where the line is in terms of visibility that divides semi from full protection. But since you asked, I brought it down to semi. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Now that it is done, why is renaming by autoconfirmed users allowed? Shouldn't level of move be indefinitely "sysop" or something? --George Ho (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the move protection was accidentally removed in my last edit. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Copy-Edit Request

Hi Mark. My name is Jivesh. I usually edit Beyonce-related articles. Well, Tomica told me about your precious help in copy-editing "Cry Me a River", a FAC on which I commented and will definitely support given how nicely the prose has been polished in comparison to its first FAC nomination. My current project is "If I Were a Boy" and I wanted to know if you could please copy-edit the article for me? I am still working on the article and I know that there is still a lot left to do. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I guess I could help on that. Let me know when you're done with it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Well, I have already completed the lead, the writing and production, composition and lyrical interpretation, critical reception and commercial performance. I will be very happy if you could start copy-editing these section for the time being as I am not going to edit the article today and tomorrow. Thanks. :D Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly when I'll be able to get to it, you might have a little bit of a wait. But I'll try to get to it soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It's okay. You are very nice. :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please unprotect SimCity (2013 video game)

Hello. Please reconsider your semiprotection of SimCity (2013 video game). There was no "persistent" vandalism at the time of protection, and there were good unregistered edits. Thanks. 118.236.203.49 (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The semiprotection will expire on the 12th, I think. I suggest you request edits on the talk page until then. What exactly qualifies as "persistent" vandalism is a judgment call, but the page certainly had issues with non-constructive IP edits before then. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Ehh, on second thought, 27 days of protection instead of 30 isn't bad. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

27 days? You protected it 3 days ago. :-P I looks as if the non constructive edits are starting to crop up again since removal. It is a highly controversial topic right now in the media. DrNegative (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Ehh, I meant to say 4 days instead of 27. I don't have much time at the moment, but you might want to go to WP:RFPP if the vandalism gets too bad. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Re AN/I question/comment

Regarding your comment "So why didn't you attempt to discuss the issue with him instead of immediately opening an ANI thread to complain? Unnecessary ANI threads are part of what's wrong with Wikipedia.", I chose not to do that because I did't think, considering my personal history with the user, that it would have been a good idea. I decided that I would much rather have brought in a neutral third party who could deliver the message with a minimum of drama than risk the mess that a direct confrontation could have and likely would have created. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I wasn't aware you had a history with TCO. I suppose if you did have a history of clashing with him, bringing in a neutral third party might be for the best. I was a little frustrated because I didn't think an ANI thread was needed, but I suppose I can see your perspective at this point. It certainly is unfortunate how contentious RFAs often become, so I agree we should do our best to rein things in there when we can. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Oath Keepers

Is this still on your watch list? Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not. I trimmed my watchlist back a lot earlier this year. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

hey can you give me some advise on editing and stuff

well i was hoping you can help me clean up some articles but i dont know where to find some so can you try to email me at [removed] thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.107.180 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but the best advice I can give you to start with is to WP:REGISTER an account. Wikipedia:Cleanup is a good place to find articles that need to be cleaned up. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Two old AfD's

Hi there. I'm leaving you a message, as you are one of those that closes a lot of AfD's. We have two AfD's listed at WP:FOOTY from 26 February (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Víctor Zúniga) and 27 February (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamás Romhányi (2nd nomination) - I am aware of that you closed the first AfD, and might consider yourself WP:INVOLVED) that hasn't been closed or relisted yet. I believe that the problem is that they hasn't been listed at the daily log (step 3). Even though there seems to be a clear consensus in both AfD's, it should be noted that all the voters are WP:FOOTY members, so I don't know if it's appropiate to relist them so that other people could find them and vote their opinion, or if they could be closed right away, but that is up to you or another admin. I've also sent the same message to User:MBisanz and User:The Bushranger. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note, I'll take a look at them. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, I see the Bushranger beat me to it. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A little more salt, maybe?

Thank you for closing the deletion discussion and deleting Peter Proctor. The checkuser who has been following the sock case associated with the page says that he suspects that the disruptive socking is likely to continue . For that reason, I'd like to suggest that you consider salting both Peter Proctor and Peter H. Proctor. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Technically, we're supposed to wait until the article is recreated until we salt it, so this was slightly out of process. I figured since there was socking afoot it wouldn't hurt to be careful. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that. But you definitely made the right call. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave for deletion?

Could you kindly join in and give a helping hand in assessing and progressing. A well reasoned assessment with reference to Wikipedia policies & guidelines would clearly be needed. I feel that the deletion discussion would have been slam-dunk case if the papal election frenzy and the Media circus would not have entered the scene. Arguments like I "feel" so and so is unfortunately a notoriously difficult assessment tool and not always agreeable with encyclopedic sentiments. A bad example of a non-convincing argument from the discussion in question is: Well what utter crap! I'm a reader of Wikipedia and I found myself at this article because I wanted to know about the likely candidates, and a useful article I found it. Well I don't care whether it meets whatever "core policies" you're talking about, but I do care whether it provides me with information I need. And it does, so cut the crap about deleting it.

So far these points have been cited as relevant :

KEEP

WP:GNG (cited once)

DELETE

WP:CRYSTAL

WP:OR

WP:V

WP:NOTADVOCATE

WP:NOTOPINION

WP:RNPOV

WP:COMPREHENSIVE

WP:IRS

WP:FRINGE

WP:NOTGOSSIP

WP:NEWSORG

WP:YESPOV

WP:WEIGHT

Thank you for your time! --Pgarret (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of reading... can't get to it right now, sorry. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Reporting: harassment

Hello

I think we have a case of harassment that might need an admin's attention. My fellow Wikipedian, User:ViperSnake151 is being harassed in his (or her) talk page. The harassing party has been previously engage in another instance of harassment. See for message from an admin warning him.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

A single talk page message is not WP:HARRASS. (Nor was the other case - that was the removal of Wikipedia policy violations.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've just blocked Dogmaticeclectic. Not for the templating (which is a WP:DTTR violation, but not worth blocking over), but for the edit warring across multiple pages after many warnings. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Huldra (talk) has given you a plate of hummus! Hummus is a specialty of the Middle East. With some pita bread, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of hummus by adding {{subst:Hummus}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a plate of hummus to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Thanks for helping protecting Palestinian people! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh thanks, I love hummus. Glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Re : 'If I Were a Boy' copy-edit

Thank you very much Mark. Well, to tell you frankly I have only reached till the music video section. I have not yet done the rest. I will surely inform you when I finish the remaining sections. Honestly, how did you find the writing? I am planning to nominate it for FAC in the future. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let me know when you want me to take a second pass. The writing wasn't bad, a little wordy in parts but no major issues. I think the writing was mostly on par with the last couple music FAs I've worked on, Homework (Daft Punk album) and Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You are great. :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment at close?

As closer of WP:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (4th nomination), you're more than entitled, and invited, to leave some closing remarks there. --Lexein (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Page deletion

Hi Mark You've deleted my page and I don't understand why. Please advise how to reinstate. Many thanks Alison (----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisonnorrington (talk • contribs) 21:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you can see the reasons for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Norrington. There was a consensus among the participants that the article did not satisfy the WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR guidelines. Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

April Fools

How do you like this?

Rhodri Morgan

The Foot in Mouth Award is given annually to those who test the bounds of modern English through their language. Rhodri Morgan (pictured) said his 1998 award "made [his] name", and has gone on to make no change for another award. Other recipients have "literally" been given the award for Campbell's Pasta, knowing, reading signs, and being inexperienced yet experienced or a giraffe called a snake. In 2008 a special life-time achievement award was given to a talking bush for "services to gobbledygook". (Full list...)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Very nice, I like it. Great blurb! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hope this year's April Fool's main page will be fun. Happy editing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VeryFirstTo

I was the main contributor to this article but missed the AfD. I'd like to see if I can revive it, but not sure of best way. DRV doesn't seem right, as the close was perfectly reasonable. I could userfy it for myself, but then unsure if restoring it to mainspace is appropriate if all I've done is beef up the sourcing. Maybe if I userfy, improve, move to mainspace and procedurally nominate it for AfD myself (or ask you to) that'd satisfy commonsense and policy. What do you think? --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if a procedural Afd would be the best idea. My advice would be go to DRV and ask permission to move the draft into mainspace. I think I've seen that done before, at least that's usually what I recommend. In a sense, you would be asking for the deletion to be overturned, though not because of closer error. I've just userfied the article for you, it's at User:Dweller/VeryFirstTo now. I've noticed a lot of people have had problems with startups getting deleted... it seems like people are so afraid of letting advertising slip by that they're willing to nuke any article on a new company. Just my view though, not sure if that was what happened here. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

"You were mentioned, so..."

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. "The thread is Request for guidance." Thank you.

(Note: The quotations are there to make this as similar as possible to the notifications about this sent out to other users by User:The Bushranger.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

comment from Ched

Hey Mark, I've been watching the above for a while now, and I am doing my best to assume good intentions, but quite frankly? At this point it's looking a lot like trolling to me; and perhaps WP:DENY is the right course. IDK .. Just IMO. — Ched :  ?  13:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Do note that it was not originally my intention to post the above - I've explained my reasoning for this at the WP:ANI link in question. I posted the above out of fairness after User:The Bushranger informed the other users. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Dogmaticeclectic, multiple editors have given you advice on multiple occasions. Your continued WP:IDHT approach is now well into the disruptive range of WP:NOTHERE. Your questions have been asked and answered MULTIPLE times. I see a bit of minor template work recently, perhaps stick to that for a while. Let me be perfectly clear here, and you can consider this a Final Warning if you like: Knock it off. Otherwise you're going to be looking at the backend of an indefinite block. Have I made that clear enough? — Ched :  ?  13:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• @Dogmaticeclectic I think I've sufficiently explained my reasoning for the block, but if I haven't, you are free to ask specific questions about my reasoning. Otherwise, I'm not interested in pursuing the matter further. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • In the interests of closure, as well as helping me understand how administrators actually apply WP:EDITWAR, I would like to ask you to "explain why my actions were considered block-worthy while the actions of the other users involved were not", as I put it in this WP:ANI case. You did mention at my talk page that I was "edit warring across numerous pages", but so were the other users, and that you also mentioned that I "have received many warnings not to edit war", but many of those warnings came from those very users.

Note that I'm not trying to stir up any potential further trouble about this, but simply trying to obtain a clearer understanding of why the situation developed as it did. (Also note that this question of mine was not responded to in this WP:ANI case with regards to this block.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, if I can recall correctly, ignoring warnings was a big part of the reason. Reverting the reverts of bold edits was part of it too--it's WP:BRD, not BRR... Also looking at the total number of reverts played a factor. I did warn the other two participants, and hopefully those warnings will have the desired effect. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit

That wasn't my edit. I'm not sure how Wikipedia counted it as mine, but it was not (and I'm pretty sure no one logged into my computer either). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.123.211.161 (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, don't worry about it. I suppose it could have been anyone editing from your IP, or even a neighbor using your wifi. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this a CSD G4?

Omar Todd (producer) vs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar Todd. Is it a G4 or not? If not, it should be moved to Omar Todd, as there is no need for disambiguation. The-Pope (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. G4'd and salted. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

HI

As you might know "S&M (song)" has not been fortunate enough to have been promoted to FA despite seven or so nominations, I was wondering if you could go over it please?  — AARON • ^TALK 16:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll think about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok  — AARON • ^TALK 23:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Madison Eagles

Hello, you deleted this article without any consideration for the fact that the AfD appears to have been initiated by a sockpuppet of a banned user. Please explain. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Has it been definitely established that the IP was ban-evading? It doesn't look like it was blocked and I don't see anything on the SPI page. In any case, since the nominator's concerns were endorsed by two users in good standing, deletion was probably appropriate regardless of the nominator's identity. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank You Mark, I own you very much for "Cry Me a River" :D ! You da best ! — Tomíca(T2ME) 23:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, glad to see that it was promoted! Mark Arsten (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Like — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes it was today, finally! It wouldn't be if you didn't polish it Mark. And thanks Crisco ^__^ ! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Kantian ethics

Hi Mark. I don't know what you're doing at the moment, but I've just requested a peer review of Kantian ethics. If you have time, do you think you could take a look at it please? Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, it's good to see you're active again. I was worried that you had retired or something. Glad to have you back. It's funny you ask about this article, I had just seen the day before that it was up for PR and read the lead and the first section. Brought me back to my college days, I had an elderly German philosophy professor who spent a semester trying to teach American kids to adopt Kantian views of ethics. Anyway, quite a coincidence to see you bring it up on my talk page a day after I started reading it. But yes, I'd be glad to PR it. Not sure I can do it quickly though, it might take me a little time to wade through. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm back at the moment, yes. I'd never officially retired, but starting University last October meant I had far less free time (as you can imagine), so Wikipedia was just not a priority. Things have quietened down recently (plus I'm on holiday at the moment); we'll see what happens in the future. Anyway, thanks, that'd be really great (don't worry if it takes a little while; I have other things to be getting on with in the mean time). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Oversight?

Not sure if you have the ability to do this, but you'll know who does. per request of the other editor on the thread who inadvertently revealed her personal information on article talk, could you see that the following series of edits be deleted? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATarpan&diff=547185084&oldid=523909527 Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 19:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I deleted them. I'm not sure exactly where the personal issue was, so I may have taken out more than was needed. Let me know if you need anything else. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Montanabw, just a gentle re-reminder, such requests should go by email not out here in public on widely watched pages like Mark's drama llama paddock! If it's a genuine privacy issue then you can email it straight to oversight, they love to receive emails. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Red Roots Deleted

Hi. I'm writing because the article Red Roots has been deleted. This band is apart of the sublabel Red Hen Nashville (redhennashville.com) of the major record label Daywind Records(http://www.daywindrecords.com/). The group is also on the major game show "The American Bible Challenge" on the GSN network (http://breathecast.christianpost.com/articles/6660/20130318/red-roots-the-american-bible-challenge-on-gsn.htm). Every radio single released by the group has charted with "Grow" being the highest at #20 on the most notable Southern Gospel Chart "The Singing News." They have over 100,000 on their self-titled music video "Red Roots." I'm wanting to submit a revised article with their latest accomplishments and background information. I would greatly appreciate the consideration of readding a revised article about the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countryguymusicman (talk • contribs) 13:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The important thing if you want the article to be restored is to find evidence that it meets WP:BAND or WP:GNG. We generally need evidence of independent media coverage by newspapers or magazines. Can you provide evidence of such coverage? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• The girls are at this link contestants on the American Bible Challenge with their band name Red Roots: http://gsntv.com/shows/the-american-bible-challenge/team-announcement/?id=31044
• Here's a M.I.L.E magazine article interviewing the girls: http://musicislifeentertainment.com/wordpress/2011/10/01/3633/
• Here's the top Southern Gospel Magazine Singing News Featuring the girls in this article:

http://www.singingnews.com/Southern-Gospel-News/11688006/

• Here's a major Southern Gospel Magazine featuring Red Roots: http://www.sgnscoops.com/2011/07/13/red-roots-include-fans-in-upcoming-music-video/
• Here's newspaper articles: http://morningsun.eviesays.com/performer/6265/red-roots.html

http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2012/06/ear_2_ear_ace_mckay_5.html

• Here's online articles:

http://bluegrasstoday.com/bluegrass-triple-whammy-with-red-roots/
https://www.google.com/search?q=red+roots+news&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=red+roots+news&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Efc&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&ei=dLNVUYXiLZSE0QGB5YCoBg&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44442042,d.dmQ&fp=1844a98be6767a7d&biw=1223&bih=670
https://bluegrasstoday.com/double-wide-church-video-from-red-roots/

• The group's music video received a Telly Award: http://www.singingnews.com/Southern-Gospel-News/11671761/
• I hear the group being played on XM Sirius Radio on the Enlighten Program which is a national radio network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countryguymusicman (talk • contribs) 15:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved the article to your userspace, User:Countryguymusicman/Red Roots, as a draft (WP:USERSPACEDRAFT) so you can add citations to reliable sources (per WP:V). Please note that press releases and blogs do not qualify as reliable per our standards. Once you have the article fully sourced with citations to significant coverage of the group (WP:GNG), you can apply to have it reinstated at WP:DRV. To be honest though, given the links that you've provided it doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAPS International High

Can I inquire why you closed this discussion as "Keep"? It seems to me that no valid keep reasons were presented. --Atlantima (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually, I closed the article as Keep or Merge. So you could still propose that the content be merged to a different page if you think the school shouldn't have its own article. As to why I didn't delete the article: to decide against the numerical consensus, I'd need to see that their !votes are demonstrably flawed with respect to settled policy. Whether secondary schools are inherently notable or not is a debated issue, and not something that I see as a settled policy. Of course, you're welcome to take the decision to WP:DRV if you like. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The reasons that the "Keepers" brought up are "demonstrably flawed": "There must be sources!", "Keep because it is a real school.", "Keep because other schools have been kept.", "Keep because I have linked to my usersubpage where I say that I think every school is notable because it's important to their students.", "'Keep because consensus.' 'What consensus? Where?' '*ignore*'", "Keep: Schools are inherently notable even though all notability guidelines say nothing is inherently notable.", etc. Every article is supposed to be judged on its own merits, not based on past decisions of other articles in a similar category. --Atlantima (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're asking me to do more than the role of an Afd closer should here. Your position, that secondary schools are not inherently notable, isn't a firmly established policy. I can't make it one in my role as an Afd closer. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I am asking you to explain your AfD-closing decision, which sure seems like something that an AfD closer should be able to do. I also would like someone to explain where WP says that anything can be inherently notable, and why this "firmly established policy" is not reflected in guidelines. This is not just "my position": it's the one that appears to be WP's official position, which I am simply trying to enforce.--Atlantima (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

And if you acknowledge that you are unable, in your role as an AFD closer, to disregard arguments to avoid in deletion discussions when closing AFDs, then that seems like a real problem.--Atlantima (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Atlantima, check out WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. That is entirely in-line with precedent. Mark's close was right on the money. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have seen WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. What's more, I've actually read the intro to that page, which states that "previous outcomes do not bind future ones" and "Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else. All articles should be evaluated individually on their merits". Try again.--Atlantima (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't bind, but it also doesn't prohibit people from following it. The discussion was mainly towards keeping the article, citing unwritten consensus about senior high schools, Mark closed the article as a keep. I had the same experience when nominating some local election results for deletion back in 2011... sure, it bites and it's hard for us to believe that this is notable, but don't forget that notability need not be international. Also, sources are not always online; if we were stuck using online sources, half of the featured articles written wouldn't be nearly as developed. It's quite possible, although difficult to prove, that paper sources exist in the Maldives; for less-represented countries !voters typically give more leeway for that. If you want to take this to WP:DRV, go ahead, but be prepared for a snow keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• I think Crisco has said it better than I could; I agree with his comments totally. And again, you are free to drv this. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Afd:Pete Malcolm

Mark, would you consider closing this as a Keep please? It's been going on for some time, and IMHO there is clear concensus to keep the article, espacially after I re-wrote large parts of it and added many more references. Thanks Roger RogerDavis21 (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure there is a clear consensus to keep the article. Sorry! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

4 Keeps to 2 Deletes isn't concensus? Also, I thought absence of concensus resulted in a Keep? Just trying to understand rationale. Thanks RogerDavis21 (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, technically it's 4 keeps to 3 deletes... numbers aren't the only thing though, strength of argument counts too. DGG seems to have a strong argument, and I'd be hesitant to dismiss his point of view out of hand. Evenly divided articles are often kept, but WP:No consensus closes are often used in these cases. But it's probably best though that you wait for a closer and then discuss the results with them. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Roger, technically it's 3 keeps to 3 deletes, Peterkingiron is also !vote stacking. More importantly none of the keep arguements have any basis in policy. Your forum shopping for a close your way is poor form. Your canvasing is worse. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Recently deleted article

I ask you because it happens you're the one who deleted List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave: I'd find it very useful to be able to glance at that page briefly. The reason is that I want to create an article on this subject on the Latin Vicipaedia (we have a special interest in goings-on at the Vatican). I don't want to take text from the article, or even the list of names, because that's available in Russian, but just to be able to follow up references. Any chance you could restore it to my userspace for a short time? Andrew Dalby 16:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sure. It's at User:Andrew Dalby/List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. I see there were no references on the page at all. I know this was said in the deletion discussion but I couldn't quite believe it. Deletion was certainly the right decision.

Anyway, I've checked the list of names, and that's all I can do with it, so you could delete it again now. Thanks very much for your help :) Andrew Dalby 19:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

‎User:Jmanooch at the Hebephilia article and at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology

Hey, Mark. Will you weigh in on this? And perhaps revert this as inappropriate, or should an ArbCom clerk or ArbCom member do that? This editor is out of control, which I commented on here. These type of inexperienced Wikipedia editors are always a pain. Flyer22 (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably best to let the clerks deal with that on the Arbcom page. Maybe request full protection on Hebephilia if the edit warring keeps up. I'd be hesitant to act there with my admin tools, personally. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I was also asking if you may offer some words of wisdom to Jmanooch. I have no interest in communicating with the editor any further, as he is completely out of touch with how things work at this site and my motivations regarding editing the Hebephilia article. I have not even yet read his latest comment(s) (meaning since I've replied to him) on that talk page and may wait days before reading it/them...or never read it/them; that's how agitated I am by this editor. Flyer22 (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Flyer22 is clear violating WP:OWN and using personal disparagement to dissuade review of perfectly sensible edits. I will be following the arbitration case with interest, and I will track comments about my input with interest. Inexperienced Wikipedia editors, by definition, bring a fresh view, so you discount them at harm to the Wikipedia project. That I don't know how things "work" with this site, is something inevitable, at early stages of having reasonable edits automatically blocked by article 'owners'. Also, by design, Flyer22 has no primacy in this or any other space. Avoid favouritism to 'known' editors, just because they can manage the system, I advise. Worth noting that I made one very cautious edit, and this brought down the holy wrath of Flyer22, and claims of being 'out of control'. Something amiss there.

jmanooch 19:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Mark, before Jmanooch followed me to this talk page and now seems to be stating that he will be engaging in inappropriate WP:WIKISTALKING (which is against policy, and which he can be indefinitely blocked for), I was just about to tell you that, judging by his talk page, it is clear that no amount of words of wisdom will cause him to generally behave appropriately on Wikipedia. I don't blame you for sparing yourself the trouble of trying to talk to him; just look at what others on his talk page have had to endure. Any further comments he makes on your talk page about me will be left without a response from me. And unlike Hahc21 has advised him, he is unwelcome on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Jmanooch, you're received warnings from several experienced users and admins over the past couple days, so there's not much more for me to do here, other than to tell you to calm the hell down. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Mark Arsten

User:Mark Arsten, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mark Arsten and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Mark Arsten during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL! That's the cool thing about this day on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's not yet that day for me, but it's getting there. Flyer22 (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Same here, I looked at the main page at 8:05 and got quite the shock :) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Silly Wikipedia time zone. Flyer22 (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Because, coal towns are notable, thats why Coal town guy (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, they sure are. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Qutation Validity

Hello Mark and thank you for welcoming me to the wikipedia community. I read all that you wrote on my talk page and I had a question regarding the reliable source for quotations. On my contribution, that may or may not be removed shortly, I quoted as person based on what they literally said during an interview, the link to the video of which is black listed because it was an interview with the Huffington Post (which I'm well aware is about as credible as ham sandwich). What should I do in that situation? I'm not presenting what the speaker said as fact, merely presenting the fact that he had actually said what he said regarding the topic. Any suggestions you have would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Fyujin (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This is kind of a tricky area, but I believe that his statements in the interview would be considered acceptable for use as a primary source. These can be used in some circumstances, but should generally be avoided. There are guidelines for the use of such sources at WP:BLPSPS. Basically, it would be acceptable for basic facts in the subject's biography. Let me know if you have any more questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think understand now. Since what the speaker is saying is subject to debate then citing an interview of them saying such a debatable statement is not much different than me saying said statement myself. Therefore it would fall under the 'he said/she said' category rather than fact and would hold no validity. Similar to citing a video of a man claiming the world is flat still doesn't prove that the world is in fact flat. I think I have a better understanding and respect for the stipulations of reliable sources. Thank you for clearing that up for me, Mark. Fyujin (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Help for deleted page

Greetings! Hoping you can help us make the necessary changes/updates to bring back the page.

Just got the message that a page i helped to author has been deleted: This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 14:36, 3 April 2013 Mark Arsten (talk | contribs) deleted page Human vulnerability to climate change in the Caribbean (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human vulnerability to climate change in the Caribbean)

This is especially disappointing because:

• We were continuing to make updates to the page. References and neutrality issues were resolved to the best of our ability. A request was sent to get more feedback, but not info was every sent back to us; and;
• This page was part of our credit for a grad class in climate change. 25% of our grade just got deleted.

Even without the issue of the class, it would still be great to have the page up simply to bring attention to the plight of areas in the Caribbean. Is there anyone we can work with to revive all or part of the page? Thanks Avewiki (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assignments for student editors may be of some help to you; besides the information/advice on that page, you can ask for help on its talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Avewiki, I've moved the page to your userspace (WP:USERSPACEDRAFT): User:Avewiki/Human vulnerability to climate change in the Caribbean. The page can now be publicly improved and the process of improvements can continue. I hope your grade won't suffer now. In addition to the link Flyer provides, other good places to ask for help about how to improve the page would be Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment. Eventually, you could apply to have the deletion overturned and the draft reinstated at WP:DRV. I'd suggest waiting some time and getting more help before doing that though. Let me know if you have any more questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Plichota and Wolf

Hi. You probably did notice this, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Plichota was an incomplete AfD discussion because more discussion is going on on the co-author's page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cendrine Wolf. Where it is more clearly demonstrated that the writing duo do in fact pass the definition of WP:AUTHOR #4. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think consensus was against you on Plichota, but since the other is still open I've relisted it. Also, please bolding keep more than once in Afds--it's best to use comment rather than writing keep a second time. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

?

Hehe — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Very nice. You know, I kind of wish I hadn't had known what was coming. I wonder how I would have reacted if I was totally caught unaware? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps like the people on the talk page... quite a few posts. I was surprised. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

New Quantum Theory

Dear Mark,

I had submitted article on New Quantum Theory and found that the same has been deleted with reason that this a fringe theory. I believe any new revolutionary theory is treated as fringe untill it is proved. I have contacted the author and he has a published a book on this topic. Being associated with nuclear physics I think world should now about this theory and as a responsbile wikipedia author I assure you that this is a great article and shoule be published to wider audience. I am also providing the details of the book by the author: Book  : New Quantum Theory Author  : Narendra Agarwal Publisher: Lambert Academic Publishing ISBN  : 978-3-659-34139-7

Request you to reconsider your decision and help in getting this knowledge across to the world.

Regards, Tushar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tushar gupta123 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure I can help you on this. To reinstate the article we'd need to see better sourcing. Wikipedia requires that articles be supported by reliable sources WP:RS, and Lambert Academic Publishing is a VDM subsidiary, and therefore not considered to be reliable per our guidelines. Are there other academics who have published about this? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark, Thanks for your response. Before publishing this article it was reviewed and supported by Dr. Gary Bowman, Associate professor of North Arizona University, USA. For verification purpose you can directly drop a mail to him at Gary.Bowman@nau.edu and copy me in that email. Many thanks for your support. Tushar gupta123 (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but we'd need published sources that provide coverage of this topic to have the article restored. You should probably review our notability guidelines WP:GNG so you know what to look for. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Koji Oishi

You deleted this article earlier this year but perhaps you would like to consider resurrecting it as the fighter in question has just signed with ONE Fighting Championship, is fighting for a title in May and has been the subject of widespread media coverage this week.

~~Sadoka74~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadoka74 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you reviewed the WP:NMMA guideline? He would have to meet that guideline to have his article reinstated. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Deletion of Red Cord Records Page

I am the president of the label and I just realized our page was deleted. I do not know who created our page but I would very much appreciate it if the page was reinstated. After reading the reason for the deletion it is not accurate as we are distributed by Victory/Sony and have plenty of legitimate articles to prove our credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redcordrecords (talk • contribs) 03:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, could you offer some of those articles so I could verify them? (Keeping in mind our WP:RS & WP:GNG pages.) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Note from Lawrence

Mark, I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to leave a query regarding a recent deletion. You must deal with these all the time.

I would like to find a way to make the article acceptable. I have many professional musician/academics who have listed me as their former professor on their own sites - it would be great to continued to be linked.

There are certainly specific citations/names of articles/sources that could be listed in a revised article. Thank you. Lawrence Kaptein, DMA

Hi, could you offer some examples of articles that would support a revised article? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Mark - My recent publication energy has been largely focused on choral compositions and arrangements, many in the area of ethnically-inspired works for choral performance. I currently have twenty-four published works )Alliance Music Publications, Houston, TX). I can provide you a list - or examples - with publication details if you wish. Examples of scholarly (juried) articles I have authored include, "Motivation Takes Form in the Choral Rehearsal," 'Choral Journal', November, 1986, American Choral Directors Association; and "Three and a Half Centuries of Choral Singing in America," IFCM International Bulletin, International Federation of Choral Music, 1989; (which was then translated into German and published in Musikerziehung Osterreichischer Bundesverlag, 1990). Thanks for your continued help with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrycaptain (talk • contribs) 18:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but we'd need published sources that provide coverage of you to have the article restored. You should probably review our notability guidelines WP:GNG & WP:PROF so you know what to look for. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing the notability guidelines material was very helpful. Thanks. Two published sources of a secondary nature that support major threads in the article include, "The School Choral Program: Philosophy, Planning, Organizing, and Teaching," (co-authored by: James Jordan and Michele Holt, GIA Publications, 2008-book) - references contribution for inclusion of ethnic music in the curricula of American public schools; "Colorado Conductors' Chorus Provides a Creative Outlet for Music Professionals," (Music from Colorado," authored by Kenna Brunner, 2010-magazine article, University of Colorado at Boulder - references initiative to provide Colorado music teachers with additional training/technique through quality ensemble participation. With you continued guidance I would like to move forward with the restructured/referenced article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrycaptain (talk • contribs) 05:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the best thing for you to do at this point would be to create a userspace draft (WP:USERSPACEDRAFT). Make sure that everything in it is cited to reliable secondary sources. Then when you're done we can discuss possibly restoring it to articlespace. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC). Thanks, Mark. I'll get started.

Mark, Would it be possible to send me a copy of the deleted article? I've been gathering the required secondary citations and would now find it a bit easier to add them into a revision of the original text. Unfortunately, I didn't print it out/save it prior to the deletion. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrycaptain (talk • contribs) 00:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have e-mail enabled? If so I could e-mail it to you, or you could e-mail me and I'll send it to you. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Mark - If it's convenient, my email is (kaptein@colorado.edu). Thought it might be a bit easier to see where secondary citations might mesh with parts of the original article. Again, thanks for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrycaptain (talk • contribs) 01:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi,Mark - I've been working on revisions and and have two general questions: (1) I'd like to incorporate the secondary source citations into the revised text using the most appropriate Wikipedia format. Is there a link (for examples) I could refer to or should I just list the sources and references as completely as possible in the revised text? And lastly, (2) can/should DVDs, videotapes - and even YouTube recordings be cited as acceptable documentation for musical performances? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrycaptain (talk • contribs) 20:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd recommend using {{citation}} family to format your references. Specific examples are located at: Template:Citation#Examples. Video can be used as references, what's important though is that you use secondary sources; WP:SECONDARY has a good explanation. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks again. Am reviewing formatting guidelines. Yes, explanation of secondary sources is clear.

DYK

... that a year ago you were the 104rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, can't believe it has only been a year. So much has gone on since then! Mark Arsten (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, couldn't believe I reached 104 then already. It was a fast year, - did you know two Bach cantatas "premiered" 22 April, BWV 12 and BWV 103? (The article on 12 is not by me, 103 is - and nominated for GA.) Both start with weeping, but I try to let go of that, see my talk ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Schwarzkopf ACR

Just to let you know, I've responded to all of your comments here. Thanks for your review and your patience! —Ed!^(talk) 12:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to check back in soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Dino Mikanović

Hey!

I see that you were the one who, quite rightly, deleted the article about the football player Dino Mikanović ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dino_Mikanovi%C4%87 ). He has since debuted for the club, in a professional league, so I guess it should be put back up :). Thanks! Zlopseto (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That was deleted via WP:PROD, so it can be automatically restored. (done) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Strange activities in Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed/doc

Hello, Mark

I am seeing strange edits in Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed/doc. They have they nature of vandalism, except they are not done by vandals. (See 12:11, 20 April 2013‎ Werldwayd, and the next edits.) I'd say either it is a gadget gone bad or a user account breach. I also considered contacting the users but then I am speechless; what am I supposed to tell them and how am I supposed to do it politely?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that is very strange, I'm not too sure what to do about it. I'll try to take another look soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It's so sad to see that you are ruining wikipedia

I really, really despise people like you, who think that add to the project, yet ruin it. You seem to delete articles, just because you dont like them, you delete them without any support (5 other votes?), you only harm this website. The sad part is that you probably believe that you are doing good and your deletionist policies are "correct". Maybe you could simply stop editing articles on wikipedia and set about:blank as your homepage? There nothing has to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.102.207 (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, I don't think I even want to know what this is about. Five !votes is a clear consensus, especially if they are all "delete", so Mark did nothing wrong. If you disagree with an outcome feel free to put the article at WP:DRV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Don't hate the player, hate the game. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hate the llama that won't stand up just because it thinks it's going to rain! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Someone needs to air out that sock drawer...hmmm... Yes, Llamas... Montanabw^(talk) 22:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice circlejerk of sockpuppet accounts you have there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.102.207 (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you know that llamas look like woolly unicorns if you superglue a narwhal's spike to their heads? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The things I miss while I'm on vacation :) Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology closed

An arbitration case regarding sexology has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia).
2. User:Jokestress and User:James Cantor are banned from interacting with each other, commenting on and/or commenting about each other including their professional lives, works and on-wiki activities. This applies to all namespaces, but excludes dispute resolution that explicitly relates to both parties.
3. User:Jokestress is indefinitely banned from the topic of human sexuality, including biographical articles.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 12:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Favor

Hi Mark, how are you? I hope you are doing fine. I need a favor from you, can you please protect Right Now (Rihanna song) and Unapologetic? IP addresses keep making the song single, however, there is not a reliable source. Thank You :) — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, you are simply the best. ;) — Tomíca^(T2ME) 21:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A help

Hi Mark, a favor... as it appears that my related topic at ANI was fully ignored, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesca Hogi (3rd nomination) and stop that silly sockfest, as a minimum with a semi-protection? I am a bit tired of reverting socks that remove templates and warning them... Thanks in advance for your attention to this matter. --Cavarrone (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done. I guess everyone at ANI is preoccupied with the account sharing scandal. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed it. Many thanks. Cavarrone (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

authorative party says public domain

I strongly dissuade you from making false claims of copyright, Inspire Magazine is public domain.

Can you provide evidence of that? I can't really just take your word for it. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

yes. call them yourself.

[LINKS NOT NEEDED]

You'll have to be more specific, who released it into the public domain? Where can I find clear evidence of who the original copyright holder was and that they released it as PD? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, prior to Al-Aulaqi's death, contact was made to the university in Saana, and directly with the editor (both now deceased) to verify the appropriateness to mirror their publication and the correct form for citation in journal publications. Al-Aulaqi indicated that the content of the magazines shall be openly distributed and is public domain. On the release date of #10, mirror sponsor received a message from current editor and distributor indicating availability of #10 and requesting open distribution. The majority of their content is released initially via various forum sites due to infrastructure failures, posted to archive.org, and sent to various mirrors for public redistribution, directly from the source producer. There is public logs of exactly this announcement process from the originator.

Again, that may or may not be true, but I can't just take your word for it (you could be lying for all I know). It's very rare for magazines to be released into the public domain, so I'd need to see clear evidence of the original copyright holder releasing it into the public domain before I could be convinced of its status. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Eye color IP again

Mark, the eye color IP that we've talked about before is being disruptive again, except now he's constantly fouling up the talk page (including having removed my comments twice thus far). Flyer22 (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

See my talk page for more. Flyer22 (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I took the unusual step of semi-protecting the talk page. Might get some complaints about that, but I think it was warranted. I revdeleted an edit on your talk page but then saw you keep it there and reply, so I undeleted it. Let me know if there are any more problems on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate it. I was also thinking that semi-protecting the talk page is needed. But since Alison blocked the IP for a week, and your semi-protection of the article talk page wears off on May 13, it seems like a waste to have the talk page semi-protected at this time. Unless it were extended and/or the IP were one to change IPs. But I understand why you didn't put semi-protection on for too long. Flyer22 (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

On a side note, why is the edit option now on the left side? It's annoying because I keep initially trying to edit articles or reply on talk pages by clicking the edit option to the right, only to remember that it's now to the left. That, plus our new notification system, makes me wonder how many more things are in the process of being changed at this site. Flyer22 (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Had to strike my comment out above. I see that you actually protected the Eye color article talk page until June 6, 2013. I must have been looking at something else on my watchlist when I believed you gave it a May 13 date. Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

(side note) Basically everything is going to change. meta:Change to section edit links explains the change to the section links. The new editing system, WP:VisualEditor, will be deployed in July. User talk pages are going to be completely replaced with the WP:Flow system (date unknown)—no more "Should I reply on my talk page or his?", no more trying to remember which conversation is happening where, no more edit conflicts on user talks, and no more newbies being able to change your comments to make it look like you said the opposite of what you actually said. WP:Echo is designed to work well with that. You should basically expect that everything is going to change during the next year. Eventually, we'll probably like the changes, but in the meantime, be prepared to re-learn how to work and be prepared to hear some people threaten to leave if they don't get their way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. Seems like good changes, for the most part. I don't like that I can't mention an editor on a talk page (linking their user name, of course) without them knowing that I've mentioned them. And since most people are right-handed, including me, it makes more sense to have the edit option at the right...just like doorknobs and paper being formatted for right-handed people. That stated, I have gotten used to the edit option being on the left side. Flyer22 (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

FC-Persepolis

Shahin.shn & Maardep have lied to you about Squads of Persepolis. My last edit was correct. You refer to official web site of FC-Persepols. I did not want to vandalize but they want. For example Karim Ansarifard was Player of FC-Persepolis last Season but he is not going to be a player of FC-Persepolis anymore and The Captain of this team has changed after election on this week. This election was asked by Ali Daei: Coach of club.

I hope you do best.

My advice is to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. It's best if you can cite sources to back up your arguments. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Red Cord Record deletion

I was trying to find Red Cord Records on Wikipedia and with further research I found that it was deleted back in September of last year.I read why it was deleted and they are a 100% creditably record label. Here are some sources and social media (the article for deletion said they researched them and couldn't find them) for further acknowledgement.

http://www.redcordrecords.com/

https://twitter.com/redcordrecords https://www.facebook.com/redcordrecords http://www.youtube.com/redcordrecords https://myspace.com/redcordrecords http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=191287 http://www.victoryrecords.com/news/article/1258 http://www.indievisionmusic.com/tag/red-cord-records/ http://www.underthegunreview.net/2012/03/31/inhale-exhale-sign-to-red-cord-records/

Sorry, but I don't think these links count as significant coverage in reliable sources per our definition, WP:IRS & WP:GNG. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

What would you classify as a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.137.34 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Generally, established magazines, newspapers, and books fit the criteria. With small magazines it's hard to decide sometimes. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I do have physical magazines that Red Cord or a band they have signed have been featured in. How would you like me to send you the articles? Inhale Exhale is a band signed by Red Cord Records and they have a Wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inhale_Exhale

Incogue and Blood and Ink records are both labels close to the size of Red Cord. They both have articles on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InVogue_Records

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_and_Ink_Records  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.137.34 (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What are the names of the magazines? How detailed is their coverage fo the label? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

HM magazine has had coverage of not only the label but many of the bands signed to the label. Also Alternative Press, Revolver and many others have had coverage of the the bands or label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.175.88 (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but I'll have to recommend you go to WP:DRV to discuss this further. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of The Order of the Eagle of Georgia and the Seamless Tunic of Our Lord Jesus Christ

I understand that you removed the Order of the Eagle of Georgia and the Seamless Tunic of Our Lord Jesus Christ believing it not to be a legitimate dynastic order. If you did a little research, other than the internet that you quote, you would find it to be a very legal and legitimate dynastic order. I recommend you look into this new thing known as a book; I strongly recommend Burke's Peerage and Gentry, the world leader in such maters. Your feeling that the current Royal House of Georgia is not legitimate is not for you to decide; maybe learn Georgian and read the news from that country, your statements are sophomoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.13.180 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The above comment is not only unsigned, and needlessly sarcastic, but also inappropriate. WP:AGF. WP:CIVIL. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 11:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I will admit, my Georgian is a bit rusty. (It's been some time since I visited Atlanta.) Seriously though, could you provide a link to the page in question? Or one to the source you refer to? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.exacteditions.com/browse/572/902/5803/3/1915/0/order%20of%20the%20eagle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.13.180 (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, we generally require multiple sources for an article though, see WP:GNG. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The Ascension Deletion

Just noticed you deleted The Ascension (professional wrestling), it was many months ago but I was woundering if there is any way to get the information I wrote back, this is because the article has come back into relevence, or may be soon, and I don't want rewrite the whole thing

Thanks,Statoke (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved a copy of the deleted article to User:GamingWithStatoke/The Ascension (professional wrestling) for your reference. Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Admin

Hi. Are you admin this Wikipedia? --AlfinIzraqsaatini (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think so.... last time I checked, I was. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Restore Deleted Valley Bulldog Article?

I am new to this but it appears http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_Bulldog was deleted for a lack of references as seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Valley_Bulldog. I can provide more sources/references and would like to see the article restored as well as linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldog_breeds if possible.

Links:

1. Book - The Great Book of Bulldogs

2. Book - Valley Bulldog

3. Site - IOEBA Breed Standard

4. Site - IOBEA Breed History

5. Site - Bulldog Breeds

6. Probably not a good source - Yahoo Link

Thank you for your time.

Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhelfond (talk • contribs) 00:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved to the deleted article to your userspace: User:Dhelfond/Valley Bulldog (as a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT). Please add citations and evidence of notability to the draft. When you are finished you can apply to have the deletion overturned and the draft reinstated via WP:DRV. Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Saurabh Choudhary

hi mark, just wanted to inform that you had deleted a page by the name "Saurabh Choudhary". he is screenplay writer of hindifeature film film "jeena hai toh thok daal". also he is dialogue writer of upcoming hindi feature film "dussehra". all the details regarding his work is there on google and other sites by his films name. would like his page to be restored. regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabh0711 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you reviewed our notability guidelines? (WP:N) Are you certain that he has received significant coverage? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hiram Wesley Evans

How would you feel if I nominate this for a non-specific date at TFAR? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be fine with me, go ahead. Hope you're doing well, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia-wise, couldn't be better (Sair Tjerita Siti Akbari, Gagak Item, etc.). School-wise... finals are in two weeks, and I have two/three papers to do. Alright, I'll nom later today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Nommed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

History of Gibraltar

Hi Mark, you'll recall that you reviewed History of Gibraltar for GA a few months ago. I've nominated it at TFAR for July 13, the tercentenary of Gibraltar becoming a British territory. If you have any thoughts on this you're very welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#July 13. Prioryman (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Iambic pentameter

• Did you see this yet? I'm still chuckling, although the bard it ain't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, that is pretty good. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Wonder what happened in four years... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Good question! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC) |} Speedy deletion nomination of Solfeggio frequencies Hello Mark Arsten, I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Solfeggio frequencies for deletion, because it seems to be an article that was previously deleted by a consensus decision. If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Howicus (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Main Page appearance: Hiram Wesley Evans This is a note to let the main editors of Hiram Wesley Evans know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 24, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 24, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below: Hiram Wesley Evans (1881–1966) was Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, an American white supremacist group, from 1922 to 1939. Evans, a dentist, joined the Klan's Dallas chapter in 1920. He quickly rose through the ranks and, after ousting William J. Simmons as Imperial Wizard, sought to transform the group into a political juggernaut. Although Evans had kidnapped and tortured a black man while leader of the Dallas Klan, as Imperial Wizard he publicly discouraged vigilante actions. He also led major gatherings and marches, endorsed several successful candidates in 1924 elections, and promoted the Klan as a nativist, Protestant group. Despite this, the Klan was buffeted by damaging publicity in the early 1920s, and the Great Depression of the 1930s severely damaged the Klan's finances and Evans' own income. In 1939 Evans, having lost favor within the Klan for disavowing anti-Catholicism, was succeeded by James A. Colescott; the following year he was fined $15,000 for price fixing. Historians credit Evans with refocusing the Klan on political activities and recruiting outside the Southern United States but note that the political influence and membership gained were transitory. (Full article...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Odd, I didn't get a notice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC) That is odd, but not as odd as what I've just been reading about (a guy who paints portrait with his genitalia). Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Careful Mark, I think that's connected with dramah, and the llama would not be happy. Regarding the blurb, maybe "in 1924 elections" needs a bit of a tweak. You do seem to write about some fascinating things! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC) That's very much connected to Dramahs. Hmm, I think "the" (although more common in this context) would actually be wrong as he supported multiple candidates in multiple state elections. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Could we have "1924 state elections", then? Otherwise we're not sure if it's elections for positions within the KKK, for Congress, Senate, President (OK that's pushing it a bit), or something else. Looking at it another way, is endorsing some candidate really a significant part of his career? As opposed to, say, nominating a candidate? Couldn't a wide spectrum of political parties have endorsed any one candidate? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Well, a Klan member became governor of Indiana so it wasn't as if they were not effective. Since that's only a small clause in the sentence, I don't think it needs to be removed. We could change it to "several successful Klan-affiliated" candidates, but that sounds like a mouthful.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC) So, "state elections", yes? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Ok, I added "state elections". I think it flows a little better. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC) OK, the guy is a scum, but let's stop being so damn politically correct. He wouldn't be the first scum on the MP.PumpkinSky talk 23:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Nor would he be the last... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, I wonder what the history books will say about the racists of our time. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC) For the most part, in England one doesn't need to go as far as history books to see scum described as scum. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Press (magazine) Hello. I would like to ask you to reconsider the closure of the discussion linked above. The keep arguments are not policy based and the notability of the subject has not been established. I intend to take this to WP:DRV, however as a courtesy, I am running this by you first. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Well, I guess I agree that the strength of the votes was somewhat weak. Could I suggest opening a Merge discussion? It looks like Free Press (magazine) would make a great candidate for merging to Vinod Jose. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you, that sounds like a good idea. Would you please initiate the discussion? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Ok, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC) I've referred to this conversation in the proposal to merge that you placed on Vinod Jose's page. Are you also the admin who reopened the AfD after it was closed? Crtew (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC) No, I only closed it once. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Surely, you saw its muddled history? Crtew (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadleaf Commerce Hello. I would like to ask you to reconsider the deletion of the Broadleaf Commerce wikipedia page. At the time, it was deleted due to a lack of reliable sources about the platform. Looking at similar open source projects, the following may better support reinstating this page. FLOSS article / video on Broadleaf Commerce The source code for Broadleaf Commerce Broadleaf Commerce community forums Spring Source article "TOOLING FOR THE JAVASCRIPT ERA, AN INTRO TO BROADLEAF COMMERCE" Introduction to Broadleaf Commerce video - Spring YouTube Channel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpolster (talk • contribs) 23:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Sorry, but I don't think those sources count as reliable per our definition, WP:IRS. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC) I chose those sources by looking at the following : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_Commerce. 67.198.62.242 (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)BPolster I'm a little confused Why did you delete that revision from my talk page? I'm just curious.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC) I don't think he did, I think he just rev del'd an IP edit. PumpkinSky talk 15:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Hi Jimbo, I didn't think I'd be seeing a message from you on my talk page today! What happened was a user accidentally edited while logged out, exposing his IP in the page history and signature. So I revdeleted the IP in the page history. Then I realized that the signature was still visible on the page so I removed it and revdeleted the whole edit. So I actually kind of made a mistake and did the revdelete twice. I guess my edit summary wasn't very clear, sorry! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC) When Jimbo posts on one's talk page, the llama is rarely far behind! Of course, the llama does not say "I'm a little confused", but, instead, "I'm a little llama". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Your assistance please You recently closed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancer victim hoaxes I have several questions about this closure: 1 One of the participants in the {{afd}} was making an unusually large number of excisions to the article, during the {{afd}}. Excisions that effectively prevented attempts to address concerns raised during the {{afd}}. Traditionally, those who favored "keep" are given a free hand to try to address problems with the article. 2 Half the entries in the list were not individuals, half the entries in the list described hoaxes built around fictional characters. 3 It is my understanding that part of the role of the closing administrator is to look at the arguments offered, and to discount those that are based on misunderstandings of policy. Several of those who voiced delete opinions here have pointed out -- correctly -- that many of the individuals in this list are not sufficiently notable, in and of themselves, for standalone articles. The misinterpretation of policy is that they have asserted that individuals who are not sufficiently notable for a standalone article cannot have the notable elements of their story incorporated into a more broadly focused article. This is simply not supported by policy, and by my understanding of the administrator's role a closing administrator has the discretion to discount policy misinterpretations. Another misinterpretation of policy advanced by those who voiced "delete" was that BLP required a complete moratorium on any coverage of individuals who may have mental health issues. Policy doesn't say this. It merely says we need to be careful that our coverage of individuals is written from a neutral point of view, verifiable, and relevant. It is based on the assumption that a moratorium on discussing mental health issues, or individuals who may have mental health issues is actually in the best interests of individuals with mental health issues. Moratoriums on other issues, like alcoholism, and child abuse, has not worked out well for sufferers. I drafted an essay in an attempt to address this issue User:Geo Swan/opinions/You can't say that here! Will you reconsider this closure? Geo Swan (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Regarding (1), Geo Swan was always able to edit the article, and indeed continued to do so. Regarding (2), the fact that the list was a synthesis of two different topics is the fault of those responsible for creating it in the first place - it cannot be a justification for keeping it. As for the rest, I get the strong impression that Geo Swan is attempting to Wikilawyer around what looked a clear consensus that the article raised substantial WP:BLP concerns. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Hi Geo Swan and Andy, thanks for stopping by. I do not plan to reconsider my close in this case. I find the subject of this article very interesting and have read several articles about it in the past, but my close is based on what I find the consensus to be among the participants in the discussion. In this case, most participants felt that listing very negative information about otherwise low-profile individuals was an insurmountable BLP issue. There were also significant concerns about whether this article adhered to our best practices for the notability of stand-alone lists (WP:LISTN). I think these are valid arguments, inasmuch as there is a difference between notoriety and notability. So I think my close reflected consensus, but you are free to open a DRV if you disagree. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Formatting help requested Could you put some boxes or some other type of visual element around stuff pasted on ANI by Johnvr4? They've made a complete mess of that thread by copying bits of conversation from various other pages. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Agreed. Various other pages are getting Archived and Deleted. Permission to fix the formatting is granted to you, I do not mind one bit. I would like All to understand the arguments here and who supports them.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Generally, pasting text like that irritates people. I've added a collapse box so it's clearer now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the hatting. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Archived? I see the thread went into the archives for lack of activity. (Maybe it had too much competition from the Jimbo-related dramas.) Does it mean the proposal failed? Obviously the participation/consensus was not great. After that ANI was started (or better said, concurrently) myself and another editor tried to explain things further to Johnvr4 at on his talk page, in the hope for him to realize that one cannot "read between the lines" of the sources to the massive extent that Johnvr4 has done. Unfortunately it doesn't seem that he will ever be convinced. On the other hand, he clearly has put a lot of time and effort finding material for that article/topic (which is still preserved in his userspace). It seems that best solution is for him to be topic banned from editing in article space, mostly due to John's edit warring there, which led to protection during the AfD. I considered perhaps just put him under a revert restriction, but given that he has been pursuing this for over a year, that probably won't work. Perhaps a good compromise is to have him edit only his user space on these topics (US chemical warfare and/or the CIA). He should be allowed to post notices on article talk pages, e.g. "hey, I found this awesome source", but clearly he is reading stuff into sources that most other editors don't see and sometimes he is promoting sources that fail the Wikipedia reliability standards. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC) In hindsight, it looks like I've made a procedural error. I should have posted to AP:AN not ANI. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Yeah, you can just pull it out of archives if you want and relist it. I've had to do that before with low-traffic topic ban discussions. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Let's just wait and see; he has been inactive for the past couple of days. I've partially cleaned up a few other articles where he was active (Rainbow Herbicides, Agent Orange, Biological warfare, Project 112, etc.) 86.121.18.17 (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC) FYI: Alex Goot Ilov90210 asked me about the Alex Goot article and since my response referenced you, I am leaving you a courtesy note. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Ok, thanks. The software does it automatically now though if you link a username. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Omar Todd A few users are becoming bothered by the Omar Todd articles that keep appearing on Wikipedia. We're at a count of three pages created already. Someone else has already added the tag for speedy deletion and cited a reason, and a few of us have voiced concerned from the 2nd nomination for deletion (successful) to the current 3rd nomination for deletion (pending). I'm thinking WP:SALT after deletion might be a good way to prevent further articles being created. I'm unable to administer this edit --- perhaps you can? PixiePerilot (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Looks like the speedy was declined. But, yes, I probably would salt it if I saw that it was deleted a few times. Since you brought this up on the Afd the deleting admin (If it is deleted) will probably do so. I can always help if he forgets to though. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC) inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bystander Theory Rather than userfy, would you mind if I restored this and moved it to the incubator? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Not at all, go ahead. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks, will do... and I will leave a note on the AFD's talk page. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Lead Masks Case deletion Hello, this case was featured in the book "Confrontations" by Jacques Vallée. Unlike many ufologists, Jacques Vallée is a reputable scientist, and I think his books can be considered reliable sources. Even though he considers Latin American media "a notorious unreliable souce" in his book, I'd say that two documentaries on this case ( & ), made by TV Globo in 1990 and 2004 respectively, are more or less reliable sources. They also demonstrate a long-term popular interest in this case. Not sure if the other sources on this case (INFA & Revista Vigília) are reliable, but in my opinion the aforementioned ones are enough to show the notability of this case. Is it possible to review the deletion? Finstergeist (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC) To be honest, I felt kind of bad for deleting that article. Procedurally, there seemed to be a consensus to delete it though, so I did. It's a very fascinating case and part of me would be glad to see it recreated. I'd have to suggest a trip to WP:DRV though, to get community consent to recreation. Sorry and good luck, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Okay, understood. Deletion review for Lead Masks Case An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lead Masks Case. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Finstergeist (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Johnny Squeaky I noticed Johnny Squeaky, and saw him for the first time, when he made this edit to the John and Lorena Bobbitt article two hours ago. I was alarmed by that edit because not all of the information in that section is trivial. The first portion of it is about the impact the case had on society. This made me do research into Johnny Squeaky's editing history, and I see that you have reverted him before for editing warring and left him a note about trivia sections. He has been warned enough times, as seen in these, these and these discussions at his talk page, about inappropriately retitling "In popular culture," "Popular culture," "Cultural references," etc. headings or similar to "Trivia" and that he should not tag them as "trivia" unless they truly are...and yet he is still doing exactly that. The "Cultural influence" section in the Homer Simpson article, for example, is not trivial. It is about that character's impact on society, but Johnny Squeaky would no doubt title that section "Trivia" and add a "trivia" tag to it...which says "Lists of miscellaneous information should be avoided. Please relocate any relevant information into other sections or articles."...even though that section is not a list, there are no better places in that article to relocate that information, and the section should not be split off from the main article per WP:SIZE. To Johnny Squeaky, it is all trivia because "In fact, usually [popular culture and trivia] are the same thing. 'In Popular Culture' is used as a synonym for 'Trivia' by people who feel the name 'Trivia' is too down-scale for Wikipedia, while they are still perfectly happy to include content that any reasonable person would classify as... Trivia!" This miscategorizing/mistagging of his is a detriment to Wikipedia, especially considering that the trivia tag makes editors more prone to remove the sections (at least when they aren't as well put together as the Homer Simpson Cultural influence section); Johnny Squeaky has encountered that type of mindset, such as at the Nag Champa article, but he is still miscategorizing/mistagging sections despite that. So maybe it's time to report this editor at WP:ANI? Start a WP:RfC/U about him? I'm also confused by the Ronny Squeaky and Donny Squeaky accounts; are they simply sockpuppets of Mangoeater1000 that Mangoeater1000 decided to use to mock Johnny Squeaky? Note that I have not linked Johnny Squeaky's name in this section because it will notify him of this post on your talk page and then he will come to this talk page and, from what I have seen of his behavior in general, behave rudely and/or extremely rudely. Or he'll leave such a message on his own talk page, and remove it soon afterward (maybe as an attempt to keep me from replying to it, though I could still start a fresh section and reply about it in that one). And I would rather you or someone else watching your talk page comment productively on this matter before he weighs in on it. I'd rather not discuss this matter with him at all, considering that he's weighed in on the matter enough times as it is and it has been a case of WP:I didn't hear that or something similar each time he did. I'm also tempted to invite others who have had a problem with his miscategorizing/mistagging of sections to this talk page section I've started, but I would rather not do that without your permission. You may not want that drama at your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Hmm, interesting. I'll take a look at it and get back to you later. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Sorry for the late reply. I'm not too sure what to do honestly. I'd lean towards RFCU as an option based on my brief examination of things. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC) No need to apologize. Thanks for looking this over and offering your take on it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Talk:Project A119 - Might need protecting as well Hi, I've been keeping an eye on Project A119 and it's related talk page and the unidentified person who keeps adding the claim that Edward Snowden was involved in reviving Project A119 has been repeatedly adding it to the talk page. Most recently with a comment directed at myself that read: "This is bigger than you think, and please stop this edit war." after I deleted the text and added a comment to provide sources. Graham1973 (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Ok, done. I usually hesitate to protect talk pages, but in this case I doubt there will be much collateral damage. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Requests for lesson protection Thanks for reviewing my requests for userpage protection, the other day. My mistake for requesting pending changes protection. Is there any way that I can get semi-protection? The pages are located at User:Jackson Peebles/Adoption/Lesson #. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Sure, I think semi is Ok in this case. I've just done the nine you listed at RFPP. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Kate Garvey You stated: "This close does not mean that the article has to remain, however, the community can begin a new discussion at any time about whether to merge and redirect this." That's telling people they if they didn't get their way in the AFD, just go ahead and have the exact same discussion over again on the talk page for a merge/redirect discussion, which means in this case nothing would be merged of course, so it just deletion. There was no consensus to delete directly or through a false merger where nothing is merged. Dream Focus 22:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC) I usually allow for speedy merger discussions after a no consensus close. There doesn't seem to be a broad agreement about whether to keep this content or do away with it entirely. Merging the content to another page would be a middle ground of sorts, so I don't feel like that should be ruled out, considering the lack of an actionable consensus thus far. 22:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC) There is zero content of any sort that could be merged over to any article. So its just a stealth delete and shouldn't be encouraged. Dream Focus 22:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Then !vote against a merge if one is proposed. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Why repeat the entire AFD all over again? You do it once, you shouldn't have to repeat it. Some determined people will probably just wait a bit for attention to die down then try again this way, to try to get rid of the article with less people noticing. Just gaming the system. Dream Focus 23:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC) As an Afd closer, I'm not saying it should be merged or even that a discussion should be held on a merger. It's just that one can be held. What I'm saying is that a no consensus close doesn't preclude the opening of a merger discussion as a matter of procedure, like a Keep closure usually does. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Though I !voted delete, I must say that Mark has made a good call on this one. Reading through the discussion, I don't see enough support for either of keeping or deleting. Merging is an option but there it isn't addressed enough in the discussion for the closer to recommend it explicitly. Good call. --regentspark (comment) 12:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Stephen Colbert (character) Thank you Mark for enabling protection on this page. However, the edit by Discospinster before you enabled protection on the page needs to be undone. Is there a way that can be done and Stephen's title be restored? It can be undone, but you should try to gain consensus for the change on the talk page. See WP:BRD for best practices in edit wars. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Oddball Barnstar The Oddball Barnstar What more deserving person is there for this? I can't even begin to count the topics you've improved that fall under this. Keep at it! PumpkinSky talk 23:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC) lol, thanks. This is a fitting barnstar. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Very fitting ;-) PumpkinSky talk 23:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Old Afd (June 18) still open I don't know why but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATAXIA CURE seems to have fallen off the bookkeeping lists at AfD. It has some weird formatting and was page-blanked at some point, but it should be easy to close since even the creator ultimately agreed that the three articles should be deleted. Sorry to bother you about this, but I couldn't figure out where to let anyone know about this and noticed you'd recently closed some AfDs. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Ok, that was a pretty clear consensus. Done. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Kate Garvey renominated for deletion Courtesy notification: Since you closed the previous AfD discussion, notifying you that a new AfD discussion has commenced: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Garvey (2nd nomination). Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 23:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC) The person starting it has no edits outside of the previous AFD and some vandalism. . Suggest speedy close. Dream Focus 09:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Speedy close is right. Mark Arsten was absolutely right with his initial no consensus call. Kudos on being willing to wade into a controversial area Mark. NickCT (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC) You're welcome. It took some work but I was able to do it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Sockpuppet theater I saw that you declined my request to semi-protect Gus Fring. Each one of that person's edits was performed from a different IP, and no attempt at a discussion was made, other than via edit summaries. If they want to create an account and at least pretend to have minimal respect for their fellow editors, fine – but I believe that the appropriate measure for now is to semi-protect the article until they've done so. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC) There's nothing wrong with editing via IP, nor with having a dynamic IP. Keep in mind that IPs are human too. It was wrong of the IP to revert three times, but it was not vandalism either. Please review WP:NOT VANDALISM for details. It looks like the IP has tried to start a discussion on the talk page so I suggest you engage there (Talk:Gus Fring#Antagonist). In the future, please try to follow best practices for edit wars, WP:BRD. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Microsoft Tunisia Scandal I just saw this. In my view, the challenge was perfectly reasonable, and the only objection was to the identity of the challenger and the reason given. Were I to have notice the article independently, I'd have listed it for G10. To start with, have you any suggestions for a name change? With the present name, its in my opinion unrewritable, and, as you probably know, I am not in the least a friend to subject influence on articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Hmm, that's a good point. I moved the page and made a couple tweaks for neutrality. Let me know what you think. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Ok, I pruned it some more. I think it reads fairly neutral now. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC) yes, much improved.'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Flags of the Confederate States of America You earlier blocked user CountryboyCS for edit warring at Flags of the Confederate States of America. The edit warring has been resumed by the IP that is probably a sock puppet of this user. Any action you deem appropriate would be appreciated. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the note,  Done. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Deletion review for Kate Garvey An editor has asked for a deletion review of PAGE NAME. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bacon Avacado Burrito (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Sorry, this template was for the Deletion review on Kate Garvey, from 4 July 2013. I can't figure out how to use the template. Bacon Avacado Burrito (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Perceived Vandalism regarding the Jewish Bolshevism Article May I ask what you perceive as vandalism on that page? The edit warring I can see, but I don't see any vandalism. Does that prevent non auto-confirmed accounts from commenting in talk for the page? I submit that would be inappropriate. It seems to me that the IP accounts have been respectful, and I assure you that none are sock puppets of me. On the contrary, Galassi appears to have clearly violated the 3RR rule.John2510 (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC) What happened was I mistakenly semi-protected it with a "persistent vandalism" note but then realized my mistake and fully protected due to the edit warring. I suppose I should have left a note or made a null edit explaining my mistake. So no, I don't think there was any vandalism there. I don't believe that Galassi broke 3RR though, since the rule prohibits 4 reverts within 24 hours while his were spread out over several days (although that's still not an excuse to edit war, it just doesn't trigger an automatic block). The protection does not apply to the talk page, so anyone is free to comment there. Let me know if there are any more issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Fair enough. Thanks. I reread the 3RR rule and realize now that it's only the 4th that's prohibited. John2510 (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Deletion review for Fran Hauser Mark Arsten, it seems that you closed the deletion discussion of Fran Hauser and speedliy deleted it. I am asking you to undelete this page so I can further work in improving it. Can you please userfy this article? I'll keep working on it in my user space and will move it to production after the page will be reviewed by other fellow Wikipedians. Thank you very much. --agringaus 13:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC) -->Agringaus (talk) Ok, it's now userfied to User:Agringaus/Fran Hauser. Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you so much. I'll read the documentation on notability to see which resources I should add and how to prove that the article did not intend to be a promotion of any sort. --agringaus 07:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Deletion Review of [[Glenn Ballantyne]] Page Mark Arsten, I am very much interested in contributing to Wikipedia in the most concise and correct way possible. I am the author of a page about the Songwriter Glenn Ballantyne. The page was deleted so quickly, I didn't have time to edit or add references. May I have a chance to edit my work and possibly have the page restored? Mr. Ballantyne has written songs for The Brady Bunch, The Ovations, Nancy Wayne, Roger Williams and is currently working on a project with Bobby Hart, of Boyce and Hart (They wrote songs for The Monkees). As I am new to this, any information/feedback you can give will help me to continue to learn and hopefully make helpful contributions to this encyclopedia. Thanks for your time. --Epom33 (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Ok, I moved it to your userspace at User:Epom33/Glenn Ballantyne. When you're done working on it, you can apply at WP:DRV to have it moved back to mainspace. Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks, I'll get started on the edit! I appreciate the quick response.Epom33 (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Hey Hi Mark, I just wanted to clear something up with you. I have always understood that if you are an IP editor you cannot blank your talk page (especially warnings) as technically it doesn't belong to you as your IP could change and it could be assigned to someone else. Can you confirm/deny/berate me if this is incorrect please? I don't want to get in trouble over it in the future. Cheers. -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Hmm, looks like you're technically not supposed to do so: see WP:REMOVED. It is somewhat counter-intuitive, so I wouldn't worry too much about not knowing that. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Fair enough. Thank you :) MisterShiney ✉ 21:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Edit Yeti page Hello! Im new at Wikepedia.When I went to the page Yeti,I noticed that in the section Yetis in Film,it listed the film Monsters University. This is OK. However it listed the film as being made in 2012 which is incorrect. The page was semi-protected by you so I was hoping that you would edit this error Kind regards, Asmym xix (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Ok, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Request for protection review Hi, I was just hoping that you might be able to review my request for some temporary protection for the page Indonesian Navy. It is suffering a level of vandalism similar to the page Robots (film) which you approved a request for temporary protection. A variety of ip addresses keep changing the page to state that indonesia has the largest navy, when the evidence that I have collected and posted in the talk page suggests otherwise. The only other place that I could find this claim (besides various sites that have copied and pasted the complete wikipedia intro) is a fan page for the Indonesian navy. They have changed it 3 times without ever attempting to engage with my request for them to talk to me on the talk page about it, and all evidence suggests that it will continue. All the edits are coming from a variety of ip's based out of Germany, same provider ect.   Cheers for taking the time to consider this. The Australian Red Man (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC) It looks like an admin has declined your request for protection here. I suggest you discuss the matter with him on his talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Cheers for that mate. The Australian Red Man (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Can't stop Project A119 edit war Open your eyes, Mark. Blocking IPs is a dead-end. No pun intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.211.108.228 (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the heads up, I hadn't realized the protection expired. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds opened You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC) One more please See also THE PLEASERS, I also suggest a block for repeated copyright vio over 3 years and promotion onlyHell In A Bucket (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)  Done, let me know if they try any other variations. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Peru national football team, FA review Dear Mark, How have you been? The contributions you provided to Pisco Sour were well-thought and now the article is a FA (which will be showcased in July 15). I believe your suggestions were invaluable in its improvement. I was wondering if you could please take a minute to provide input at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru national football team/archive2. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Hey, good to hear from you. I might be able to get to that this week, no guarantees though. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Deletion review for Murder of Shaima Alawadi An editor has asked for a deletion review of Murder of Shaima Alawadi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC) I'll be watching with interest. You might want to notify User:Roscelese if you haven't already. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC) I have not, is that a requirement of DRV? If so I have not seen it, or is it more a courtesy?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Not a requirement, but I'm just curious what she'd say. She both created the article and nominated it for deletion, if memory serves. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Cory Monteith page protection Mark, is there any way to extend this protection to Finn Hudson, the article for Cory's role on Glee? The editing is already showing the same kind of issues that were causing problems on the actor's page before you protected it. Thanks for your consideration. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Looks like someone beat me too it. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Some bubble tea for you! For your great work here, specially on page protection. Thanks! Tolly4bolly 09:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC) You're welcome, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC) WARNING! Protection of "Chinatown, Manhattan" has failed! Your temporary protection of the "Chinatown, Manhattan" article (exp. July 14, 2013) against block evasives 173.63.176.93 and 66.108.119.85 has already failed. 173.63.176.93(actually a sockpuppet of blocked user Thmc1) immediately reverted 66.108.119.85's edit under username MazabukaBloke the day after protection was enacted. It should be duly noted that 173.63.176.93 is only used by Thmc1, who was blocked from editing on WP for sockpuppeting in 2010. There have been a total of 3 sockpuppet investigations against this user. The most recent investigation in 2012 concluded that 173.63.176.93 was, in fact, blocked user Thmc1. As a result, all known IPs and usernames were blocked, with the exception of 173.63.176.93(temporarily blocked). An examination of the logs will show that the kinds of edits and articles by both are are more or less identical, with a few slight discrepencies to throw off investigators. I strongly suggest that you permanently block IP 173.63.176.93, and, if possible, all associated usernames. This individual has already had plenty of warnings and sockpuppet investigations to warrant such action. A 4th sockpuppet investigation would be a farce. Why were there 3 to begin with, in the first place? Please refer to Thmc1's sockpuppet investigations log WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thmc1/Archive. MBaxter1 (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Hmm, thanks for the note. I disagree with you though, I think another trip to SPI might be a good idea. The last SPI investigation was almost a year ago, so having another one now may be warranted. Also, it would be a good idea to make a comment to MazabukaBloke with your concerns, even if it doesn't seem very helpful. I see User:Dennis Brown was active on the SPI, he might be a good admin to discuss this with if you need a second opinion. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Deletion of Delta Sigma Iota wiki page Hey I would like to appeal the deletion of the Delta Sigma Iota Fraternity Incorporated wiki page. We are a legitimate greek organization that has been accepted in many greek councils at our respective universities. Yes I admit that we are smaller than the rest, but we would like to still have a wiki page to share to the word what we do. If you could review the appeal that would be great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidhartha1894 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC) To restore the page I'd have to be satisfied that it meets our notability guidelines, WP:CLUB & WP:GNG. Can you offer evidence that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Beachwood New Jersey I reverted the edits prior to seeing your note. I can provide a legal document from the municipality as to its public domain status. I also find Alan's opinion to be closed minded and obstinate, and have actually discussed this with the town in question and they feel the history is an accurate and logical addition to their municipal page here and wish it permanently restored in original format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.129.134 (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC) As I have been unable to get a response at the user's talk page, I will respond here. Sorry, MA, to clog up your talk page. Even if the material is public domain it's not encyclopedic. As I've suggested numerous times, the material that has been inserted into the article is filled with trivial minutiae and needs to be drastically cut down and summarized, with a focus on significant events in the borough's history. Even if every anecdote and story is true, and even if every member of the Beachwood Borough Council votes in favor of a resolution supporting the text as is, the material focuses excessively on details that simply do not belong in an encyclopedia article. If the choice is all or nothing, the article is far better off without this lengthy screed. As I have suggested, the far better compromise option is to review the material and summarize it in your own words, compressing out about 90% of the material that has been repeatedly dumped into the article. Alansohn (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, I agree with Alan. Even if this isn't copyvio, we need consensus to add it. Not everything in the public domain belongs in an encyclopedia article. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Arbitration Committee Mailing List for Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case As you were the filing party, I feel that you should know this: due to several members of the Arbitration Committee recusing on the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case, the Committee is using an alternative mailing list at arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org. If you have any questions, please don't be hesitant to ask. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 11:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)== Matt Eliason Hi - Could you copy the deleted Matt Eliason article to my userspace please? Thanks. MikeOtown (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Ok, it's at User:MikeOtown/Matt Eliason now. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Coin Toss Since you protected this can you please remove the image as it violates WP:NFCC#9. Thanks. Werieth (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Good catch, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC) I have unreviewed a page you curated Hi, I'm Fylbecatulous. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Rosin Jolly, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Fylbecatulous talk 16:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Proposed deletion of Rosin Jolly Hello, Mark Arsten. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Rosin Jolly, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Rosin Jolly to be deleted, please add a reference to the article. If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page. Thanks, Fylbecatulous talk 16:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Check the page history, I didn't write the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC) "Faith Academy" Edit Rejection I would like to attest the rejection of my edit on the article for "Faith Academy". I have sadly been so unfortunate as to forget to add citation for the sources I used. Here is a list of my sources: Sources: http://www.4chan.org/ http://9gag.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.232.197 (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Sorry, but 13chag isn't a reliable source. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Infoboxes ArbCom case opened You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 17:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Undelete Matt Kalinski Could you please undelete the article Matt Kalinski. Since his discovery Trojan wave packet is notable he is notable. It does not matter if he is or not tied currently to academia. It is occasional that the discoverers become notable despite their discoveries were done under their PhD supervisors. Other examples are Ising model of Ernst Ising who discovered it in his PhD under Wilhelm Lenz and Rudolf Mössbauer who discovered his effect under Heinz Maier-Leibnitz. Also the fact that he was deported from the United States in 2007 has absolutely nothing to do for the lack of importance of his discovery worldwide. I only proves that US became totalitarian and unfriendly to immigrants and foreigners as a result of Islamic terrorism. Mattedia (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Sorry, but there was a strong consensus at the Afd that Kalinski did not meet our guidelines. You'll have to apply at WP:DRV to try to get the deletion overturned. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC) deletion of page 'Rosin Jolly' Hey I would like to appeal the deletion of the 'Rosin Jolly' wiki page. Don't know why this page getting deleted. She is an actress and is a genuine one. Yes I admit that she is a beginner in the film industry but a famous one because of the reality show she doing.I would like to have a wiki page, will you please explain what to do next to keep this page alive. If you could review the appeal that would be great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otnaesehgrav (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Have you reviewed the WP:NACTOR guidelines? Can you provide evidence (in the form of reliable sources) that she meets them? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC) kindly go through this references Active contestant of Malayalam TV reality show 'Malayalee House'aired on Surya TV check Rosin Jolly profile. Rosin Jolly emerges the charmer in the ‘Malayali House’ malayalee house in news Her Malayalm movies are track, hero, Annum Innum Ennum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otnaesehgrav (talk • contribs) 04:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC) I don't think I will restore the page by myself. But you can still apply at WP:DRV to have the deletion overturned if you like. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC) deletion of page Jesse Ronson Hey I would like to appeal the deletion of the Jesse Ronson wiki page, I truly don't understand why this page is getting deleted he Mixed martial arts fighter and is a current MMA World Champion holding the AFC Lightweight Champion fighting for Aggression Fighting Championship he fights on network television on TSN2 in Canada and is a top ranked fighter in Canada he is ranked number 2 as the top lightweight in North American. what to do next to keep this page Active If you could review my appeal I would really appreciate it greatly. JMichael22 (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Have you reviewed the WP:NMMA guidelines? Can you provide evidence (in the form of reliable sources) that she meets them? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Admin's Barnstar Thank you for bringing a very necessary case to arbitration. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks. Filing Arbcom cases isn't fun, but it's sometimes necessary. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC) trayvon martin edit warring User_talk:26oo is continuing to edit war on the exact same content you page protected the article for. Please address. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC) A. you only have to tell me once. B. I've left another warning on his talk page. I'll watch the page to see if disruption continues. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC) mea culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa! I was getting database locked, please retry! I thought it wasn't getting posted, so I was retrying! abject apologies. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC) No worries, it's kind of funny now that I think about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC) He just did it again, adding the same thing in that everyone on the talk page was against having in there, and then after I reverted him he put it back in yet again. Please stop him from adding that nonsense back in when everyone else is against having it. Dream Focus 17:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Just beat me to it! Added it twice more today! Gaijin42 (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Huh, I thought my warning to him yesterday would be enough. Well, he's blocked now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Regarding vandalism I recently posted a message on the wikipedia help desk, about nefarious editing of a user. Though the matter got resolved for the time being, yet now i see that my help plea has disappeared from the page. Could you please tell why it must have been deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anami6ka (talk • contribs) 07:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC) I think the messages are automatically removed after a few days. I very seldom visit the help desk though. When dealing with "nefarious" editing, you might consider posting to WP:ANI though. Usually that will get a quick response from admins. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Mark Arsten. You have new messages at Benfold's talk page. Message added 18:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Benfold (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Locked? Hi there, I noticed that you just blocked Michael Jadson (name is chosen probably because of its closeness to MJ), could you also LOCKED it? Don't want to risk letting the clown to go to other wikis to create more deliberate confusion. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Are you talking about globally locking the account? If so, I can't do that. You'd have to talk to a steward, I think. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Can you speak to one to lock it? As a SysOp, you carry more weight than I do. :) --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC) I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the global locking standards, so I don't think I'll get involved further. Sorry! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Oh alright, I'll just go find one to talk to. Wish me luck~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Fate/stay night scenarios article -- put in my user space? Hey, Mark. I just saw that this article was deleted back in April 2012: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fate/stay night scenarios (2nd nomination). I remember the article being useful to me, especially as someone who had never played the Fate/stay night visual novels, and had only watched the anime (still have not played any of the games). And I'm sure it was useful to others as well. I want to know if you wouldn't mind restoring this article, but in my user space (a subpage, of course). I may be able to create a decent article out of it (whenever I get around to doing that). Flyer22 (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC) I see a copy of it here, and there are very likely more WP:MIRROR copies, but I'm not sure how up-to-date it/they are. Flyer22 (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Sure, not a problem. I've just userfied it to User:Flyer22/Fate/stay night scenarios. Let me know if you need anything else. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Disruptive edits warning missuse IP User 114.164.113.153 added a warning to my talk page that was missused, as he did with multiple rollbackers that got sucked into his edit war. Can this warning be removed?TRL (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, you can remove any warnings from you page, actually, whether they're warranted or not. Especially so in this case. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks for clarification. Did not to remove hastily. --TRL (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Italian resistance movement Hi, the article right now contains some neo-Nazi bullshit inserted by Daufer (who is blocked) and it needs to be removed. It's the both claims credited to Frank Collin ("Frank Joseph"). Thanks. --Niemti (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Block evasion You recently blocked User: 114.164.113.153 for edit warring, he has recently been edit warring via IP hopping at Ghostface Killah, and like I suspected he was back at the page via User: 114.164.140.103 under the 24 hour block period. A range block seems to be appropriate. If you want proof see the talk page, as he responded there making it pretty clear that it is the same person. Thank you. STATic message me! 02:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC) And now that Ghostface Killah was protected because his block evasion he is trolling my edits and reverting them for improper reasons. See and . I honestly do not know what to do and it is really pissing me off. STATic message me! 03:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Hmm, a range block might be the best thing to do here. I'd ask about it at ANI. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Do I really have to go through ANI for it? If he comes back again I might have to do that. STATic message me! 04:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC) No, you don't have to. You could ask any active admin with expertise in range blocks. To be honest, I've never done one, so I probably can't be of any more help. I just figured ANI would be a good place to find a more knowledgeable admin. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Considering you are one, do you know any off the top of your head? Now that he is going to "114...." and "118...." I do not know if it is even possible. I am just crossing my fingers he gave up for the time being. (Watch me wake up tomorrow and every edit I made today been reverted by this vandal-.-). STATic message me! 04:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC) I think the best thing to do would be to go to the list of active rangeblocks and ask some of the admins who have most recently imposed them (which I guess would be the bottom of the list/higher numbers). Mark Arsten (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC) A user had mentioned in the James Pants AfD that the sockmaster behind the IP is banned user User:Cvlwr. If this is true we might have a bigger problem than I thought. But he is back at 118.6.203.31 so if you could give that a block too. STATic message me! 22:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC) I just asked another admin about a rangeblock. In the meantime, I guess we'll just WP:RBI. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the help, I will drop a message here if he comes back again considering you understand the scenario. STATic message me! 23:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Catlvr6969 Don't know where else to put this, but the name stuck out at me, as sounding awfully familiar. The account could be a tribute to an ancient (predating Wiki) USENET troll, generally known as cattlovrr or some variant. Roughly the same MO as this one. Insult anyone, everyone, everything, persisting indefinitely. Even mentioning the connection is probably as helpful as sticking beans up my nose, but if they weren't using a proxy; might be worth checking for sleepers?--R.S. Peale (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Hmm, that is very interesting, thanks for mentioning it. You'd have to talk to a checkuser though about the sleeper check, I can't do that. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC) I mentioned you in... I've mentioned your name a few times here, and at least once in a less than positive way, so it is only fair to point to the discussion.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the note, I appreciate when people tell me that I'm being discussed. I also welcome feedback about my admin actions, and considering the negative feedback I've received about the block you mentioned, I have no plans to do anything like that again. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Frankly, I still don't get it. I barely know you (sorry, but that may be a good thing, I tend to be aware of the, uh, more colorful contributors). I do see you have an enviable unopposed RfA, which made the decision all the more inexplicable. I wish SG would stop hinting that you should apologize, it would be better if you did it without prompting. I think it is unfair to you that this incident may be the one thing I know about you, so I'll endeavor to pay more attention.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, I'll take this as a sign that I should do a better job explaining my actions in the future. I believe my record is pretty good overall, just a few mistakes in the past year, I think. Well, I hope we see each other around more often. I'm always surprised how many long-term users, and even admins, there are that I'm barely familiar with. Most of the time I do stay out of the spotlight, I'm mostly active at Afd and Rfpp lately--not much controversy there. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC) That may explain it. While I agree with the importance of AfD and RfPP, I've decided to allocate my admin work to CP issues. Every once in a while, I feel guilty about not doing more at AfD or RfPP, and pop in, but I haven't done much there.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC) That's good though, CP is a very valuable area! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC) (watching) If you don't know another editor, you may want to find out why he is precious ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks Gerda, I appreciate it :) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Azerbaijani people Hi Mark, 'Oghuz Turks', 'Ethnic groups in the Middle East', 'West Asian people' category must be removed from Azerbaijanis page.There are already 'Turkic peoples' category in tHe page for Oghuz Turkic and I will add 'Ethnic groups in the Middle' East to 'Iranian Azerbaijanis page',because Northern Azerbaijan(Azerbaijan Republic) is not Middle East region,Caucasus is Eurasian. Hami232 (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC) I don't know much about this subject, so I'm afraid I can't be of any more help. I suggest you try to form a consensus about the issue on the article's talk page. Or perhaps pursue dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Savannah Smith Boucher Given the nature of the situation (persistent blanking by a person who was claiming "identity theft" on behalf of a purported relative), I'm uncertain as to whether I'd feel comfortable unprotecting it at this time. I won't object if you or another administrator feels comfortable doing so, but I don't think I'm at the point of being willing to do the deed myself yet. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Interesting, I didn't realize that was why it was protected. I see now that a user was making that comment on a couple Boucher articles. I vaguely remember seeing something about this now. Odd situation, but I guess I won't pursue it further if it might be controversial. Thanks for the help. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Virginia Heffernan I'm having trouble with this page. I know you locked it a couple of days ago because of edit warring, so I'm hoping you can give me some advice. This writer's piece on Creationism is philosophical. Many editors (and many commenters and many readers) have interpreted the piece very literally. But there have been some who've come to her defense (and I've cited them) and elaborated on the issue by saying it was controversial and linking to those who defended her and those who criticized her. I've also added biographical information, which has been deleted twice. I feel like this is unfair to this writer, and I know I seem outnumbered, but this is wrong. What can I do? --bsnyd 00:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briannasnyder83 (talk • contribs) Hmm, there are a couple places you could go to get more feedback on the issue. There's the biographies noticeboard, WP:BLPN, where they watch out for unfair coverage of living people. I'd try that first. There's also the dispute noticeboard, WP:DRN, which could also be helpful. Good luck, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks protecting Mujaddid Dear Mark, thank you for protecting the page Mujaddid against anti-ahmadiyya abuses/vandalism. BTW I am sure you would need to extend the protection beyond 29 July. The section had been under abuse since 2009 (if you would go through the talk page. Be well. --Drali1954 (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Ok, let me know if disruption continues after the protection expires and I'll re-add the protection for a much longer period. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Blocking over BBC page Mark, I really think you're 3rr blocking of me was not fair. I followed all required steps, In so much as I posted supporting evidence and attempted to seek a resolution by posting on the talk page of the user in question. As such it's unfair that despite me following the requested steps, you blocked me from the site for a 24 hour period, yet took no action against the other user. If Wikipedia is to continue to be the success that it has been to date, abusing people making a minor edit to a page (With supporting evidence) that is both proportionate, in context and not offensive is unfair. Ultimately I do understand that you wish to to protect and preserve wikipedia as a source of information for future users, but you don't achieve this by becoming the thought police and attempting to edit out mild criticism of an organisation or individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.155.125 (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Hi IP, thanks for your comments. In this case, you were blocked because you violated the "three revert rule" (WP:3RR). None of the other editors involved broke this rule. You were blocked for edit warring, not for the content of your insertions. Even when an editor is inserting valuable information, they may still be blocked for edit warring if they keep reverting and refuse to discuss disagreements. In this case, a user attempted to convince you to discuss the matter instead of continually reverting, and your failure to do so resulted in the block. In the future, please discuss disagreements on talk pages instead of continually reverting, and you won't be blocked in the future. Let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Mark, thanks for taking the time to come back. I wanted to just make a couple of points, firstly I reverted an auto change (bot) and sent through a note explaining why. Then then one user TRLOVEJOY, decided to revert me. I went onto his talk page and commented, did not revert again. He then came back and I provided evidence, I then reverted it as it was obvious my point was supported. He then reverted me, I went onto the admin forum he created and commented about the reversion. But In fact he did not move the chat across to the article talk page, until after he had me blocked. So as such his version of events was both dishonest and unfair, I attempted to discuss this but he simply undertook to lie and have me blocked. I feel I did all I could to engage and the edit war was one sided, i.e the other side! How do I complain about this action? Wikipedia should not be abused in such a way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.155.125 (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Have you tried talking to the user? You might be able to reach an understanding with him. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC) I wrote on his talk page at the time, he then without responding basically had me blocked! He then moved the discussion onto the article talk page after he had you block me. So basically, I abide by the rules and try to discuss, he keeps reverting me and then I get blocked! I understand you have a task to undertake, but he did mislead you and is just as guilty as I am. So as such I would ask that you give him a warning also, as otherwise it's just simply allowing the system to be abused. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.155.125 (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Texas Hold'em King Why was this page considered biased? It simply stated facts about the release date and platforms it is on. Thanks and let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.Magmic (talk • contribs) 18:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Well, it seemed to me like you were using promotional language to try to get people to buy the product. Like when you wrote: Enjoy a tight, fast paced and immersive 6 player table experience  Get free chips every day to keep the fun flowing! Create you own table and invite buddies with BBM or NFC!  In encyclopedia articles about products, we try to neutrally state the facts about something. Using "Enjoy a ..." or "Create your own ..." and using exclamation points seems like you're trying to advertise this. Stating facts is ok, as long as you use reliable sources (WP:RS). You may also wish to review our conflict of interest guidelines (WP:COI). Let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC) On the dispute Hello, Last Sunday you locked the page Azerbaijani People and said to try to discuss it on the talk page. The 3 days are almost over now, but there has been almost no discussion going on the talk page; I only got a single response by one user. And the two users whom I reported didn't even participate at all. The dispute has actually been going on for over a month with a few different users, but the same problem keeps on occurring after every report. This is that halfway the discussion the other party ceases to discuss (like now) or does not go against all my arguments, whether it is on the talk page or on the DRN. I think it would therefore be fair if the description would be changed to the original for now. And that the other party should start a discussion and defend himself if they disagree with the change, instead that I have to continuously do it while the other party ceases the discussion half way. Or perhaps you have other advice to give me? Thank you. Verdia25 (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC) That's a tough situation. But if someone is refusing to discuss the matter and keeps on disrupting the article, you could ask for a topic ban or other sanctions for that user at WP:ANI. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC) Free! Hello. It's been slightly more than two weeks since you semi-protected Free! - Iwatobi Swim Club for three month. Since it's been two weeks, would it be a good idea to (at least temporarily) downgrade it to pending changes at this point, or when the one-month mark has passsed? If vandalism picks up, the article can always be re-protected. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC) Ok, I've downgraded the protection to pending changes. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Peru National Merit Award The Peru Barnstar of National Merit Per the guidelines of Wikiproject Peru, and for the major copy-editing work done at the articles Pisco Sour and Peru national football team, you are hereby awarded Peru's National Merit Barnstar. Congratulations!--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Although Peru's nft candidacy has not yet received much support votes as of this message, your contributions to it will certainly be of great help. Thank you, Mark.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the award! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC) re: Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion If you'll recall, a week ago you declined to block Xenophrenic or issue a topic ban, after he violated 1RR article probation and the page was fully protected by ArbCom member SilkTork. Instead, you issued a final warning. Since then, Xenophrenic has been the lone dissenting "vote" on two different editing proposals (the "vote" is either 4-1 or 5-1 on both), and we now have a stalemate. We have a non-admin moderator who has recognized consensus on one of the edits. If Xenophrenic had been topic-banned a week ago, the "vote" would be unanimous and this would not be happening. The page is affected by community sanctions and you, as an admin, are authorized to issue blocks and topic bans as you see fit. Please visit the Moderated Discussion page linked in this section header, and review Xenophrenic's recent contributions to the discussion. Then please take whatever action you feel is appropriate. When you gave him a final warning, you trusted him to accept that final warning in good faith, and control his behavior. Our Moderator, C678 ("Cyberpower"), could certainly use your help. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Ok, I'll try to check it out tomorrow. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Naik Foundation Hi. about an year or sometime ago, we created an article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naik_Foundation) and it was deleted due to lack of reference - this article was moderated by yourself. Currently we have got more reference in the internet and we believe that this article would be more significant then the last time. Please would you have a look at it approve? http://www.mid-day.com/news/2013/apr/220413-19000-teachers-to-benefit-from-vipassana-course.htm http://www.amchaghar.org/news.html http://anandwan.in/pdf/mss-quarterly-apr10.pdf http://ngo.india.gov.in/ngo/naikmiddaymeal.pdf http://164.100.47.5:8080/members/Website/quest.asp?qref=159234 http://mdm.nic.in/Files/Review/Reports/2011/Final%20Report%20Review%20Mission-Maharastra.pdf http://facebook.com/naikfoundation.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkuKHwetV6Q Ramsubhash123 tc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.75.83.63 (talk) 07:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Hi, to have the article restored, you'll have to apply at WP:DRV. Make sure you provide solid references for them (WP:RS). Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Ten Minute Podcast Hey, you were the admin that deleted Ten Minute Podcast after an AfD was held. I was going to start an article on it today after discovering several reviews and awards covering the subject but noticed it was previously deleted. Could you restore that copy to my userspace so as to keep previous contributions in place? Beerest355 Talk 02:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Ok, I've userfied it for you. It's now located at User:Beerest355/Ten Minute Podcast. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Negative national stereotypes in CoH2 Why did you deleted all information about uproar, evoked by the game in Russia and other countries? What does it mean "delete; talk page discussion first" - if there is a talk page discussion? This information was about point of view, expressed in review articles, popular blogs and petitions with thousands of supporters! You are mistaken, I didn't delete any information from the article. I simply locked the article so it couldn't be edited for a few days to give everyone a chance to weigh in on the changes. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the full protect. Azarov repeated his "why-did-you-delete-this-wahwahwah" rant on my talk page. Some people don't get it and they think a full protect is overboard.--Eaglestorm (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you, dear Mark Arsten, sorry for misunderstanding. Now observation of controversy in the game looks objective and make me feel proud for Wikipedia.Konstantin.V.Azarov (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC) HAES "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." The edit made to the Healthy At Every Size page was: "Note: This Wikipedia entry contains only biased information in favor of HAES, which is a program preaching that it's "healthy" to weigh anything, including in excess of 500lbs. This is by no means true. Please consult your doctor on issues of weight, not internet groups dedicated to making everyone feel good regardless of the truth." This edit did not compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, add irrelevant obscenities or crude humor, blank a page, and was not nonsense. Whether you like and agree with me, what I added to the page does not fit the definition of vandalism given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zshadez (talk • contribs) 01:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Well, thanks for your concern about our accuracy. I've deleted most of the page in question after you brought my attention to it. Usually when I see people add disclaimers to articles like "Warning: This article is wrong". I treat it as vandalism, but in this case you may have been right. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Sgt Reckless Did you delete this page that I created? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Just briefly, for a WP:HISTORYMERGE. It's history should now be viewable at Sergeant Reckless, where it redirects to. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Please restore it. A page should not be deleted without discussion & using the proper procedure. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC) You misunderstand me: the page hasn't been deleted. It has simply been moved from Sgt Reckless to Sergeant Reckless. Everything else should still be there. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)If it If it was moved, then why doesn't it list my edit as the first one, when I launched the article? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Your creation of the article is still there, just not the first edit anymore. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Because it was deleted, not moved. The Sergeant Reckless in that article was for a different horse. Please restore my original Sgt Reckless article. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Oh, then I may have really messed things up. User:Froggerlaura or User:PumpkinSky, can you confirm that the two horses are different? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC) It's the same horse. But FieldMarine did create the first article. The draft in my sandbox was an expansion. When the article history was moved from my sandbox, it included every edit I made to the sandbox since 2010, which aren't even about this article. Froggerlaura ribbit 02:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Oh, then that definitely was my mistake. I think I can move some of those back to your userspace if you want. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Sergeant Reckless has nothing to do with British racing, what are you doing FM? PumpkinSky talk 02:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Exactly - that is why I placed the info on the warhorse Sgt. Reckless back to the orginal article created in 2012. Sgt Reckless is the name of the warhorse, not Sergeant Reckless, which is a race horse. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC) You do realize you just contradicted yourself? Sergeant Reckless, the version you put in place, doesn't even mention "reckless", it's a racing article. And prove it's Sgt. not Sergeant.PumpkinSky talk 02:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC) The racehorse is far less notable and both should be named properly. I suggest a DAB: Sergeant Reckless may refer to: Sergeant Reckless (racehorse) or Sergeant Recklesws (warhorse). Will that work? Montanabw(talk) 02:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC) What Reckless racehorse? The version FM put in is a racing article and doesn't mention the word "reckless" PumpkinSky talk 02:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC) It really looks like your version "Sgt Reckless" and the "Sergeant Reckless" PumpkinSky and Froggerlaura were writing about are the same horse. The only question now would be which title is best for the article. That should be solved by a move request though. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC) The article I wrote in 2012 was on Sgt Reckless, the USMC warhorse. Her name is Sgt. Reckless according to the artcles I have in the Leatherneck Magazine. Just look on the name printed on the horse turnout in the picture. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC) (AKA Jarhead) It is the same horse, but I can't even find a British horse of that name and why would racing results be put in that doesn't even mention a reckless? That I simply do not understand. If there were a notable enough horse of that name, Montanabw's idea would make sense. As for Sgt. vs Sergeant, Sgt. is just an abbreviation and should be spelled out. She officially held the rank and the rank is Sergeant, not Sgt. Actually, since she was promoted to Staff Sergeant....but no one calls her that. Let's say you're a Gunny. You're really a Gunnery Sergeant, not a GySgt. And I still want to know what the British racing has to do with all this.PumpkinSky talk 03:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC) I think some of the confusion stems from when the history of my sandbox overwrote the history of the Sgt reckless article when it was moved (previously made the City and Suburban article in that sandbox). Mark Arsten has since corrected the history. I'm fine with Reckless (warhorse). Froggerlaura ribbit 15:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC) You have a point about the abbreviation. However, I have always seen it as Sgt Reckless in the articles written about the warhorse, not Sergeant. As far as the British racing piece, I suggest you ask the editor who created the later Sergeant Reckless article (before the Sgt Reckless info was moved into the Sergeant Reckless article). Not sure who did that. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC) To be honest, I think Reckless (horse) might be the most accurate title. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC) The British horse is a National Hunt horse that has only won 2 minor races . That horse is formally called "Sgt Reckless". So if the racehorse becomes notable, the Sgt Reckless page would have to be disambiguated anyway. Froggerlaura ribbit 05:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Before I discovered Frogger's version, my draft was called "Reckless (warhorse)". I just used the name she used. Articles probably abbreviate it because that's what people normally do, abbreviate ranks....they'll use BySgt vice Gunnery Sergeant, Capt vice Captain, etc. Also, since the minor racehorse is formally Sgt., he should get that name if he's ever notable. I'm ok with "Reckless (warhorse)" if other's are. Glad we're talking this out. PumpkinSky talk 10:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Can you please protect this page: Penn Jillette? Vandalism happening from several IPs, cluebot isn't picking up on all of it. Thanks! DJAMP4444 (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)  Done Mark Arsten (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC) re: Multifactor authentication page The page "Multifactor authentication" has had a section related to virtual token forms of MFA for several years. MrOllie and Vipersnake have been engaged in a "promotion by censorship" campaign against this page for more than a year, attempting to censor pertinent forms of multifactor authentication under the guise of "not properly sourced" or "promotional". The specific section they object to, referencing a type of MFA called virtual token MFA, does not refer to any specific vendor, nor does it promote any specific vendor product. There are numerous vendors who describe their approach to MFA as "virtual token", just as there are many vendors offering "soft token" and "hardware token" forms of MFA. The section is properly sourced and pertinent to this page. This is not anything new. The editors of this page have included virtual token forms of MFA on this page for years. I suspect that Mr. Ollie and/or Vipersnake have their own agenda for wishing to censor other forms of MFA. Perhaps they support vendors who do not happen to offer virtual token forms of MFA? In any case, the information is pertinent to this page, properly sourced, and does not promote any specific vendor nor product. Please remove the block and revert this content. Thank you. MesaBoy77 (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Hmm, that's an interesting situation. Maybe you could go to WP:3O for advice? Or maybe try WP:NPOVN? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks You turned a blind eye to my use of rollback in edit warring against a fresh, undomesticated, aggressive user. I expected so. Do you recommend me to comply with the policy in such circumstances? Did I make a wrong choice? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC) To be honest, I hadn't noticed that you were using rollback. It's always best to use an edit summary unless it's blatantly obvious vandalism though. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the intervention on the second amendment article It's getting a lot ridiculous lately. Granted, the article lede is a mess and the entire article could use a re-write, but that is what sandboxes are for, as I suggested in the talk page. The only thing edit warring does is make me wish for deletion of the entire mess!Wzrd1 (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Ivan Tomičić Hi! It's about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Tomi%C4%8Di%C4%87 Tomičić has made his debut in a fully pro league recently (proof: http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/hnk-hajduk-split_hnk-rijeka/index/spielbericht_2326127.html )... so please reinstate the article and I'll update it :). Zlopseto (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Ok, done. As this was a deletion by WP:PROD it could automatically be restored. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Greetings, Mark Arsten. Thanks for protecting Second Amendment to the United States Constitution for three days. At this point that's a good idea. Note however that the article is already undergoing Dispute Resolution, at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. (If you reply here, I will see what you say.) — Mudwater (Talk) 21:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Page protection Hey again Mark, I noticed you recently protected Future and I am wondering why you only protected it for a week, when the last protection was for a month, and that only ended a week or so ago. A view of the page history shows how much vandalism this BLP sees, and it would be better to have a longer term protection. STATic message me! 17:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Good catch, fixed. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks! STATic message me! 17:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Reckless Mark, an FYI that I nominated Sergeant Reckless for DYK on behalf of its lead editors. Because it is a 5x expansion moved from a sandbox, the edit history may not be clear that it's less than five days old. You may want to watchlist the DYK nom Template:Did you know nominations/Sergeant Reckless and alert the reviewer to the admin work you did with the move, the name issue and the merge. Thanks Montanabw(talk) 00:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC) One can always count on a horse-aholic!PumpkinSky talk 00:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Not me! Neigh! Montanabw(talk) 18:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Italian resistance movement Hi, any chance you could protect the above - you previously protected, then un-protected the article and it now appears that it is having the same problems again. Thanks Denisarona (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC) It looks like the user disrupting the article has been blocked, so protection is probably not necessary here. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC) American Masters spam Hi Mark, I noticed that you recently blocked user American Masters for having an unsuitable name. The user was also posting external links to American Masters articles, for example, this one about Charlie Parker. Another user, AMintern has shown up and is posting American Masters links again. Here's one for Charlie Parker. PBS spam and sockpuppetry? I've never heard of such a thing! Seriously though, should these edits be reverted? It's PBS. We allow external links to IMDb and that's a commercial site. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Hmm, that is interesting. I think I blocked that account on a username violation, the spam issue is more tricky since the links are somewhat useful. First thing to do though would be to advise them of the WP:COI rules, at least. I'll think about this. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC) It's so weird, because it's PBS! They've given so much! </whine> Please let me know if I can do anything to help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC) So I guess this means my taxes are funding sockpuppetry now :) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC) I guess they got them all: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AmMasters. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Oh wow. Well, I guess that's that. A pleasure doing business with you, sir! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Same here, let me know if you run into any similar users in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Heads up One of your AfD closes is up for DRV here. All the best—S Marshall T/C 18:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks, looks like he forgot to notify me. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Yeah I having issues, wasn't showing up properly.92.18.33.11 (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC) No prob. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Jade Bailey Just to let you know, I didn't see much wrong with your actions. If anything it was probably brave to redirect as most wanted to delete. However general notability i.e something with secondary sources apparently triumphs any project notability guidelines (trust me I've tried to remove things and have failed because of this general nota trumping everything else). But I don't blame you, that's the short comings of others and as you say first week en all probably thought here's a straight forward one. So if I were you I wouldn't take comments personally on the AFD, as my intention is not against you, if anyone suggests that again. It's against the two users who seem to think that 4 appearances for the biggest women's team and an FA Cup win is insufficient for an article and are insisting that we have this process which we shouldn't have as you redirected it rather than deleted it.92.18.33.11 (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the note, no offense taken. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Sergeant Reckless work I am now done with my major work on this article. I really enjoyed it and hope you do too. PumpkinSky talk 01:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Glad to hear that you enjoyed it! Good work on that, impressive transformation. Might be a good article candidate soon? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you. You think it's that good?PumpkinSky talk 09:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, I think it would have a good shot at passing the GA criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Christopher Worley Hello, I'm Christopher Worley. My page of mine was deleted by you and i was wondering if you can help me out so that it doesn't get deleted again. I really want this page so that people can look me up. All I want is for people to find what they want to know about me. I also wanted to add my YouTube content in it like Toby Turner and Shane Dawson. Can you please help me? Hi, the best way to make sure that your article is not deleted is to ensure that you meet our notability guidelines (WP:N). If you do, you'll have to add reliable sources to the article to demonstrate that (WP:RS). You might not be notable by our definition though, so in that case you'll have to wait a while to recreate the article (WP:TOOSOON). Also note that we generally advise against writing an article about oneself (WP:COI). Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the WP:RELIST Discussion on the issue is most welcome. Eventually the realities of digital look-alikes are going to need to be taken into serious consideration and account in legal science and legistlation must be put in place to minimize negative effects. I edit wikipedia to inform people of digital look-alikes so the longer I can keep the deletionist tendencies of the deletionists at bay it's all for good. Am I supposed to or supposed to not to vote keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital look-alike i.e. do I look good or stupid respectively if I go an vote 'keep' and write elaborate reasonings. Cheers. --Redress perhaps (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Hi, you are free to !vote on the matter. It's good to note that you were the creator in your comment. You will look good if you offer a well reasoned argument supported by reliable sources (WP:RS). See also: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Good luck! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Happy Adminship Happy Adminship from the Birthday Committee Wishing Mark Arsten/Archive the fourth a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! -- BenisonPBaby 14:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Wow, it has been a year. How time flies! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Apr to Jun 2013 Milhist content reviewing  Military history reviewers' award  By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Apr-Jun 2013, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space ANI thread Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding abuse, censorship. Thank you. —Jerappelle (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Southwest Airlines Flight 345 Somebody has made it into a redirect. I G4d it and maybe you'd like to delete it again....William 16:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker) A redirect is fine, does nobody any harm, and helps our readers find what information remains about that flight. Why would you seek to delete it? Is it "substantially identical to the deleted version"? No it is not. So it's not a credible speedy deletion target. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, I agree with Rambling Man. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/The Coral Island/archive1 Mark, why was this deleted? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC) See your talkpage Drmies. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)I saw it was tagged as a G8 deletion, which didn't make sense to me. It did qualify for G7 though, since one person created it and then blanked it, so I deleted it that way. I assumed the tagger mis-clicked. I guess I can restore it if you'd like though. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Gotcha. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC) No prob, anytime. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC) I Have Some Real Concerns Hi Mark, I have some real concerns. I fear the Sikh and some India related articles are being hijacked by Sikh Militants and pro-Indian Government factions. These factions are polar opposites and are re-enacting a media battle on wikipedia. If you go through my lists of warnings I have issued in my history, you will find the mainlist of protagonists. Some are very eloquent like JDiala, some have WP:Competence issues like Jujhar Pannu. It's getting to the stage where all I seem to be doing is patrolling, tagging converting. Correcting articles ruined by people with WP:Competence issues etc. Have you any advice, apart froma large dose of valium? :) Thanks SH 17:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Indian articles are tough... a lot of people run into problems there. I suppose you could try asking for help on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Have you talked to User:Sitush? He does a lot of work in that topic area and might be able to help you more than I can. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Mark, I am more a consumer of SH's experience in Sikh matters than an adviser or fellow-traveller. A lot of the sources are non-English or, at best, difficult for me to obtain, and the subject area is pretty arcane even by the standards of WP's India coverage. Without having been prompted by SH, I have become ware that Jujhar Pannu might be a problematic contributor but, really, unless the WMF are going to dole out some serious cash so that I have sources to work off, there is unlikely to be much that I can do here - I'm spending enough money sorting out caste stuff as it is without delving into a whole new belief system. From my general observations I think that SH is correct in their summary - media battle etc - but, alas, this is likely to be a niche area even among niche areas. It is most unfortunate. All I can offer is a willingness to assist where I can and when asked. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Poor Sitush get's as much if not more grief than me. I suppose i'l just have to soldier on and hope we can attract better Wikipedian here. Thanks SH 13:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC) I have a lot of respect for you guys... I wish you got more support. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Katia Elizarova Hi, Mark, I blocked the registered account and the IP (as far as I know, there was only one) for edit warring at this article based on a report at WP:AN3. I was unaware of the report at WP:RFPP. I don't think protection is required now. I'll leave it up to you, though, whether to remove it. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, I'll unprotect. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks, Mark, let's hope there aren't any IPs lurking out there attached to the same individual. Of course, protection (probably semi) can always be reapplied if needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Copyvio/protection issue at Aam Aadmi Party Hi Mark, given that you semi'd Aam Aadmi Party and I've just reverted a reinstatement of precisely the same disputed content, I think it politic at least to let you know that I have done that thing. My revert is here and follows a request for a self-revert made several hours ago. Also in the spirit of open-ness, myself and the user who reinstated - Tall.kanna (talk · contribs) - do have a bit of history concerning this article: you will see some of it if you are prepared to trawl through the talk page. In any event, my primary defence is the copyright issue and the fact that Tall.kanna is aware of it both from the article talk page and from comment on Commons that pre-dates their reinstatement of the image and merely reiterates stuff that has already been queried on the article talk page. If I have stepped over the 3RR bright line by making that revert then please accept my apologies. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC) No problem, I think your edit falls under the 3RR exemption for copyvio issues. I just left a message for the user, hopefully he won't edit war over it. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Ok and thanks for looking into it as an uninvolved admin. This and other Indian politics articles are likely to get very messy over the next few months because there are state elections later this year, national elections next year. Some Indian politicians have now latched on to the power of the web and (I think) just how much even a small proportion of a > 1 billion population can tweak Wikipedia. Not that this particular instance is likely to be a tweaking exercise: it is a new party borne out of a populist protest movement and thus as likely to attract the naive contributor as the committed pov-pusher. - Sitush (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Indefinite logarithm It would be a good idea to re-instate the "indefinite logarithm" article. The deletion is based on very weak arguments (quibbling, actually). The term is useful, and many other articles point to it, which makes the deletion very counterproductive. I'll be off-line for 2 weeks, not able to respond during that period. Boute (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Sorry, but there was a pretty firm consensus for deletion in that discussion. If you'd like to have it overturned, you'll have to apply at WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Page Remover! >:( — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoshiNoKaabii2000 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC) (Redacted) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC) They also posted on my talk page after I nominated a page they created for speedy deletion.--Forward Unto Dawn 11:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC) I've redacted some discussion and comments here - everyone, please remember that Wikipedia is not the place to discuss personal details of yourself or others, whether real or speculative. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Wow, looks like I slept through some interesting stuff... It's not every day I wake up to a half dozen oversighted edits on my talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, I must accept some responsibility for that; I apologise.--Forward Unto Dawn 09:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Can you keep an eye on this guy? Hi Mark, That unregistered user, 122.144.64.116, you blocked about two weeks ago for edit warring on Tubod, Surigao del Norte is back again and continuing to insert original research into the article. If this user violates WP:3RR, can you ban him/her from any and all future edits to this article? They've already been blocked twice for this reason. Regards, --Forward Unto Dawn 11:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Blocked for one week, hopefully this will get the point across to him/her. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks. If that user resumes their insertion of original research and subsequently resumes an edit war, would an article ban be appropriate or should I request semi-protection for that article?--Forward Unto Dawn 09:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC) I'd say go for protection if it returns as a different IP, otherwise we can just block him again. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Request for userfication That retains article history right ? I have a recent backups of the text for obvious reasons but it'd be preferable for you to undelete the article to my namespace so I can work on it while I find valid sources for the term digital look-alike ( e.g. like this Scientific American article ). --Redress perhaps (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Alright, I've moved the page and its history to User:Redress perhaps/Digital look-alike. Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks. Will work on finding sources like the one in the Scientific American and also work on the article. One thing I haven't mentioned is the digital look-alike of Arnold Schwarzennegger in Terminator Salvation but some sources complain that it does not look convincing. --Redress perhaps (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Sounds pretty interesting, hope it goes well. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Azana Spa shootings Can you elaborate on your close of this AfD please ? Specificity how those !voting keep addressed the articles adherence to the WP:NOT policy and the WP:NEVENT guideline. LGA talkedits 20:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC) I closed it as Keep because I thought there was a consensus to do so. I'd only throw out !votes if they were totally non-policy based. In this case, the people who supported keeping the article cited amount of coverage (some of it from international outlets). This lines up with Wikipedia:Notability (events), which indicates that international coverage can help indicate notability. Now, you certainly can disagree with their appraisal of the coverage, but in this case I think it would be wrong of me to dismiss their !votes. If you disagree, feel free to take the matter to WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC) I am not suggesting that they be throw out, just that the relative weight of them should be taken into account, for example none of the !vote keeps addressed at all the lack of any lasting effects or significance either in the article or with relation to sources this is a major thrust of the WP:NEVENT guideline and the WP:NOTNEWS policy. Also none of them address the souring is totally limited to news reports published in the 48 hours proceeding the event again another major part of the WP:NEVENT guideline. LGA talkedits 21:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC) I suppose they were somewhat weak. I've changed the close to "no consensus" accordingly. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you, I will add the Notability|events maintenance template on to the article and explain my reasons on the Talk page. LGA talkedits 21:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Persistant disruptive edits on articles labeled "LGBT People from Italy" Three months ago, the same user began to make systematic disruptive edits from different computers on Benvenuto Cellini, Poliziano, Torquato Tasso and Lucio Dalla among others. The different IPs used by this person, probably Guido Lonchile (talk · contribs), are, for the more recent ones : 217.203.129.136 (talk · contribs), 95.74.248.0 (talk · contribs) and 109.52.145.74 (talk · contribs) for Torquato Tasso 217.203.139.73 (talk · contribs), 95.75.19.58 (talk · contribs)and 109.52.145.74 (talk · contribs) for Benvenuto Cellini 95.74.240.181 (talk · contribs), 217.203.139.73 (talk · contribs), 109.54.162.138 (talk · contribs) and B. River (talk · contribs), specifically created on this purpose for Poliziano. Isn't it possible to block that person or to protect these articles ? Frimoussou (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Hi, thanks for being so thorough. It is definitely possible to protect these articles, I think they've all been semi-protected for a while actually. Blocking the IPs might be a little difficult, but we might be able to get them rangeblocked. I'd have to check with someone who knows rangeblocks better than I do. Hopefully someone will the the ANI report you filed on the topic. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC) There's a bit of an ongoing problem with Lucio Dalla, and I'm not sure what to do about it, beyond just not reverting the most recent edit because it clearly has become an edit war. I think it's pretty clear that the consensus is that Guido Lonchile (talk · contribs) is wrong about this one - and the sources are pretty clear on the subject of Dalla's sexuality. Any advice, please? Pinkbeast (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC) I just blocked for edit warring. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Back again 24h later. I really don't know what to do about this. On the face of it I'm edit warring too... but as far as I can see, the consensus of every other contributor is that the page should say, well, what the sources say. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC) My advice is to take it to ANI. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC) IP socks Strong evidence of sockpuppetry and block evasion between 67.53.53.26 and 24.43.201.210 (and possibly more). I'm notifying Jehochman as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Interesting, it looks like 67* is blocked. 24* might qualify for a block too. His comment on the talk page of Snowden's article wasn't vandalism per se, but wasn't really understandable either. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC) And 24* was blocked temporarily as well, for making death threats. The blocking admin wrote that he/she didn't block indef because it was a dynamic IP... which in hindsight is evidently not true, based on 24*'s continuing editing under the same address. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Vandalism of article, Norse dwarves Not sure what to do. An editor, Bloodofox, has a history of nonscholarly POV extremism, and has been doing vandalism to wikipedia for years now. It seems that - without any permission or consensus - Bloodofox has destroyed the extensive history and scholarly citations in the “Norse dwarves” article by “moving” it to his own new POV-extreme article “Dwarf (Norse mythology)”. Again, this is after a history of Bloodofox dealing damage to the Norse dwarves article, and apparently failing recently to gain a consensus to “merge” - thus destroy the article - into Dwarf (Germanic). If someone knows how to repair the damage that Bloodofox has done, please, do so. To save the accumulation of academic citations. Please restore the “Norse dwarves” article to before Bloodofox “moved” it. Haldrik (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC) First of all, while his edits may or may not be misguided, they're not vandalism, per see. Vandalism has a very specific definition. But, if you disagree with his edits, the first thing to do is to explain why on the article's talk page. Then, you can possibly open an request for comment or go to another stage of dispute resolution where you'll get more input from other users. The important things to keep in mind are what reliable sources say and to be civil/not edit war. Let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Bloodofox has destroyed an entire article - and its history - and its years of content - by “moving” it. Without discussion. Without consensus. And with other editors continually needing to undo his vandalism. It is vandalism. I dont know how to recover the article that Bloodofox has destroyed. Haldrik (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC) No, he didn't destroy the article, he just moved it. The history is visible at Dwarf (Norse mythology) now, I believe. If you think it should be moved back to the old title, you should file a requested move. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC) No. The original article is Norse dwarves. But its history is now gone. Everything before the “move” is gone. The content has been destroyed. If you know how to restore it the history that existed in Norse dwarves before Bloodofox moved it. Please. Do so. Haldrik (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC) I'm a bit confused, I think the old history is present at the new title. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Ok. Your information was helpful. I was able to restore the content. But unable to undo the name change. Haldrik (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC) To change the name, you'll have to file a move request (WP:RM). And I strongly suggest you discuss the matter before restoring content. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Note that when Haldrik says "with other editors continually needing to undo his vandalism" he seems to refer to himself as an anonymous IP: Nobody else has and the talk page is full of complaints about Haldrik's preferred personal essay. Anda also just reverted Soap (talk · contribs)'s reversion to that essay status (). How many warnings and reverts does this guy get in a day? :bloodofox: (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC) However many he's used at this point, he's just about run out. I've left a warning for him to stop edit warring and will block if he reverts again. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC) I'm having a hard time imagining this possible fight between an ox and a bunch of dwarves (or dwarfs). Do the dwarves (or dwarfs) know that they don't exist? Drmies (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Hmm, but if you think you don't exist, doesn't that mean you do exist? Or are dwarves the exception to that rule? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC) A kitten for you! But doesn't the cute little kitten make your cold heart sing? :D An0nym0us7r011 (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC) It sure does. But I will block you unless you stop vandalizing. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Aww, all I ever wanted to do was edit Wikipedia... (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Well, you're free to do so... but please no more jokes. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Okayyy... is there a page which is free to edit however you like and if not, may I make it? :) (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Sure, if you start User:An0nym0us7r011/Sandbox you can write almost anything you want there. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Alright, thanks!! (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC) The user above has been blocked and it seems like User: John Arsten is now a sockpuppet of theirs. See the page history of An0nym0us7r011 talk page. STATic message me! 17:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the note... hopefully that wasn't a relative ;) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Warangal Hi Mark, thanks for semi-protecting Warangal. If you glance at the lead of Telangana then you'll note that the proposed new state is unlikely to happen for several months and that there is a history of reneged government promises. This separatist fight has been going on for 40 years or more now. It is for that reason that I thought pending changes might be more suitable than an outright block of anon edits. I didn't explain that very well at RFPP, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, I can switch to pending changes then. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Great, thanks. That is the first time I've requested PC - I'll try to make a better fist of it if when it happens again. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Clemente Hi Mark, I work for Francesco Clemente, would you be kind enough to leave the Wiki as it is ? It was written by a Clemente expert and approved by him. If you have any questions, please feel free to write me an email: [removed] Thank you for your consideration. Ricardo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.182.52.245 (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC) I've just posted on your talk page. We tend to discourage people from writing about people they work for, per WP:COI. The best thing you can do is propose changes on the talk page instead of directly editing the article. I recommend registering an account and asking for help, possibly at the WP:Teahouse. Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Help on Bangladesh Thank you to protect the page Bangladesh. I also request you to revert the following edit by 203.112.78.5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangladesh&diff=567406226&oldid=567398100) as a Vandalism, removing and corrupting the information on Bangladesh. I request you to revert this edit done by 203.112.78.5. Thank you বিজয় চক্রবর্তী (Bijoy Chokroborti) ✉ 16:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that edits qualifies as vandalism per our definition, WP:Vandalism. I'm otherwise not supposed to revert to a particular version of the page after protecting it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Outing; deletion needed I just removed this material, which probably needs revdel and an email to Oversight. Asking you because you've been putting lots of work into Special:Log/delete in the last hour. 2001:18E8:2:1020:A5A9:6E82:BFCB:13A0 (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, I think I got it. Thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks! I guess it's not exactly outing, but is a block needed for the poster, 95.170.203.130? Can't remember what we do in this kind of case. 2001:18E8:2:1020:A5A9:6E82:BFCB:13A0 (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC) I just left him a warning, but I probably won't block unless he does something like that again though. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Longest word Hello, I noticed you undid one of my recent contributions to the "Longest word" article. The edit itself is not unconstructive. I can guarentee that as a native speaker and the text I pasted in the entry can be found in dictionaries. I will search for full source. 89.164.233.235 (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Well, sorry about that then. You'll forgive me for thinking it was vandalism, I hope. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Danny Davis Graft Scandal Here is my source: http://www.suntimes.com/21767105-761/2-chicago-men-charged-with-illegally-lobbying-for-mugabe.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.82.210 (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, but you have to cite the source in the article per our verifiability rules. See WP:Citing sources for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Hi I replied on the talk page. It does conform to MoS so can you self revert? Edgth (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for coming to the talk page. I'll look it over tomorrow and get back to you on this. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC) It´s a pretty simple edit, I don´t know what needs to be looked over. Edgth (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Perhaps that your rationale may be faulty? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Impossible. Edgth (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I'm kind of occupied with some other things at the moment, and this is far from an urgent issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC) August 2013 Hi i'm Coyote wadi to watching userboxes of GMA Network had to watching for this WayKurat. (talk) 03:38 7 August 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean here. Could you rephrase your comment? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Also, I'd prefer if you didn't add userboxes to my user page, since they may not be accurate of me. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Sachin_Dev_Duggal Dear Mark, Someone in my team alerted me to the discussion around the article that was listed for deletion about myself. I wanted to find out if you needed any further material information to make a conclusion. Naturally I'd be happier if it was kept however in order to standardize I'm happy to submit additional information as needed. I have kept off the deletion page itself to avoid any unnecessary confrontation; however keep in mind that wikipedia is global in nature and whats important to a US audience, an Indian Audience and an UK based crowd will be different; a large portion of the work I do is speak and schools / colleges about entrepreneurship and "thinking differently" - the wikipedia entry serves as a good place for the students to get neutral information (I must admit I'm a little surprised as how its been put together - benefits of crowd-sourcing I guess). Finally - one of the folks on the page opted to make judgement calls about our previous businesses or about the patents issued - I think we should naturally focus on the article and not make remarks intended at anyones achievements or not. It's not friendly nor the right contextual ambience for the open-free-digitally open economy. All the best Sachin [removed] should you need to reach back to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.32.177 (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Hi Sachin, thanks for your message. We do prefer that people with connections to the article not cast a keep or delete opinion on the page (or edit it directly), so thanks for not doing that. You are allowed to offer potential sources that might indicate notability though. If you have examples of non-trivial coverage in newspapers, magazines, or books (see WP:RS for what we look for) you can post them on the Afd discussion for participants to review (disclosing your WP:COI, of course). That would probably be the best thing to do to help the article be kept. Admins try not to close based on their personal opinion of the article's notability, but instead to reflect the consensus that participants in the article have reached. Any admin can close the discussion, so it may not be me that closes it (although I do close a lot of them). Let me know if you have any more questions, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Chittagong Hill Tracts Conflict Hi, just a heads-up, I proposed a course of action to solve the move/merge brouhaha at Talk:Chittagong Hill Tracts Conflict, but wouldn't of course want to to act without your input, you being the last admin to apply protection on the issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC) I replied there, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Merge request Since you did so well on the Sergeant Reckless merge, can you merge User:Wehwalt/sherwood into Grace Sherwood? Thank you. PumpkinSky talk 00:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Sure, I'll take a stab at it. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, I think it's done now. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Hang on a tick... didn't actually mean to have my sandbox deleted; I was trying to test out a possible VE bug/quirk related to speedy templates. Undelete, please? Thanks for the quick action, though! Ignatzmice•talk 02:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC) LOL, sorry about that! I'll restore it. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks! Ignatzmice•talk 02:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Cardiff West services Hi. Just wondered why you closed this article's AfD as "no consensus" last week? The "delete" votes were all based one a one paragraph unsourced stub, before I expanded it, at which point, every subsequent vote was "Keep". The only person who explicitly restated their position was Sionk, who went from "speedy delete" to "not sure". Obviously NC and Keep look the same from the reader's point of view, but my main concern is a NC result might tempt somebody to send it back to AfD again. What do you think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC) That's a good question, and the answer is tricky. I usually weight !votes by their grounding in policy. Evaluating them based on the condition of the article at the time they were cast is difficult unless they return to the discussion at a later point. It's hard to guess whether they would have changed their minds or not. In this case, I expect a renomination wouldn't go very well since the article has been improved. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Aaqib Wikia Can you please join this wiki link --216.54.100.70 (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure. What's the wiki about? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ASU Politehnica Timişoara Your close of this AFD appears to have been reverted, here. I've asked the editor for clarification, but wanted you to have the heads up as well. FYI. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Defensor San Alejandro Hi. (I think) I PROD'd Defensor San Alejandro but failed to realize it competes in the Peruvian Second Division, a professional league and by WP:FOOTY's guidelines, notable. --MicroX (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, so you'd like me to restore it? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC) ASU Politehnica Timişoara Unfortunately I cannot edit on WP:DRV. This redirect is incorect. There are tow teams fighting for the legacy of FC Politehnica Timișoara, populary known as Poli Timișoara: thew one with the deleted page and ACS Poli Timișoara. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acornboy (talk • contribs) 14:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC) My advice would be to open a discussion at WP:RFD then. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC) History merge request Dear Mark: You helped me out yesterday with a history merge, so I thought I would see if you could do another. This article: Brough Family Organization was cut from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brough Family Organization, but then the article creator blanked the page without explaining why, and some reverting happened. I wonder if it is possible and appropriate to merge only the part of the history up to the cut and paste date. The rest is just people trying to fix what they thought was vandalism. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC) I learned how to do these histmerges a couple weeks ago, and I'm glad to have a chance to get some more practice in. So, sure, I think I can handle this one. I'll just selectively undelete the revisions at the end. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, I gave it a shot. How did I do? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks, that's great! And it reduced the backlog of Afc articles with missing templates by one - only 817 left to go... Since you are in the mood, here's one that's really messed up: a couple of people worked on this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chagos Marine Protected Area, and then one user decided to move it to mainspace, but the title already existed, so after some messing around, the redirect text was deleted and the content from the above article copied over to the existing article name, Chagos Marine Protected Area. Can you do anything with this? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Sounds interesting, I'll try to get to it later. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, I think I took care of it. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks again. We get a lot of new users trying random stuff. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Deletion of Steve Allison and Gregg Blasingame You deleted two articles: Steve Allison and Gregg Blasingame. The articles were proposed for deletion based on the criteria that neither man played in a professional sports league, in this case the first Major Indoor Soccer League (MISL). When I provided sources (New York Times, LA Times, Colin Jose, David Litterer, Roger Allaway and Steve Holroyd) showing MISL was a professional league, other editors dismissed these sources as unreliable. Yet they provided NO sources to back up their claims. I even added this LA Times article mentioning Blasingame, a 1988 MISL All Star on a team with a a $1.275 million salary cap. To say I am flabbergased these articles were deleted based on unsupported opinion is an understatement. You can view some of the sources I provided showing the professional nature of the MISL: WT:FPL. Mohrflies (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Is there a consensus at the football Wikiproject that it was a fully pro league? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC) No, and that has me stumped. The first time someone mentioned this issue, I threw a couple of sources their way only to be told they weren't good enough. I've done quite a bit more digging and I came across this 1982 New York Times article which seems to be pretty conclusive to me: "Minimum salaries were increased to $2,000 a month." Using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics , that gives us a monthly minimum salary equivalent to $4,800 today for every player in the league. Major League Soccer guarantees a minimum annual salary of $46,500 which comes to $3,875 per month. So, if MLS is "fully" professional, how can a league which paid its players almost a thousand more per month be "semi" professional? It just doesn't correlate. Mohrflies (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, I'm going to wait until the Wikiproject has come to a consensus before I take action. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zenryoku Gu Shōjo!! Action!! I'm not sure there is much point in relisting this, given that it appears that the anime series concerned is actually going to be called Zetsumetsu Kigu Shōjo Amazing Twins - and an article for that has already been created. I'd have thought a delete per WP:IAR/'self-evident non-existence' might be more appropriate... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Oh, I was confused here, I thought both articles were up for deletion. I can redirect it then. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Such wow Hi Mark. You edit my page again and I will cut you. so wow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.13.144 (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Perhaps you should spend your time contributing somewhere else instead of Wikipedia? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Apollo Talk Hi Mark. Please extend the semi-protection of the Apollo 10 Talk to all Apollo Talk pages. An IP hopping, block evading vandal keeps adding the same German conspiracy spam to all of them. Thanks, Yintan  19:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, I think I took care of all of them. Let me know if he comes back when the protections expire. We might want to consider a range block though, but I'm not sure if it would be feasible in this case. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks. I think a range block is not such a bad idea. Guys like this are usually pretty stubborn. We'll see. Yintan  19:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC) I'm very much a novice at rangeblocks, but any of these folks could probably help. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC) I've been looking at the range but it is so wide (here are just two) that it would basically block every Deutsche Telekom dial-up IP. Which would shut out many, many German editors. O, how I love the brilliant idea of allowing anonymous IP editing on WP. Sigh. Anyway, let's hope the protection helps. Thanks again. Yintan  19:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Yeah, the addition of 93.202* is the problem, I think. He seems to be the only one editing from the 93.23* range, but blocking that might not stop him. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Hi Mark, thank you for the semi-protection of Apollo 10-17 Talk pages. Please do the same thing with Apollo 7, 8 and 9. Thanks Susanne Walter (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, I think I got them all now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC) User:Tranquil Pepere Any chance you are willing to impose a topic ban on User:Tranquil Pepere? This is starting to get a bit tiresome... It seems he has also been blocked on the French Wikipedia for basically the same behaviour . —Ruud 08:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC) I don't think I can unilaterally impose a topic ban here, but if you go to WP:ANI I suspect you'd gain consensus for one rather quickly. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 Hello again . Thanks for protecting the article. One request: could you revert to my latest revision? That's the one a consensus was reached about, regarding the infobox. (See also the 'Reverting?' discussion on my Talk, and this RfC). Thanks, Yintan  15:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC) I'm hesitant to revert to a particular version for fear of seeming like I'm "picking a side" in this dispute, sorry! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Okay, fair enough. BTW, I haven't picked a side either, I just followed the RfC. That war itself is irrelevant to me. Yintan  15:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC) On Second thought, it probably is best to restore the version that the Rfc supported. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC) I think so too but I can't do that. By the way, the discussion has been moved from my Talk to the article's Talk, should you wish to read some more before/if reverting. Cheers, Yintan  20:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Kon Wapos Lodge There is no citation for the edit I made to the Bay Lakes Council page because there is no citation existing. I was a voting member at the Merger meeting when we decided details about the lodge- including the number. Alex Derr, the current Awase Lodge Chief, along with Rudy Mosca, current Ag-Im Lodge Chief, said that there will be no number for Kon Wapos Lodge because the lodges would like to come in on equal footing. Yours in Scouting, Preston Podolske Manakua Chapter Chief Awase Lodge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.222.13 (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC) We do require citations to be added to support facts though. See our WP:OR guideline for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Derrick Jensen Hello, I noticed you reverted my edit to this page. I replaced it, including several new citations, despite the fact that i was mostly rewording for clarity that which had been documented in the footnotes already present. I also rephrased a sentence which was making a very dubious assertion that was neither cited nor capable of being cited (paraphrased: "most feminists believe Derrick Jensen [a relatively obscure author, even within the feminist community] is transphobic"). While it would be impossible for me to provide a citation proving that this statement is absurd, it would be equally impossible to prove it is in any way accurate. I had reworded the sentence, going into more detail, and now I have added 2 more citations which express both sides of the issue. I hope these changes are now satisfactory. Feel free to remove my changes again, but either way, the aforementioned statement ("Most feminists...") is a blatant exaggeration, is unverifiable, and is part of a concerted effort to publicly and libelously discredit this person, and should definitely not be restored. Thanks! Painted raven (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, as long as the sentence is clear and supported by reliable sources (WP:RS) I probably won't have a problem with it. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Banc de Binary libel Hi Mark. The page protection you put on Banc de Binary protects edits made by Rybec that libel our company. Specifically, Banc de Binary does not have an F rating with the BBB. It has no rating. I respectfully request that you revert Rybec's edits and block him, Hobbes Goodyear, and MrOllie-- who added and supported those edits--from editing the page. Libel is an actionable offense in the United States. http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/45a.html Is anyone looking at what these people are doing on Wikipedia? They are a huge legal liability for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.75.179 (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, a few things: 1. for legal issues, please contact the WMF's legal department instead of individual admins like myself. Note that we don't allow people to edit while they're pursuing legal actions. 2. for content-dispute issues, you want to post on the article's talk page with you concerns: Talk:Banc De Binary. You'll have the most success if you explain how the article doesn't line up with what reliable sources say. We generally don't allow people to edit article's about their company, but if you disclose your ties on the talk page you're free to make recommendations. 3. I don't see anything about the BBB or an F-rating on the current version of the article, so I can't help you unless you're more specific about what you object to. Let me know if you have any more questions. If you're going to be editing regularly, I highly recommend registering an account. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC) T-REX Helicopter Can you undelete the information? Or can you put this in its place? http://www.rcheliwiki.com/Align_T-Rex_450 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-Rex_%28RC_helicopter%29#T-Rex_450 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.137.2.50 (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Since there was a consensus to delete the article during the deletion discussion, I can't just restore the article. To have it restored, you'll have to apply at WP:DRV. Let me know if you have any questions, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC) IP range 108.128 and sexual orientation Hey, Mark. With regard to this matter concerning the Heterosexuality article, you told me, "Let me know if it shows up elsewhere and I'll look into a range block." Well, the IP range has now showed up at the Sexual orientation article; see here, here, here and here, or just click on the edit history, for details. And since sexual orientation is a contentious topic and there is currently a pedophile matter (for example, see here) going on at that article, it might be best to give the article long-term or indefinite semi-protection anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC) And given what the IP asserts about heterosexuality/homosexuality, at least now I have a better understanding as to why he or she was removing the sexual orientation aspect at the Heterosexuality article; to that editor, sexuality expressed between people of the opposite sex is the only natural type of sexual orientation-based sexual expression. Flyer22 (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I agree, this is a high-enough profile article that continued disruption is more or less inevitable. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Looks like the same user has been hitting a bunch of articles, so I guess we'll just keep our eyes open. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Indeed. I also watch and occasionally edit the Janice Dickinson and Adolescence articles, and, from the link you provided above, I see that the same person may have edited those articles as well (the Janice Dickinson article needs a lot more work than the latter, though). Flyer22 (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC) To be honest, sometimes I wonder if you have all 4 million pages on the wiki watchlisted... I can't tell you how many times I see you reverting vandalism when looking at page histories! Mark Arsten (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC) LOL!! Yes, you've told me before...albeit with different words. Flyer22 (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Oh yes, I forgot I said that. Well, we need all the help we can get some days! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Looks like a sock to me. Hey Mark, recently User: Weeman666 begun randomly blanking articles such as 2009 in hip hop music, 2012 in hip hop music, 2011 in hip hop music as you can see here, then after a final warning from me at 23:48 on August 5, 2013, he ceases editing. Then next morning User: Sntayhts94 is created and continues doing the same thing here, here, and here. Not to mention the only other article Sntayhts94 edits besides the 20-- in hip hop music articles, is Point Grey Pictures an article Weeman666 just recently created. Looks like a pretty clear case of WP:DUCK to me. STATic message me! 23:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, sock-blocked the new account. I'm not the the old one qualifies for a vandalism only or edit warring block though, so I guess just keep your eyes open going forwards. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Alright thanks, the master account has received a final warning, and if he vandalizes again he will be blocked anyways. STATic message me! 00:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC) I recently ran into User: Thatproducer adding himself to the article Almost Home (Kid Ink EP) such as with this edit. At my talk page he claims to have produced the song, even though no reliable sources mention him. Then just the following day User: ActualFactual1 who has not edited in 8 months (with only a few edits prior) adds the same unverified content. Nowhere in the past has anyone IP or otherwize ever added this producer in. I can tell it might not necessarily be a sock, but definitely some meat puppetry. I do not know if you think one of the accounts should be blocked, or what. Thoughts? STATic message me! 17:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, does look like WP:MEAT. Just make sure to warn each account first and then if they keep it up blocking may be in order. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Fondant You cannot needlessly advertise one company's 'Fondant' products. This is an encyclopedia not a commercial website. Please rectify the source immediately; there are many other fondant companies out there in the market. As it is, the information cited to that source does not reveal anything factual about 'Fondant' as fondant recipes differ from company to company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.154.211.108 (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC) I think I understand what you were doing now. You are free to remove advertising sources, but please use an edit summary ({{WP:EDITSUMMARY]]) to explain your changes. Repeatedly removing the references section makes it look like you're vandalizing. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Mughal and Maratha. Hey, first off I want to thank you on the protection log you put on the page List of wars involving India but I want to know the reason to why it is also on Mughal Empire and Maratha Empire pages?? Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC) I protected those two pages because there was edit warring over the inclusion of Nepal. Please try to work towards a consensus on the talk page before adding or removing it again. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC) I have tried to resolve the issue by providing proof that parts of Nepal were part of these empires but the person who keeps removing it won't accept it and besides Nepal was put in the page before I even knew about the page. So don't you think that Nepal should be included in the pages until someone provides evidence that it shouldn't? Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC) I'd suggest that you stop reverting and hold an WP:RFC on the talk page to get more input from other editors. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Okay I will do that thank you very much Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you! The Admin's Barnstar I just wanted to say thank you for taking care of those tagged articles. It's greatly appreciated! Ishdarian 17:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC) My pleasure, it's fun to tackle a backlog like that. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Disruptive editing and edit warring by user:Chaipau Hello, as per your directions, we go through dispute resolution on Kamapitha, after consensus reached, user Chaipau again indulge in edit warring here. Please encourage him to accept DR process.Thanks भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, I'll try to look into it later. Just try to practice WP:BRD for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Unlike BB's claim, no consensus has been reached. BB submitted the issue to WP:RSN after I asked him to do so (diff). The only objection to Gait came from user:Sitush, who associated Gait with another British officer and provided a blanket objection to all writings by British officers (diff). I have provided evidence that Gait has been quoted by other respected historians in recent times, and precisely on this very issue. Sitush has since neutralized his objection and that any consensus would now be acceptable to him diff). Chaipau (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Inspite of two RSN recommendations, User:Chaipau is in no mood to comply. Please, intervene and resolve the issue once for all, by enforcing RSN recommendations. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Perhaps you should consider having a talk page WP:RFC to get a clear consensus on it? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC) There is a talk page RfC on (Talk:Kamapitha#RfC:_Should_one_definition_of_the_boundary_override_all_others.3F). Chaipau (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Great minds think alike, I guess :) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Brad Friedel Hi Mark, Thanks for stepping in to sort this. I thought the others who had commented were Admins so my mistake in trying to be helpful if in trying to help I overstepped the mark. Some advice please. As the IP will not engage despite being asked and encouraged by me to do several times now how do I proceed? I was hoping by the way they were claiming knowledge they might Share to provide some new insight into how things have moved on and so they could help to find a more recent article to provide a more up to date version of events. However, it is clear they do not want to participate in any dialogue anywhere or collaborate on improving the article. Moreover it occurred to me from the nature of their subsequent edit summaries that the IP was possibly closely connected to the subject of the article and was just set on wiping away the event from the record. As there are several alternative sources out there many of which are in the US that do not just regurgitate the Mirror article but record the basic facts relating to the case one of these could be used. So is it in order whilst the protection is in place for me to try and provide an RS for this brief event and add in a new sentence that meets NPOV replacing the currently deleted sentance and citation? Tmol42 (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC) I think the best thing to do while it is protected is to get the best sources together, write out a proposal on the talk page, and then get feedback about whether it's unproblematic BLP-wise. Again, the IP was definitely disruptive, but it's worth paying attention to his concerns regardless. Let me know if there are any more issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks, some sound advice. I have found a source from the New York Times and have posted this plus some proposed text based on this at Talk:Brad Friedel. I have notified and invited the folk involved in the Noticeboard discussion to visit and comment. Cheers, for now at least. Tmol42 (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Quick question In your highly regarded opinion, does this edit justify reversion per (Personal attack removed)? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC) I don't think it's sufficient to merit the rpa template, no, but that doesn't mean it's Ok to say either. I'd have to look into it further to be able to say more. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Okay, so maybe not the template, but is it alright to revert it based on the fact that it does not pertain to content and only disparages an editor? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC) I wouldn't revert it quite yet, just object to it and then save the diff in case you have to bring him to ANI or something. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Is there any way to get this account CUed based an obvious fail of the duck test? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Most likely, but you'd probably have to file an WP:SPI to get an CU on it. If it's blatant enough I block based on the duck test, but it has to be really obvious for that. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 Mr. Mark thanks for protecting the article. But this edit was not justified. The view was not endorsed in the RfC. The RfC was only concerned with US, not with other countries. THe RfC's reslut clearly explains that. I have opted for further discussion at the article's talk. Faizan 06:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Hi, see my response a couple sections down. But so I understand: you think the removal of the US from the infobox was justified but the other countries should stay? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Bangladesh Liberation War User Faizan has launched an edit war again over the most ridiculous issues. Can we have your opinion on the matter.--Bazaan (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC) My opinion is that you should be careful not to edit war or breach 3RR, so you'll have clean hands if you have to report anyone else for doing so. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Unprotection-2013 Teen Choice Awards Now that the event is over, can we get protection lifted early? --72.64.251.152 (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Sure,  Done Mark Arsten (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Hello Hello, on this page Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 you had made the last edit by referring to the Rfc, well i would like to let you know, that the Rfc was only meant for Bangladesh Liberation War, which is different part of conflict than Indo-pakistan war. The other guy started editing every page which would be related to India - pakistan war of 1971, which would be his own misunderstanding. So kindly revert your last edit back, as per it's requested in the talk page, you can have a look at it. Thanks Capitals00 (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC) It was my understanding that the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 was essentially part of the Bangladesh Liberation War and was thus covered by the Rfc. I normally wouldn't have reverted like that, but it seemed like an attempt to game the system by pushing for the same rejected change on a similar page. It seems like your request on the talk page doesn't quite have consensus yet, so I'll hold off on reverting for now. If you'd like to get another opinion from an uninvolved admin that would be fine with me too. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Semi PP at Electronic cigarette Hi Mark, I saw you semi PP'd Electronic cigarette, but don't understand why. There's definitely a lot of back and forth happening at this article but almost none of it is coming from IPs or non-autoconfirmed users--I see only two IP edits in the past 2 days/100 edits, and all the rest of the edits have come from well-established editors. Can you pls drop a note at the article Talk page explaining the action? (Did you mean to full-protect it? That wouldn't be a terrible idea, honestly...) Thanks. Zad68 18:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Well, going back a week or so there have been a few problematic IP edits, one a day or so. That usually meets my standards for when to semi. It's hard to find them since there have been a high number of autoconfirmed edits, basically I didn't want any IP vandalism getting overlooked since the edit rate was so high. I was on the fence about whether to full protect it, I might still do so... I'll keep watching and if more reverts pop up I'll full protect it. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Also, I'm worried about protecting the wrong version. Usually I don't worry about that, but I'd hate to freeze a high-visibility article it with junk science in place etc. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Sounds reasonable, thanks for the explanation! And, definitely, please keep an eye on it, it's undergoing an uncomfortably high level of churn. Zad68 19:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Will do, sounds like a pretty interesting top. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Template:Palestinian elections Hello Mark. Thanks for protecting this template and requesting that BRD is adhered to on talk, but unfortunately it's now locked on the version that is a BRD violation, which could potentially lead to problems when the protection expires. Could you restore the stable version? Thanks, Number 57 19:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC) I'm generally hesitant to revert to a preferred version unless it's been endorsed by an Rfc or some broad consensus. I don't think I'm comfortable doing so in this case. Sorry! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC) The problem is, that if there is no forthcoming consensus on the talk page, then I will simply revert back to the stable version as soon as the protection expires to ensure BRD is adhered to. And like I said, you're asking for Wickey-nl to apply BRD, but effectively sanction his blatant disregard (3 reverts after being bold) for it. Number 57 19:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC) I see what you're saying, but I generally want to see consensus on the talk page before going to the "right" version. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC) And if there is no consensus? What seems to be the message here is that if you keep edit warring long enough, articles will be locked on the version of the transgressor - I purposefully gave up reverting and asked for protection because I wanted it to stop. Number 57 20:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, but keep in mind you can report consistent edit warriors to WP:AN3. You might also ask for input from a relevant Wikiproject. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC) I did report him to AN3, but the report been ignored for almost six hours now. Number 57 20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC) If you want, you can ask for a second opinion from an uninvolved admin. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks, I have done. I understand where you are coming from re WP:Wrong Version, but I just can't reconcile telling editors to follow BRD but then allowing the BRD violating version to stand. It's not as if there isn't a stable version of the template - it's been almost unchanged for 11 months. Number 57 20:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Now the protection has expired, I have restored the version that was stable for almost a uear. Wickey-nl had not discussed nor even responded on the talk page. I am currently on holiday but it would be appreciated if ypu could monitor the situation and stop him edit warring further. Thanks, Number 57 21:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks! (History merge on Russell Hobbs Inc) Thanks for merging the above article history. All the best! Ubcule (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC) No problem, let me know if you run into any similar situations. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC) your semi-protection of Electronic cigarette just fyi, this doesn't really do anything for ratcheting down the disruptive editing, since all the parties are autoconfirmed themselves. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 23:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC) See my response to Zad above for my perspective. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC) User:Bhaskarbhagawati BB has been removing referenced texts in Kamapitha (diff)and Kamarupa Pithas (diff). BB does not like Sircar because he does not agree with what Sircar says, and so he is removing all the references in these pages. As you very well know, the issue of Sircar is under discussion at Talk:Kamapitha#Article_protected. Chaipau (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC) I have already addressed the concern in talk Kamapitha. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 04:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Time-challenged Time-challenged ought to by undeleted. I could not find better sources, so according to Wikipedia's written policies, the sources were good enough and the writing was also. Also, the article gives the opportunity for the word Time-challenged to show up in an objective place from an internet search. Without it, it might only show up in time-management ads, which are wrong. --Truexper (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry, but there was a pretty clear consensus in the deletion discussion. To have it overturned, you'll have to apply at WP:DRV. Let me know if you have more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC) ACS Poli Timişoara This is the correct version, you added protection to wrong version with abbreviations and without the city name. Example: Poli is the name and Timişoara is the city name, it's like change the of page Manchester United in "United FC". I waiting you message, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.216.199 (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Is there a consensus on the article's talk page to prefer one particular version? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Acornboy is the fan of that team. Poli Timişoara is the correct name, and no another team used this name ever, it was only a nickname used ilegal by FC Timişoara, In England for example exist three teams from Sheffield and three name on template is Sheffield for Sheffield F.C., Sheffield United for Sheffield United F.C. and Sheffield Wednesday for Sheffield Wednesday F.C., here why do not "confuse" teams names? And primarily FC Timişoara aka Politehnica Timişoara was dissolved last year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.126.12.5 (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC) The site of Professional Football League of Romania, the only one authorized uses the correct name POLI Timisoara, see here, not a newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.126.12.5 (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Admin's Barnstar For your work over at WP:RfPP. Keep up the great work! -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC) My pleasure, thanks for the barnstar! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Mark, I was just thinking that you deserve a barnstar for your work there. LuK3, you beat me to it! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC) LOL, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you for salting several spam subjects I brought to RFPP. —rybec 02:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you for working on the considerable spam issue we have of late! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Current AN/I thread I just want to note that I'm trying to explain why I think abandoned boundary proposals are worthy of note, but sadly debate has not been joined. Meanwhile I am not going to contribute to an WP:AN/I thread which I have reported for oversight for reasons which may become apparent. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, that's fine, you have every right to avoid ANI. I would suggest that you make a note on the talk page of the article about why you reverted though. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks. As it seemed to be a matter of general policy I raised it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Sixth Periodical Review (abandoned) instead (on July 3 and today) but I'll add a link. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds closed The arbitration case you filed regarding Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: 1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, and for bringing the project into disrepute, Ironholds is desysopped and may regain the tools via a request for adminship. 2.2) For his history of incivility, which includes logging out to engage in vandalism and to make personal attacks on other editors on other Wikimedia projects, Ironholds is strongly admonished. 3) For numerous violations of Wikipedia's norms and policies, Kiefer.Wolfowitz is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Hollywood Heights, Los Angeles Did you get a chance to read my comments regarding the deletion of the Hollywood Heights, Los Angeles page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samp4ngeles (talk • contribs) 04:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Your comments: This page should be restored. One of the suggested reasons for deleting it was that it's not listed in Mapping L.A., but Mapping L.A. explicitly lists Hollywood Heights as one of the neighborhoods in the Hollywood Hills. Most of the other Hollywood Hills neighborhoods included in the Mapping L.A. project have Wikipedia pages: Whitley Heights Beachwood Canyon Cahuenga Pass Outpost Hollywood Heights has been referenced numerous times in RS, such as books and the Los Angeles Times, going back decades. The neighborhood also appears on Google Maps I'm not too familiar with the subject area, but if you'd like I'll move the page to your userspace so you can add citations to it. Then we can talk about moving the draft to articlespace. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks. Sounds good. User:Samp4ngeles (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.204.202.118 (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, the draft is now at User:Samp4ngeles/Hollywood Heights, Los Angeles. Please add citations to reliable sources. See WP:CITE and WP:RS for details. Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC) OK, thanks. Will get to work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samp4ngeles (talk • contribs) 20:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Just submitted it for review....Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Reminder You asked for reminding, that Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 needs to be semi-protected, after the full-protection expires. --SMS Talk 07:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)  Done Thanks a lot for reminding me. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Ayaan Chawla Article Hello Mr.Mark Arsten, As you have mentioned on page that I have removed comments and deletion notice, so for that I am very sorry as I was not aware that I can't remove comments by people. And for Ayaan Chawla article I have removed deletion notice, but when notice added again I haven't removed as in history of article I can see that has it been removed by some ip. Regards Ron Gates — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Gates (talk • contribs) 07:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Bigkhan.com This page doesn't satisfy WP:GNG; it is an ordinary website. It was created by the website's founder himself who even removed the speedy deletion tag from the page. Fideliosr (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, looks like it's deleted now. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Attempted Outing issue Hi Mark. I originally put this on Tarc's talk page, but you may be the better person to address it. In the talk section on the Th3j35t3r page (the last section) the user Anonymous4223 responded to me and added a first name not associated with my user account in what looks like an attempt at "OUTING" me as someone else. I'm guessing this is all spillover from the flame wars on Twitter, etc. Could you take a look? I don't know how to report it otherwise. Thank you Ellie Dahl (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, I revdeleted it and warned him. Let me know if there are any other issues and I'll consider blocking. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC) I just mailed oversight on this too, guess you got to the ball quicker. :) Can you remove the post on my talk page too? Ms. Dahl posted it verbatim there. Tarc (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, I got the stuff on your talk page too. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks guys. Ellie Dahl (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Hi, Mark. Ellie forgets to mention that she and her friends have tried outing me as several people themselves over the last few days, including accusing me of being Rachel Marsden. My issues with this editor have nothing to do with "flame wars" or any other toff, but with her complete commandeering of the Jester page as a personal project. The Jester page is about an identified, self-admitted criminal, so his purported identity is certainly worthy to note. This complaint has nothing to do with any outing (I certainly did not 'out' her), but with her attempt to prevent me from adding material to a narrative she wishes to control. Anonymous4223 (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Make your case without dropping names, please. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Hi Anon, please discuss your proposed additions on the article's talk page instead of continually reverting. Also, please make sure you review our guidelines on reliable sources and biographies of living people (WP:RS & WP:BLP). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC) OMG OMG, sorry I nominated ANI for deletion. Besides being stupid in the ordinary way, I'm new to Twinkle. Bishonen | talk 17:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC). No problem :) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC) I suppose the problem was I put it on AfD instead of MfD. Apart from that, I haven't been so fêted since the time I blocked that arbitrator! Bishonen | talk 18:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC). LOL, I recall reading about that that back when I was still a lurker with no account. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) Support deletion of ANI. Actually if it succeeded, it could have been one of the biggest benefits to hit the 'pedia in many years. Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  18:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Nidhi Razdan Thanks for semi-protecting this article I was just about to ask someone to do that now I have to find which revision is factual. Whispering 18:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC) You're welcome. Choosing the right version can be hard! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC) And you went and did my work for me woot! Off to check out new pages. Whispering 18:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Sinitta's date of birth I am not sure if I'm supposed to post here and on the Sinitta talk page or just there or just here. So to be safe I've posted both. My take: There has been much discussion on Sinitta's date of birth here and in the press. 1963, 1966 and 1968 have all been mooted. Sinitta and her representatives claim 1968. Last week, The Sun published online and in print a copy of Sinitta's birth certificate, which showed it to be 1963. That date tallies with her appearances on television when if the 1968 date was correct, she would have been 13 or 14 but was actually 18 or 19. The 1963 date would tally with comments in Tom Bower's biography of Simon Cowell. Although the book is said to be unauthorised, Cowell has admitted spending much time helping Bower. Since publication of the document, Sinitta has not denied the veracity of the certificate nor has her PR company nor has Syco. She has not issued or even threatened to issue a libel writ (for The Sun suggesting she is a liar). I believe the case has been proved for the date being kept at 1963.--The Totter 00:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC) --The Totter 01:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telegraph Totter (talk • contribs) Ok, it's best if you make your case on the article's talk page. Then if you've got consensus after three days the DOB can be restored. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC) One thing unrelated to American singers: why does it say "— Preceding unsigned comment added by Telegraph Totter (talk • contribs) " when I clearly did sign it? - --The Totter 01:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC) --The Totter 01:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC) I don't know, what you do is write out your message and then follow it with four tildes, like this. ~~~~ So your message should look like the line above this in the edit window when you hit save. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC) One more history merge Dear Mark: If you are not yet sick of history merges, here's one that is a little strange. This article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Guns and Robots was developed up to a certain point in Feruary, then the changes pick up with the same editors at Guns and Robots (video game) until a few days ago, and a redirect was created at Guns and Robots pointing to this article. Then a totally different editor, transferred all of the text to the redirect page and made a redirect out of the page which had been the article. No reason given on the talk pages. I personally feel that the pages were correct before the move, but I am not an expert on the conventions of page naming. In any case, the history of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Guns and Robots needs to be appended to Guns and Robots (video game), not to Guns and Robots as it would appear from a casual look. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 04:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Alright, I'll take a stab at it later. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, I merged the Afc page and Guns and Robots (video game). Do you think I should move all the history to the current title though? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Vandalism on Liga I pages There are multiple IP edits made by 86.126.12.5 on all the Romanian teams templates, after the ACS Poli was protected. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.126.12.5. Acornboy (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC) There's no vandalism, I just updated the page after ACS Poli model, I removed by near team name the city of origin and added the abbreviation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.126.12.5 (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC) It's really hard from me to tell constructive edits from disruption here, since I know nothing about Romanian Football. I suggest asking for help at the football wikiproject. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Page protection request I know you just answered the question regarding the full page protection on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Lanci, but I would like to talk you down from the indefinite protection to an expiration of September 1st. I picked the 1st because that would still give advocates who want to make a legitimate effort on the page before the election (on September 10th) time to work and undo the burning of good faith that has already occured. I'd even be willing to letting the full page protection stay untill September 12th (when all the results for the primary are in) so we can re-evaluate the worthyness then. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, I shortened it to a month. Let me know if you want it unprotected before then. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Tubod, Surigao del Norte Our old friend, 122.144.64.116, appears to have created an account (Rickmendezdaposala) and is once again adding OR to Tubod, Surigao del Norte. Regards, --Forward Unto Dawn 13:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, warned and protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Protection Templates Sometimes, when an article has been protected, semi-protected, or pending-change protected, it doesn't always display the expiry dates regardless even if it does have an expiry date. Is it just me or are the bots and the administrators inexperienced about putting the expiry dates on the templates. Just want to give you this feedback about some articles that are protected are missing the expiry dates even if they do have any expiry dates. Thanks a ton. 69.122.190.4 (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC) I just use the tag function on twinkle when I'm semi-protecting, which I think usually includes the date. If you protect and add the tag in two separate actions the date won't show up though. So good reminder. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Tiffany Harrison Hi Mark, I was in the process of trying to add a new page for our organization/website, GoAbroad.com, and was having some trouble as this is my first time trying to add anything to Wikipedia. I saw on my notifications that you had deleted the page. Could you let me know why, or what I can do to better understand how to add a new business page? Any information would be appreciated. Thanks! Did I delete that? It looks to me like here User:GTBacchus deleted it and User:Centrx deleted it here. But, anyway, we usually try to discourage people from writing about their own company, see our WP:COI rules for details. To justify having a page on a group though, we look for what we call "reliable sources", which generally means book, newspaper, or magazine coverage. See WP:RS and WP:CORP for details. You might want to ask for help at the WP:TEAHOUSE as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Joefromrandb I've been in the midst of an escalating dipsute with User:Joefromrandb and I've repeatedly asked him to leave me alone and stop making personal insults. A few minutes ago he made this comment, and I was wondering if it warrants an admin warning or maybe even a block. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC) He also appears to be editing as an IP as well as his account: this is the diff that started the feud Joe now a few minutes ago an extremely similar edit was made by this IP. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC) I don't mind users amusing themselves, but outright lying is something else. You really think that was I? How about I agree to be checkuser'd right now, with the condition that whichever of us is wrong is site-banned for a year; you up for that? Joefromrandb (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, a couple things: A. Concerns about socking should be handled at WP:SPI--you have to go through the proper channels if you're going to bring this up. I'm not a checkuser or an SPI clerk so I can't help with that. B. If Joe has a habit of saying things like "grow the fuck up" then I'd definitely suggest you go ahead with the RFC/U you were thinking about. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC) You've got mail! Hello, Mark Arsten. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 20:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Got it and replied. I check my mail pretty regularly so these templates aren't needed in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Failure to heed your warning Two weeks ago, I filed a WP:ANI report regarding an editor (Gunbirddriver), trying to remove all instances of blitzkrieg from the article, and kept reverting any edit I made to restore the last instance of the term. Following that, you warned Gunbirddriver to stop deleting content from the article. You also warned me to stop making any further changes. But just three days later, with this EDIT, Gunbirddriver removed the content again without the support of any editor or admin. About 24 hours before making that edit, Gunbirddriver fabricated a "well-written" report and posted it on WP:ANI. Within minutes, before I could even give a response, I was banned for 48 hours by Bbb23. Gunbirdriver then went ahead to disobey the warning you gave us, even though he never got any "green-light" from Bbb23 to take any action. After the ban was lifted, I pointed out to Bbb23 how skewed Gunbirdriver's account of the dispute was. He reviewed it, and admitted that the ban was indeed a mistake and apologized. (See Bbb23's talkpage). The portion of the article (see the diff) that Gunbirdrdiver removed was thoroughly referenced with reliable sources. (It doesn't even have all the citations raised in the DRN case, which number more than 7 sources). It was supported by other editors as seen in the DRN Case. Currently, only Gunbirddriver is staunchly against the solution suggested by User:Azx2, User:Binksternet, User:Magus732, User:Someone not using his real name, User:Sturmovoggel 66, and User:EyeTruth. And some of these editors were in support of the exclusion of the term, yet they are willing to reach a compromise. The solution suggested by these editors is that since enough editors and secondary sources support its inclusion, then it should included but it should also be mentioned in a note that some still contest it. Only Gunbirddriver categorically refuses to accept that solution. My goal, as I pointed out to Bbb23, is to resolve this content dispute and not to let it spiral out of control to become a ban-versus-ban war. EyeTruth (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC) EyeTruth (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC) I haven't gotten a chance to look into this in detail, but have you thought about having a talk page WP:RFC about whether to include the disputed content? Those are usually a good way to clearly establish consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, I have suggested to Gunbirddriver to take it to WP:RFC if he feels the suggestions provided by the majority of the editors is not satisfactory, instead him of just removing the content. When it was only three editors discussing the issue, I took it to DRN and more editors got involved and gave their suggestions. After the DRN, others in support of Gunbirddriver's position were willing to make compromises. At that point, I expected him to handle it civilly and take it to WP:RFC if he doesn't wish to go with the suggestions of the majority of the editors. So far, he has ignored my suggestion to take it up to WP:RFC. Even if I restore the content and incorporate all the suggestions of other editors, he may still delete it. EyeTruth (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC) I will just add that another editor that has just recently joined the debate, who also happen to support the exclusion of the term, has also suggested to Gunbirddriver to go with what other editors have suggested (see User talk:Gunbirddriver#Battle of Kursk and blitzkrieg). That is, to give each side of the dispute its due weight in the article. EyeTruth (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Well, you could open an Rfc yourself, you don't have to wait for him to do it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC) I know. The problem is that many editors involved are already tired of this dispute and would rather stay clear of it. That is the only reason we all started making compromises, including myself. Normally, I would have taken the initiative and opened an RFC. But since majority of the editors have voiced their intention to settle for a compromise (and most have even moved on from the dispute for good), I think it's up to the editor that refuses to accept this compromise to take the necessary action. But Mark Arsten, what about the edit Gunbirdriver made that explicitly violated your warning? EyeTruth (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC) This is a pretty complicated situation, I think you should get a second opinion from another admin. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Frankly, I don't know a lot of admins (only you and Bbb23). Do you have any other admins as a suggestion? OK Mark, to lessen the complication, let me reword my question: did you endorse the edit that Gunbirdriver made that explicitly violated your warning? EyeTruth (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC) I want to know because Gunbirdriver believes he got the green-light from administrators to make the changes. Bbb23 did not give any such green-light. Without clearing this up, I cannot persuade Gunbirddriver to open up for a serious discussion, in which case it would be impossible to make him chip in some compromise like almost every other editor involved in this case has already done (including myself). Excluding Gunbirddriver (and Hasteur), the only editors who have not shown their support for a compromise are those who haven't contributed to the debate for at least the past two months. Hasteur's rationale got criticized by Magus732, Binksternet and myself in the DRN case, and he never responded nor has he contributed to the debate ever since. EyeTruth (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC) If memory serves, User:Nick-D has considerable knowledge of WWII. He might be able to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC) (Responding to Mark's ping) My understanding from my knowledge of the battle is that there is legitimate disagreement in reliable sources over how the German intentions at Kursk should be presented, so insisting that the article take one position or another on this topic is not helpful or in line with WP:NPOV (many elements of this battle are disputed by historians, and there have been serious problems in regards to our article previously as a result). It's certainly the case that some reliable sources, including the expert David Glantz, apply the term 'Blitzkrieg' to the German plans (albeit generally with some provisos). But other reliable sources don't. The discussion at Talk:Battle of Kursk#DRN follow up suggests that EyeTruth and @Gunbirddriver: are talking past each other in an unproductive way and are ignoring this basic fact (which they've both illustrated by presenting reliable sources, and which Sturmvogel 66 had pointed out), and have driven off the other editors who have offered opinions. The post-DRN edit warring was simply awful, but it's few days ago now. This strikes me as a situation where both editors really need to walk away from the article until they're ready to edit in accordance with core policies around how differing sources are presented. I'm not seeing a need for a RfC on content and have no confidence that it would be successful at present as this is a user conduct issue. The underlying article content issue is really simple: if some reliable sources which provide in-depth coverage of the battle describe the operation as an intended "blitzkrieg" then this needs to be noted in the article. The same applies if some substantial reliable sources on the battle use different wording or dispute the use of "blitzkrieg". Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Hi Nick, thanks a lot for weighing in. I knew you'd have a good understanding of the issue. I highly encourage EyeTruth and Gunbirddriver to take your advice. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Hi User:Nick-D, thanks for weighing in your thoughts. Your final advice is what I have always been suggesting to Gunbirddriver and other editors for months. If some reliable sources support the position, then it needs to be included. If some reliable sources oppose it, then it needs to be excluded or noted (preferably noted). It is a very simple solution, and after the DRN case most editors have agreed to it. Yet for 4 weeks since the end of the DRN case, one editor (who had refused to recognize the dispute as a content type in the DRN) has singlehandedly foiled every attempt to resolve the dispute in a logical manner. That is the reason I could not help getting more irritated and nastier with my tone as the drama progressed. I have always agreed with your advice. I will attempt what I have tried many time in the past few months, so just watch how things will proceed again: I will restore the content and encourage Gunbirddriver to add his text with supporting sources as well. (I really hope he will listen to the suggestion Azx2 left on his talkpage and not turn this attempt into another unnecessary war). EyeTruth (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Your edit appears to belie what you've written above: you have re-inserted your preferred claim that "the operation envisioned a blitzkrieg" without noting alternate viewpoints. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC) User:Nick, trust me, I have an interesting history with Gunbirdriver. Writing an alternate vewpoint in his place will be a complete waste of effort (this is from expereince). That is why I explcitly encouraged him to add whatever he wishes to add that is appropraite. EyeTruth (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC) So I restored the content and Sturmvogel 66 even helped me put the citations in a better shape. I left the following message directed to Gunbirddriver on the talkpage: "I suggest you heed the advice I've been screaming all along (which is also mirrored in Azx2's advice) and settle this dispute in a logical manner: add your own sentence or note or whatever to point out that the issue is contested, of course with citation of reliable sources." But instead he responds with this [WP:ANI report]. I gotta say it bluntly: this guy has absolutely no interest in resolving this dispute in logical manner that is in accordance with Wikipedia policies. EyeTruth (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks! Thank you for taking care of this. I was tempted to just remove the personal attack and leave the plans to do the same thing as evidence if needed later, but they'll still be in the history at least. In the meantime, someone is a bit sore. --McDoobAU93 01:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC) No problem, always glad to help out. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Legal threat IMO, this edit constitutes a legal threat. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC) You know, I saw a very similar remark get posted to ANI a week or so ago: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive807#Possible_legal_threat_on_Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera. The consensus was against it being a NLT violation, although some felt it was. That's not to say it's an Ok thing to say though--I'd bring it up in your RFC/U. And otherwise, you might want to disengage from his talk page etc. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Kiefer Wolfowitz Would it be advisable to remove the contents of his userpage (sans the banned user template)? hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 10:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC) (watching) Why? Imagine readers would like to find out who wrote some excellent article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Ah well, I'll leave it as is then. No point in denying recognition in this case. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 12:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC) I'm both impressed by and grateful for your mature, well-thought response.Joefromrandb (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Sorry, but I can't help here. As KW has been banned by Arbcom, all questions of this nature should be directed to the arbitration committee. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Revisit deletion decision for Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability Hello, About a year ago, you handled the deletion discussion about "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability". The latest version of the article is here. I would like to revisit this decision. (I confess to not fully understanding the appropriate process for doing so, but it was suggested to me that talking with you was the first step. Although I think your decision was a reasonable one, I think that the decision is worth revisiting because the process --- and this was mostly my fault --- was somewhat sloppy. The article evolved throughout the discussion so that many people voted on a not-final version of the article. I cleaned up the article, both during that review and some more in the last few days, so I think that it would be worthwhile to revisit. If you don't object, I think that the next step (I could be wrong) would be for you to bring the discussion to deletion review. Thanks for your time. Yfever (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Hi, as there was a clear consensus in the deletion discussion, I don't think I will personally restore the page. To have it restored, you'll have to apply at WP:DRV. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks! I will do as you suggest. Yfever (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Deletion review for Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability An editor has asked for a deletion review of Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Yfever (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Edit history and Talk page recovery for County-unit system/County Unit System I totally messed up both the move on this article and my subsequent attempts to fix it... sorry about that. The article is now at County Unit System, which is where it should stay, but could you merge the edit history and talk page from the deleted County-unit system into the new location? Thanks for you help with fixing the mess I made. -Jhortman (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, I think I can do that. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC) I took a stab at it, hope everything's in the right place now. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Looks perfect! Thanks again for your help! -Jhortman (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Vandalism from 98.225.98.100 Hi, I received a message for editing the Ecosystem article. This was my 11 year old brother. We have told him that vandalism will get our IP blocked so it hopefully should not happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.98.100 (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks, good to know. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Drymobius margaritiferus Hi you removed my edits to this page for lack of reference, I added captive information derived from my own experiences breeding this snake, how do I reference myself? 71.163.101.128 (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Ricardo Gordon Sorry, but we discourage people from adding information based on their own experiences, see WP:OR for our guidelines on the matter. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Richard M. Stallman You undid my edits on the RMS page. These are significant social issues that I have personally verified via email that are accurate. I asked Richard if he was quoted accurately in the Wikiquote topics on necrophelia and pedophelia, and he replied yes. I asked him if there was anything else he'd like to add to that, and he said no. The references on the Wikiquote page link back to his own stallman.org page archives, one from as recent as January of this year. This is not vandalism. It is published data on a man of prominance, a position he still holds, and something people looking up information on RMS should know about in addition to his hacker and activist roles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.226.96 (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Given the sensitivity of the topic, I think you should try to get consensus on the article's talk page before re-adding this information. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC) I added the entry to talk . Thank you. 68.57.226.96 (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for doing that. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC) RevDel Mind revdeling some edit summaries when you get a chance? --NeilN talk to me 21:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)  Done Mark Arsten (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC) UFC Hey Mark I think you should be moar accurete and bee moore likely to follow the true fights — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.156.55 (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC) I admit, you did make me laugh. But I will block you if you don't stop vandalizing. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Hi Hi. You could probably tell anyway, but for the record, I was miscited. Thanks for your admin activity regarding this disruption. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, he kept insisting you had done something horrible, but your edits looked unobjectionable to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC) I agree that Maxximiliann miscited In ictu oculi. However, In ictu oculi has made various false claims about me throughout Maxximiliann's ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Deletion of Kobbie Boahene I just wanted to let you know that when you deleted this page, you forgot to delete the talk page. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Yeah, the problem is, when you hit delete at Afd, you have the option to delete all redirects to the article as well. For some reason, it doesn't delete the talk pages of the redirects though. I should talk to someone about fixing that. Normally redirects don't have talk pages, but there are a few exceptions, like this one. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC) AfD Help I've come here since I see you're one of the admins that handles AfDs. I'm still new and made the mistake of copy/pasting. The comment was about the same issues, (non-notability, only passing mention) for similarly situated people (all county executives in Maryland). It was it response to a huge copy/paste above. Didn't realize that would be frowned upon since it was same issue, same situated people. *All of these are on the August 14th AfD log. It was suggested to overcome the concern of copy/pasting (note no one has yet to argue that it was invalid, the ONLY concern seems to be that it was copy/pasted) that I post a clear "vote" for each one. This way it could be considered proper for each. I've done so, yet for some reason I'm still having issues with guy1890. He's offered nothing to argue that my "vote" was incorrect, in fact on one he says he doesn't care. However it's very clear that there's becoming some type of issue. I offered the clearly posted non-copy/pasted vote, I get posted about by him complaining it's a 2nd vote, when he's the very person that suggested the "1st vote" should be ignored. I made a mistake with the copy/paste I understand. I've done what was asked to clarify it. However no matter what it seems he has an issue. Never provides a viewpoint on the actual discussion, only seems to want to point out that he doesn't think I did it the proper format, and thus should be ignored. Thanks, Caffeyw (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Well, it's best to avoid copy/pasting because it makes people think that you haven't looked at it in detail. Since they were similar topics, I suppose the same comment may be valid for all of them, so I see where you're coming from. Pasting isn't strictly forbidden though, but !voting more than once is. If you want to make another comment in a discussion where you have already offered a bolded delete you should preface your second comment with Comment instead, otherwise it looks like you're trying to trick the closing admin. I suggest going back and striking your duplicate vote and explaining that you were unfamiliar with the Afd rules (which are confusing to a lot of people). If they keep giving you a hard time after that let me know. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks, I'll try it. Just to note the user's talk page shows that it seems the sole reason he posted is that he doesn't like "deletionists" and wanted the comment disregarded by the closing admin. Not that the comment was invalid, which seems supported by the fact the long copy/pasted keep hasn't raised the same concern. How do I "strike" out the first vote? Or does simply placing comment before the clear vote do enough? BTW I did post the reason for "re-voting" so people understood it was because of the copy/paste concern. No matter what, thanks for the suggestion, I'll see if it works. Caffeyw (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC) To strike it, you'd put tags around it like this: <s>Delete</s>. That would show as Delete when you do it in the discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC) "It was suggested to overcome the concern of copy/pasting (note no one has yet to argue that it was invalid, the ONLY concern seems to be that it was copy/pasted) that I post a clear 'vote' for each one." I've yet to see any evidence that anyone suggested that "Caffeyw" vote twice (or just post the same set of comments again) in any recent AfD. Not only were a number of the comments posted by "Caffeyw" obviously copy/pasted over a very, very short period of time, they were, in fact, invalid (commentary about individuals that were "dead" when the individuals in question weren't dead, commentaries about obituaries used as citations when there were no obituaries used as citations in the article in question, etc.) and all of that is highlighted here on my talk page). "I get posted about by him complaining it's a 2nd vote, when he's the very person that suggested the '1st vote' should be ignored." The closing administrator of a number of recent AfDs is unfortunately going to have a harder time than usual closing those AfDs, in part, because of "Caffeyw"'s recent actions. "Caffeyw" doesn't appear to know what they are doing (whether they are really new to Wikipedia or not), and we need competent editors being involved in AfD discussions. Whatever judgement and/or weighting that the closing administrator uses in those AfDs will be fine with me. "Just to note the user's talk page shows that it seems the sole reason he posted is that he doesn't like 'deletionists' and wanted the comment disregarded by the closing admin. Not that the comment was invalid" That's not true either, as is highlighted above. Am I a big fan, in general, of deletionists on Wikipedia? No, I'm not, but my recent concerns with "Caffeyw"'s actions go way, way beyond that. Deletionists I can deal with...incompetent actions I can't stand, especially in important discussions like the ones that go on at AfD. "the long copy/pasted keep hasn't raised the same concern"...because it was addressed by another Wikipedia user that also tried to address some of the above issues with "Caffeyw" on his talk page. Your suggestions that "Caffeyw" strike many of his comments are welcomed...thanx for that... Guy1890 (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC) RfC muzzling You have semiprotected the RfC page [here]. This is typically a method to protect pages against vandalism from IP editors. Since I appear to be the only IP editor contributing there I have to conclude you are implying I am some sort of vandal. This action is out of line with WP:AGF and more unfounded personal attack. Further, you appear to attempting to bias the RfC by attempting to silence a contributor's view that raises observations regarding certain editors with a history of attacking IP editors. Supporting that behavior further violates Jimbos statements regarding IP editing by muzzling my right to defend myself against ridiculous tactics and personal attacks in a discussion. I am here studying AN processes only but will soon need to study arbcom, apparently. Will you be able to block my access of arbcom too? 99.251.120.60 (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC) I protected the page as you appear to be engaged in WP:BLOCKEVASION from the block placed on 99.251.125.65 for harrassing GabeMc. While it may be technically possible for two users from 99.251* to share the same abiding disdain for Gabe, I find it very unlikely. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC) I have no disdain for GabeMC and as I have stated before, I have had no previous contact with him/her. Check your math and you will see there are 65356 IP addresses using the same first two number groups as myself. My IP changes each time I log in despite the stupid template placed on my page to invoke this type of harassment. I avoided changing IPs due to this drama used by editors. Rogers is a large ISP with major POP sites and I guess I belong to one of them. Without telling my location I am hundreds of km from the stated municipality so it must encompass a huge area. There are a lot of retired people here as the jobs are few. I suppose that makes a lot of spare time in this area. I did a few minor article edits about 3-4 years back but that was probably a different ISP in the high school and it sure as hell wasn't on Beatles articles or music. Many editors stated support for comments the same as I did but I don't see any sockpuppet accusations for them. Is it that IPs are singled out as new users and cannot defend themselves as well but named accounts, with more experience, will fight harder and confrontations should be avoided with them? Thanks for, at least, listening, contrary to what others in my study group have advised me about Wikipedia AN processes. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC) I think ESL summed up my feelings on the issue well here. To me, you seem to fail the WP:DUCK test. This could conceivably be a unusual coincidence though, so I'm not going to block you. To avoid this problem in the future, you should really register an account. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC) As a courtesy ... you might want to see User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Want_deleted_article_in_my_user_space Tito☸Dutta 15:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the note, made a comment there. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Nihang I saw that you had a series of vandals here and had to protect it. They're back. 108.94.154.235 (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the note, I've protected the article. I'd suggest opening a discussion on the talk page, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC) This is from the same guy. Is this a threat? I don't understand what the edit summary means. 108.94.154.235 (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Religious population Why you actually locked the page, because i don't see the request around. Even knowing that "1.2 billion" "500 million practicing" is incredibly misleading figure by the user who's no more discussing in the talk page. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC) I WP:semi-protected the page because unregistered users were making a number of edits that needed to be reverted. I didn't realize you weren't WP:autoconfirmed, you should be able to edit the page soon since you're close to it. But you can discuss the matter on the talk page until then. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks, that's it. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Bryan Adams Hi Mark, I went to add an additional reference to Bryan Adams' 'Dispute With AllMusic' section, as Removal comments suggested that "serach engine queries" are insufficient evidence. This should mean standard Google/Bing type search engines, where as the reference in question was AllMusic.com's own search engine -- referenced because the salient point of the added section was that AllMusic had removed Adams's content per his request. In good faith, I went to add the direct URL reference to Adams's page, found here: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/bryan-adams-mn0000627670. In doing so, I found Adams's page locked. Understand that in the case of what appears to be an "edit war" of sorts, pages may be temporarily locked until the dispute can be resolved, but I did want to add this direct URL entry to help satisfy some of the concerns of those removing the entries by citing WP:BLP, a citation I do not find to be a correct assessment. I would appreciate it if you can find a way to have this additional reference added in the interim. Regards, Supra92 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supra92 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC) For potentially controversial information about a living person, you really need to use reliable sources. Please review our guideline here: WP:IRS. This means that we need sources outside of allmusic to cover it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Hi Mark, appreciate the response. Can you elaborate a bit on what you feel a reliable outside source would be? The section was added to inform people that a major artist had pursued legal means to have his information removed from the single-largest online music/artist database. Because it is a legal situation, Adams will not be talking about it and AllMusic is almost certainly not allowed to talk about it, beyond the one statement they've provided. A reference to AMG's search results showing him omitted, or a reference to Adams's actual (former) page showing the 404 error, seems about as verifiable as one can get. Is the idea that some major news outlet, like Rolling Stone, needs to cover this subject before it becomes verifiable? I'd submit that showing actual proof that he cannot be found on AllMusic itself is the most revelant proof to the subject at hand. Rgds, Supra92Supra92 (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, essentially we would need an uninvolved magazine or news outlet to cover it before we could add it to the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC) One last question -- because his information is indisputably removed, and references provided, would it not be possible to leave this section up with a "Citation Needed" link following AllRovi's official statement on the matter? I could also see editing the entry so that it removes any verbiage about legal requests and, for the time being, keeps the section strictly factual. Ie, that the information has been removed from AllMusic (and providing those references), but leaving out AllRovi's statement and the legal comments until a disinterested 3rd party outlet reported on it... Supra92Supra92 (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC) It may be possible to do so, but you'll have to try to gain consensus on the talk page first. Try proposing your addition there and see what kind of feedback you get. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Will give that shot, thanks. I hope that the section will be left up in the interim -- my hope for Wikipedia would be that a good-faith entry about a factual situation and showing references would be left intact until there was sufficient consensus/reason over time to remove it. Particularly since this entry is written in a neutral tone and makes no negative comments about the subject in the BLP. The one area in question is whether AllRovi's official response on their official feedback page constitutes a reliable source, but I'm happy to either have that particular sentence removed, or a "Citation Needed" added to it, until this gains wider exposure. Thanks again, Supra92Supra92 (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC) [EDIT] And... the entire section has been removed by Mufka. Very disappointed at the removal of factual/substantiated content -- quite the chilling effect. Supra92Supra92 (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC) You should click here and start a new topic on the talk page. That's probably your best bet at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Image of Treasure Island Hi, here is Jan. I tried to put an image to the page of Treasure Island, but it didn't appear there, so I had to remove it. How should I upload an image there? It just asks for a file name and lets me neither to browse my disc nor to enter the whole path. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.222.56 (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC) To upload an image from your computer to Wikipedia, you should follow the instructions here: Wikipedia:Uploading images#Mini how-to. It's kind of confusing, but not impossible to figure out. Let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC) It seems that I have to be logged in order to upload an image. I created an account but it still doesn't let do it me for some reason. Yes, new accounts can't upload images. You have to make 10 edits and wait four days before you're allowed to. You can also try here: Wikipedia:Files for upload. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks, it seems that it works now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janzbran (talk • contribs) 11:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC) An Appeal for the Restore of the Deleted profile "Shekhar Gurera" Mr Mark Arsten (editor). Dear sir, it came to our notice that my profile at esteemed Wikipedia got deleted due to some technical mistake by our staff in updation or might be any misunderstanding. I personally apology for the violate of the norms of updation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekhar_Gurera If there is any possibility of resolving the issue for the reconsideration and restoring the profile with necessary rectifications, kindly oblise us to let it be done. Thanks & Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurera (talk • contribs) 19:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC) The problem with the article was that it didn't cite references to reliable sources (WP:RS). Citations to reliable sources are required, and they must demonstrate that the article meets our notability guidelines. See WP:CREATIVE for the relevant guidelines. Can you offer evidence that Shekhar Gurera meets this guideline? Also note that we generally discourage people from writing about themselves, see WP:COI. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Dear sir, Thanks alot for the response ... ofc i can provide u what ever possible sources as per the reliability are needed according to the weight of the claims in the profile. It can also be in the form of scanned copy of the certificates / documents / photographs / videos etc.. but keeping the facts in mind that simple basic claims of the person by himself/herself are more reliable than any third party at first stage (unless until it have contradiction from third party). There is possibility that some basic facts don’t even have any possible online support towards it authenticity, since they are related to the news/facts of decades ago (birth / city / awards / honors / experience etc) .. My request is to entertain such claims unless until these are not extraordinary claim.. Above all v r grateful to your perfectly fine team which is already helping us to maintain the standard of the contents with their advice and filtering the text! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurera (talk • contribs) 08:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC) I didn't see the original article so I don't know how good it was, and what it was lacking, apart from references as Mark is stating here. I would first ask, is there an article for this person on the Hindi Wikipedia? Is it perhaps better developed with more references? It may be better to develop the article there and then eventually seek to have it translated to the English Wikipedia. Also, since you are writing and the comments are being signed as Gurera I would assume that you are either the artist himself, or a team working on his behalf. There are a number of articles and policies on articles about yourself, your friends or associates, etc. I suggest reading them starting with a few articles such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:An_article_about_yourself_isn%27t_necessarily_a_good_thing and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP if you haven't already. These articles and policies lead to other articles and policies which are also good to read. That all being said, I think it is fairly clear that he is a prolific political artist, but is he notable? I don't know. Not being familiar with him or his work I cannot say, however, I can say that there are certainly a number of articles on editorial cartoonists, many of which are stubs and some of which are not yet well-sourced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_editorial_cartoonists Based on the assumption that he is a well-published and well-respected editorial cartoonist in the Indian community I would assume that he would most likely be notable enough in comparison to these other peers in the community to eventually have the article restored or recreated. Centerone (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Hello Mr Centerone ... Thanks for your reply with some queries and clarifications. No, it was not in Hindi ... the profile was also in List_of_editorial_cartoonists#India and it was having text of simple content based. Yeah later after deletion we went through many of such related articles. As per the policy, the main mistake while updating it was done by adding the links of social media due to unawareness. This is no issue at our level. If u wish we can post the link of the deleted article at other portals n else with reference to it or we can post at any direct email ID along with related ref of the possible sources as per if needed by you. Thanks & regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurera (talk • contribs) 11:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC) There are *clearly* some language barriers here. What I was asking was if there is a version of the article on the Hindi Wikipedia, I was not asking nor implying that the article itself was in Hindi. I was asking if there is an article about him on: http://hi.wikipedia.org/ If there is NO article about him on the Hindi Wikipedia (or other Indian-subcontinent language Wikipedias like http://ta.wikipedia.org/ or http://te.wikipedia.org/ or http://gu.wikipedia.org/ etc.) , then I would believe that if his own countrymen don't find him notable enough to create and edit an article about him and his works, then he and his work is likely to be not notable, or at least not recognized as such yet. I don't know if the problem here is that you are not understanding me and the policies, or if that it's just that the way you are phrasing things is making it hard for me to understand what you mean, but for example, there is nothing wrong with including links to his social media presence. The problem is that the links to his social media and web presence should not be the primary source for references for facts about him; for these things you need reliable third party sources for the most part. Due to the language barrier I would highly recommend you try to solve this problem by working on the (hopefully preexisting) Hindi Wikipedia article about him or an article on another language-appropriate Wikipedia for you, and not worry about the English language article. Centerone (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Thats fine Mr Centerone ... again thanks a lot for your concern and texting here in detail .. regards :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurera (talk • contribs) 17:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC) A cupcake for you! Thanks for updating your recent AfD closes to reflect that people can perform merges, it is appreciated. Also, I fixed the AfD tag that you placed at Talk:Caleb Rufer (diff page), which linked to this 2011 AfD discussion. I placed a new tag on the talk page that links to your 2013 AfD closure. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks, I have a great deal of respect for the work you do around here :) Mark Arsten (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks Mark. Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 23:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC) problem I try to change the page to the list of sitcoms because the f list has two sections with the same shows — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.216.118.146 (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC) So it does, sorry about that then. In the future, please use an edit summary to explain you changes and this probably won't happen. See WP:EDITSUMMARY for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Protecting "Free Territory of Trieste" Dear Sir, You have protected the wrong version of the "Free Territory of Trieste" article. There is here in Trieste a small group of persons who hates Italy and claims that the Free Territory of Trieste - constituted 1947 in force of Peace treaty against local people's will and therefore never really born and suppressed in 1954 - still exists, although illegally occupied by Italy. So they go on modifying Wikipedia's page in various languages. We in Italy have had serious problem in order to undo their modifications. Here too in the English Wikipedia they go on attacking the page. That the Free Territory of Trieste still exists is obviously false, so please restore the correct version, I. e. the one that writes that the Free Territory of Trieste "was" (and not "is") a small country etc. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tergestinus (talk • contribs) 05:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC) I believe you can still edit the page if there are changes you'd like to make. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC) WP:FOUR RFC There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Looks like one has been closed by now. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC) WP:ANI is open, if you have an opinion either which way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, I'll check it out. I don't have a very strong opinion on FOUR awards though. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Edit warring on List of Castle episodes Mark, you recently blocked User:220.245.146.235 for edit warring on List of Castle episodes, and they back, now trying to force four episode dates and titles sourced to EpGuides, an unreliable source. I've requested the article be semi-protected, but the editor is hopping between his her home IP and cell phone (User:101.119.14.6) to edit war, and refuses to abide by WP:RS. Would you take a look and see if you can slow them down? Two editors have reverted them, and it does no good. I think this may be the editor of a very active Castle fan web page and fan forum, which is using the same source for dates/titles on their site; clearly they have no interest in stopping their edit warring. --Drmargi (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC) It looks like someone beat me to it and protected already. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC) They did indeed, and blocked her for a week. I wish we had fairy dust that would give these editors a clue about the difference between us and fan sites. Thanks, Mark! --Drmargi (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Maum Meditation You are listed as the admin responsible for this page being deleted; you are also listed as an admin that provides copies of deleted pages. Can i obtain a copy of the deleted Maum Meditation page? I looked at the detail leading up to the deletion, but i am not sure i understand the reason for the deletion; is it possible to obtain an explanation? Mahoney99 (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Since only one person participated in the discussion, I'm willing to undelete it if you want to make an effort to improve the article. Let me know and I'll do so. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC) pp on Shake Weight Semi-protection didn't do it, same edit was made by user 96 248 l5 44 who is evading block on their IP 96.248.15.44. Rather peculiar choice in a username! I made the one good-faith revert, but it's clear looking at the page history that he's up to no good. Thought I'd bring this to your attention. Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 16:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, I left a edit warring warning, will block if he reverts again. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC) And again, twice actually, since your warning — MusikAnimal talk 16:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Looks like Favonian took care of things before I could get to it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Talk:Internet forum Sorry, I was on vacation for a few days. Looks like you fixed the page ok. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, thanks for the reply. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Kaitlyn Regehr - merge request Okay, Mark, here's one. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)  Done. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Raksha Bandhan (Protection needed) Hey, can you fix this? Protect -- L o g X 19:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Sure,  Done Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks man! -- L o g X 19:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Sir Mark Arsten Sir Mark Arsten Dear Sir, I apologize on how I am trying to edit 'coffee'. But I don't know (understand) how i can edit them. I have no intentions to harm other contributors' informative writings. But if you can assist me please, and i will be glad. Thank You. -ulingling Ulingling (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Hello, thanks for the trophy. The best thing to do is to find good sources that back up what you want to add and cite them in the article. See our guidelines WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CITE for more details. The WP:Teahouse is a good place to ask for help as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC) "Sir Mark Arsten." You know, that does have a nice ring to it. "Mark Arsten" does sound like a knight's name. Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC) LOL, thanks. BTW, I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on this controversy. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC) You even have a castle, I've noticed. As for that controversy, hmmm; I'll have to get back to you on that. I've seen Edgth around, via the Human sexuality article (which needs substantial fixing up), and, having looked through his edit history and on his talk page, I know what a WP:Edit warrior he is. Flyer22 (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, the person who took that picture actually stopped by my talk page once, which was very cool. It turns out that there was a war reenactment going on that day. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Katherine McKittrick and Katherine McKittrick Hello, Mark! Here is a very strange pair of articles. I'm not sure whether saving this history is worth the fuss. The draft is too new to be deleted as stale. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Ok,  Done Mark Arsten (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Defensor San Alejandro 2 I forgot to respond. Yes, I'd like you to restore it. Thanks, MicroX (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Ok,  Done Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Painful metaphors Thanks. I needed a laugh. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC) No problem :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Khalid Lebhij and Khalid Lebhij Dear Mark: Anthony has already done several history merges for me today, so maybe you could handle this one. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, will do. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)  Done Mark Arsten (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gaolese Kent Koma and Gaolese Kent Koma ... and here's another pair. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)  Done Mark Arsten (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bobby McCool and Bobby McCool ...last one for today; I'll add the rest to the queue. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)  Done Mark Arsten (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jason Tom and Jason Tom Okay, I'm sorry, one more - this one's a little messy. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, got it. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Chelsea Manning Hi Mark, would you remove the NPOV tag, please? It was added through protection, and these tags are only supposed to be added as a last resort after discussion. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Ok  Done. Good for you for respecting WP:INVOLVED, BTW. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks, and thanks for removing it. Here's another one that could use reverting, if you're willing. I've posted on talk to ask admins to stop editing through the protection, except for minor edit requests. It's really unfair to non-admins to have to watch admins continuing to make changes. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC) I've got to run, so I'm going to hold off on that one for now. Hopefully the editing through protection will cease. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Sorry to bother you again with this, but would you please revert this edit that changed the date formats? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC) I'd like to, but I'm worried about being blocked if I do so. See this comment by Risker. Perhaps Zzyzx11 would be willing to self-revert if you tell him it was not an uncontroversial edit (apologies for the double negative). Sorry! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC) I'm pretty sure Risker won't block an admin who is making sure other admins don't edit through protection. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Probably not, but I just asked her so I can be sure. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Blocked The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. To Mark Arsten, Jimfbleak and Zzyzx11: I am blocking each of you because you have edited the Chelsea Manning article through protection, despite several comments and a clear warning on the talk page of the article. It does not matter whether or not you personally think your changes are uncontroversial; in two of the cases, it turns out there is actually controversy about the changes made. You are blocked for the remaining duration of page protection; however, any administrator may unblock you provided that you undertake to make no further edits to the Chelsea Manning page for the duration of the protection. The administrator tools do not grant you the authority to change fully protected articles based on any reason other than edit requests based on policy and appropriately discussed on the talk page of the article. None of the edits made addressed BLP issues. None of them were urgent or required immediate, undiscussed action. Going forward, I expect you all to refrain from editing protected pages in the absence of a clear talk page consensus on the appropriateness of a specific edit request. Risker (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Hi Risker, could you point out which specific edit you are blocking me for? I don't think I've made anything other than one uncontroversial implementation of a talk page request to add a category since your warning. (Actually I added it and then re-added it because I reverted myself accidentally) You specifically said that editing wouldn't be allowed "a clear-cut edit request", which I had when I edited the page. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC) You only made one edit to the article after my warning last night. The fact that you reference my warning in your edit summary demonstrates that you were aware of it. There was no significant discussion of the edit and shortly after your edit it was clear there was controversy about it. (It doesn't have to be a "good" argument for there to be controversy.) This was not something that needed to be done forthwith; some indication that there was no opposition to the proposal, for example, should have been sought before proceeding. Risker (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC) As the person who asked for this, I think this block is unjust. The original category was added and there was no dispute. It was accidentally deleted I think, so I asked him to re-do it. Also, silence is consensus - and you can't expect 100% consensus for every edit in any case. This is a bad and overly aggressive block, please reverse.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Good point. Risker seems to think I'm a pre-cog or something. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)So even though there had been no opposition to the request for 18 hours on a highly trafficked page where no one was shy about voicing opposition to anything and everything, I shouldn't have concluded that there was no opposition? That's ridiculous, quite frankly. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Totally agree. Risker, you took a step too far. Drop the mop and walk away slowly. These edits were completely benign.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. (edit conflict) Whoosh, section archived. It took me a long time to check all those links (in my slow internet and prepare this post, the post was (talk page stalker)(Non-administrator comment) Queries: the respected blocking admin told at the article's talk page— Full page protection means that YOU cannot edit the article for any purpose either, absent a clear-cut edit request. But, we should concentrate and work with the main and original version of the policy and not someone's personal interpretation or commentary on it (here someone may be anyone including "me" and Mark). So allow me to quote directly from WP:FULL: A fully protected page can be edited only by administrators.... Modifications to a fully protected page can be proposed on its talk page (or at another appropriate forum) for discussion. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the {{Edit protected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes.. Now, there was a clear edit request, now the only thing where I am stumbling— was this edit request "uncontroversial"? how? Right now (keeping the "stumble"/"query" in mind), I am feeling, a direct block was too much for this situation. If I were an admin and had to deal this situation, I would have come to this talk page and ask the same question which I have just asked: "Mark, please clarify why did you feel the edit request was uncontroversial and your edit reflected consensus?" --Tito☸Dutta 19:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC) To be honest, I had to check to see if you were an admin or not. Maybe you will be sometime soon :) Your comments make a lot of sense here. The edit for which I was blocked was actually me partially reverting an edit I had made the day before. I didn't think a self-revert like that would be a problem. The request for the addition of the category had been made 18 hours before, and no one had opposed it in that time, even though it was on a highly trafficked page and people weren't being shy about disagreements. So that's my perspective on the issue. Also, if Risker had approached me about the impropriety of my edit instead of dropping the hammer like that I would have gladly self-reverted. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC) That makes sense. Few editors discussed here and what I have experienced/felt too, admins sometimes deliberately ignore edit requests. I won't be surprised if you too start ignoring edit requests from now. :) In my humble opinion, an attempt to talk first or a strict single issue warning/last warning (at *editor's talk page*) could have been better and friendlier here. Anyway, let bygones, be bygones. Tito☸Dutta 20:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for weighing in. You make a lot of sense. Perhaps you should run for Arbcom :) Mark Arsten (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC) What an awful thing to wish on someone. ;-p - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC) I turned off computer and went to sleep (2:35 am here), but, had to turn on my computer again because of a question. See if you can answer my question here. WP:FULL clearly mentions: an admin can make changes in a protected article following an uncontroversial edit request if it reflects consensus. But, what WP:FULL fails to clarify: what should an admin do if no one replies to an edit request (i.e. no support, no oppose, no discussion, no previous oppose), or, in other words, he has no way to understand that if the change will be controversial and the edit request seem to be a non controversial minor edit to him. Should he ignore the edit request? Or should he apply his own common sense? Or what? OR, want to try this practically? Let's go to "Request for adminship" pages and ask this question as "optional RFA question" We'll not tell anyone about "this" discussion. I am quite sure, a good number of editors' replies will be something like this: "In such situation when there is no discussion or no one is posting to an edit request, I'll check the article history and its talk page and make the change if I am totally convinced that the edit is not controversial, BUT, I'll very carefully follow the article and the discussion and will surely consider to change it if someone opposes to the edit". But, wait, is not it the same thing that you did here? --Tito☸Dutta 21:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC) That is a good question. My take on it has generally been to try to apply common sense about whether it is likely to displease someone. I get occasional request after protecting pages to revert to the "right version", and I seldom do so since it's disputed. Most edit requests are about about small things, and I wouldn't fill one if I thought it would be disputed. For example, I update the code on a highly visible template yesterday since I figure there was no point in letting it languish if a couple skilled coders vouched that it was an improvement. There were only two of them, but I doubted anyone would object to my sprucing up the code. In the Manning case, I've very very seldom seen the inclusion of a category as controversial, so that didn't occur to me at all. Asking as an RFA question might be a good idea, seeking clarification at the guideline page might work too. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Chelsea Manning Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — ΛΧΣ21 18:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks, and for the record, I think the blocks of Jimfbleak and Zzyzx11 are disgraceful as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Intent to avoid Chelsea Manning -- unblock request Per Risker's comment above that "any administrator may unblock you provided that you undertake to make no further edits to the Chelsea Manning page for the duration of the protection", I hereby promise that I will avoid editing the Chelsea Manning page for the duration of the protection (and will leave the page alone for good) if I'm unblocked. Will someone unblock me now please? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Ched beat me to it; I was about to unblock. Thank you, Mark. Risker (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) Mark, I have unblocked you ONLY because you appear to agree to the terms of Risker's unblock requirements. While I've seen much of the news on "Manning", I have not followed the "wiki" end of this situation; therefore I can not opine on the validity of the block, how/why it happened, or the situation at that page. I will notify Risker next. — Ched :  ?  18:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you Ched, you're more than a fellow Wikipedian to me, you're a good friend, as well. If we had more people like you we wouldn't have half the problems we do now. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Actually I think I may have caused more problems than I've resolved lately. Once the infobox case closes I'll likely take a needed break from most things here. Hopefully I can recharge and come back with a bigger picture view, and a better understanding of how to help - glad you and Risker could come to an understanding. It was just happenstance that I chose to look at my news feed and watchlist while I took a break to have a cold sweet tea and a bite to eat. Kinda sorry I interrupted Risker in the unblock, I'm sure she would have been happy to do that. — Ched :  ?  18:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Well, I hope you enjoyed your lunch. I don't blame you for wanting to take a break, that case looks exhausting. Hopefully it will turn out well. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC) From another criminal I was going to comment on Risker's page, but I saw you got there first, and decided to leave it at that. Whatever happened to WP:AGF? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Now at least some admins know what it's liked to be wrongly marked with the Wiki Scarlet Letter. Count your blessings, at least you don't have three of them like I do. Wiki is truly a total den of dysfunctional insanity. PumpkinSky talk 14:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Something that the rest of us have just had to get used to. Eric Corbett 15:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Sadly, all too true, and perpetually ever more so. PumpkinSky talk 16:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks everybody. It is disheartening to see such poor judgment from a prominent member of the community. But at the same time, it's very encouraging to see the community so thoroughly repudiate her actions. And in December, of course, we'll be able to replace her for good with a better member of the community--so that's worth looking forward to. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Sadly I won't be available, as I'm not a member of the admin caste. Admins policing admins is yet another of WP's problems. Eric Corbett 16:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC) It would be great if you ran. I bet you'd do pretty well. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC) I might do very well, as Giano did a couple of years ago, but the WMF has mandated that only administrators can be members of ArbCom. Eric Corbett 16:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC) That's too bad. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Ayaan Chawla article deletion. Hello Mark sir, I have created a article about a kid named Ayaan Chawla who owned well known companies in Asia, but the article has been deleted. So i would like to request you to restore the article, as you are administrator. But if you want to contact please. And i am reading articles on Wikipedia since 2004 and i found many articles which are related like this kid and i also work as i am professional but i haven't seen any 16yrs kid who is doing this type of things since he was 10yrs. Will be waiting for your reply sir. Regards Ron Gates —Preceding undated comment added 09:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Since there seemed to be a consensus on the Afd, you'll have to go to WP:DRV to have the deletion overturned. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC) AFD - Robert Brydges Hi, The AFD you relisted now seems to have reached a consensus of merge, and the merge has been performed. Can you please now close the AFD discussion and blank/redirect the article in question to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Wants_to_Be_a_Millionaire%3F_%28UK_game_show%29#Robert_Brydges_.2829_September_2001.29 . Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Ok,  Done Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC) AFT5 Cat Please see this discussion re your deletion which has been going on before you deleted the cat.Blethering Scot 16:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC) I hadn't seen that. I'll restore it if you think the deletion was controversial. Should I do so? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Deletion review for Ayaan Chawla An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ayaan Chawla. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Chris Brown move As a consequence of the move of Chris Brown (American entertainer) to Chris Brown a large number of redirects now go to the wrong place e.g. Chris Brown (soccer), Chris Brown (American politician) etc. Please be aware! Happy editing. Tassedethe (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, I'll let User:Hahc21 know since he carried out the move. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC) I didn't notice that, all those protection changes distracted me. Thanks! Tassedethe (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Yeah, uh, what was the point of that? Why didn't you just move the page yourself? And whichever one of you and Hahc21 (talk · contribs) who was intended to address the move request, please close it properly. -- tariqabjotu 15:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC) He requested the pages be unprotected for the move on WP:RFPP so I did so. I guess I could have moved it myself, but I thought he was going to handle closing the RM and double redirects and so on so I left it for him. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Yes I will take care of all that today. I had to suddently leave PC after doing the move. Apologies. — ΛΧΣ21 16:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC) No prob, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Gadji (Band) Hi.. just wondering why the Gadji (Band) page was deleted so soon as I had clearly indicated that archive video footage among other reference's were about to appear... As soon as people offered help pointing out how to improve the the entry according to the Wiki band guidelines, the entry was updated in line with the guidelines asap. I looked at the appeal section for deletion which suggested I open a discussion with the administrator involved first... I assume this is the right place to do this ? ... Kind Regards. John kirk (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Sorry, but it seems like the consensus there was pretty clear, so I won't undelete it. You can apply for undeletion at WP:DRV though if you'd like. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Considerable changes were made to the entry Gadji (Band) following the constructive criticism offered on the Gadji (Band) deletion discussion page for Gadji (Band) .... Following all the changes, No more constructive criticism was offered on the discussion page as a majority of the issues appeared to have been addressed. Such as a plethora of references and an abundance of additional notable aspects... All of which were not in place when the majority of consensus you interpreted was made. The consensus you read (about 4 constructive comments) related to the article prior to the issues been addressed. And... additionally, as I pointed out above, more reference's to the encyclopaedic notability of the entry was on the way from various Non-internet sources which required a little more time to compile, such as Video tape to digital conversion of television footage. It really would be fair (in my opinion) on reflection to award time (as requested in the original discussion) for additional material, references, and the luxury of more time for others to come forward and contribute by restoring the entry as a Stub article. I had in mind to ask someone who had helped with another entry to then help to order the entry more concisely when everything was in place. Kind Regards .. (I know its a tough job) John kirk (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC) The problem is that you were the only one who wanted it kept, and there was a consensus against your position. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Constructive comments led to the entry to become considerably updated... No comments for or against were submitted after the considerable updates to the entry.... the consensus you read related to the entry prior to the changes. Im sure people would find it difficult to challenge the entry in its up to date form. (of which I still have many more historical and current additions of noteworthiness to apply.... setting the article back to a stub would allow this. Kind Regards John kirk (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Any updates on your position after the recent illumination above ? Kind Regards John kirk (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC) No, my advice is still to go to WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page. Clarity has not been achieved yet. misinterpretation of consensus has been proven... Im awarding you more time John kirk (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC) AfD question I would like to ask you to reconsider your decision on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Durham. While you are correct in that there was no consensus in the plain sense of the word on the deletion discussion, the lack of consensus was not compatible with Wikipedia policies. What I mean is, all but one of the "keep" commenters made arguments that have no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. They simply asserted that inclusion in a specific book automatically renders an individual notable. As far as I know, Wikipedia never defers judgments about interpreting our policies/guidelines to external sources. As such, I would argue that none of those comments should carry any weight when measuring the consensus. And the consensus of the remaining editors in the discussion is that the subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG or any topic specific notability guideline. As such, I do not believe that a decision of no consensus is consistent with deletion policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC) You raise an interesting point, and I'm not 100% sure how to proceed here. I guess to me it would depend on how selective that one book is in terms of who they list. I think in the past we've generally held that inclusion in a print encyclopedia is enough evidence to prove notability. They seem to be making a similar argument here. I have mixed feelings about the strength of their !votes. Since this was closed as "No consensus", perhaps it would just be best to renominate? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC) If I renominate, I believe it fairly likely that ARS will show up again with the same arguments. I could go into the details on the book (some of it was covered on the AfD), but I hesitate to make it seem like I'm pushing you into making a supervote. I'll think on the matter...if I took it to DRV, I'm pretty sure they'd just re-list it as well, so I guess renominating would at least avoid that problem. Probably the "safest" thing is to let it sit for a few months (who knows--maybe someone will introduce new sources in that time), then renominate, and reference both the prior discussion and this discussion thread here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC) A favor! Hey Mark, how are you? It's been a while. Anyway, I need a favor from you. Can you please protect Talk That Talk (Rihanna song) from IP's so they can not edit it? One IP constantly adds the genre of R&B with FAC unreliable sources (I plan to bring it to FAC soon). Thank you and cheers! — Tomíca(T2ME) 12:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, I protected for a week. I can protect for longer if they keep it up after the protection expires. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you very much. I will inform you if there are issue with it. — Tomíca(T2ME) 14:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Chelsea Manning Sorry, didn't mean to tread on your toes - I thought you were only meaning to enforce the move protection, but upping the text protection doesn't affect that at all. (I'm actually surprised and pleased that text vandalism hasn't been a problem today.) - David Gerard (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC) You might be right about the protection. But it pisses me off when someone reverts an admin action of mine without talking to me first though. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC) I'll take more care! - David Gerard (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Exari Wikipedia Page Hi Mark, I noticed that my company's (Exari) wikipedia page was deleted. Would you be able to guide me how to improve it, so we can have it posted again? Thank you in advance! Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkpeneva (talk • contribs) 20:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Well, we usually discourage people from writing about their company per our WP:COI rules. If you were to try to get it restored, you would want to make a draft of the article in your userspace, see WP:USERSPACEDRAFT for details. You would have to make sure sure you cited lots of detailed coverage of the company that was in reliable sources in your draft. See WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:RS, & WP:CITE. Then you would go to WP:DRV and ask for the deletion to be overturned and your draft added as an article. Let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your answer, Mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkpeneva (talk • contribs) 12:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC) User talk:Enasaha I guess I should have moved it over redirect instead of deleting it. Thanks. I'll know for next time. And thanks for salting it. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC) No prob, you're welcome. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Nihang protection Hi, I noticed that you protected this page. The only prob here is the last editor before you is a sockpuppet of User talk:Amanbir Singh Grewal, and User talk:Amanbir Singh, and of User talk:Mokshanine. and who knows, maybe countless others. I've given you links to his talkpages as they are easier to get an idea from, and he doesn't appear to have any homepages. I wonder whether you could return it to the previous edit, as I for some reason don't appear to be able to do so? Many thanks. Brendandh (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC) I'm confused, why can't you edit the page? This doesn't make sense to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Nope, when I try to undo the unconstructive reverts of Ip:117.236.116.179, (who incidentally is a Sockpuppet of User talk:Amanbir Singh Grewal, amongst others, and who I came across in quite another matter) it won't allow me! Been an editor since 2006ish and have no interest in admin-ing but content. I don't like vandals, so have rollback ability, but neither of those seem to work. I would have to roll back your protection, and then undo which may land me in hot water with the powers that be, or do manually, which is tedious, especially in a subject that I have no interest in! Regards Brendandh (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC) You can roll back past my protection if you want. It won't unprotect the article, it will just remove the icon. If you re-add the icon when you're done there will be no problems. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Yup. Having a Luke in the swamp moment! Wilco! Brendandh (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Pulpo Media Hi, I noticed that you delete this page. I don't undertand what's the problem about this page. I have wrote on the discution page about that but nobody answer it. I really need this page online and I toke other wiki articles like examples to make it. I had put external references, etc.... Please, I need an anwer. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivulina (talk • contribs) 14:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC) This editor asked me about Justin Kuykendall, which appears to have been bundled into the Pulpo Media AFD. I deleted it after the fact when it showed up on WP:BADAFD as an article with a tag for a closed AFD. If you didn't intend for your closure to include that article, I can undelete and re-nominate - whatever works for you. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC) I didn't mean to delete Justin Kuykendall, since User:DGG didn't intend for it to be bundled. I should have addressed it in my close though, my mistake there. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC) No problem. I've undeleted and relisted it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Kuykendall (2nd nomination). Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC) User:LudicrousTripe As you seem to already have a rapport with this user, could you please review their comments on my talk page?--v/r - TP 18:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Yeah, that's not acceptable--blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you.--v/r - TP 19:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC) An attack kitten for you! An attack kitten for you! Demiurge M has given you an attack kitten! Attack kittens help promote Wiki-chaos, and are immune to most landmines due to their minimal weight. Attack kittens do not appreciate saucers of milk, but instead prefer to sink their little fangs into warm living flesh; so set your attack kitten on a socked blockpuppet or similar target today! (Less Chelsea time may mean more time for our merry cadre of ban-evaders) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC) LOL, thanks Demi! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Copyediting I've tried to copyedit and prepare otaku for FA levels, but I lack experience to copyedit effectively, and perhaps have made some rather simple oversights. I was hoping you could mentor me in the art of copyediting. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Sure, sounds pretty interesting, I'll give it a copyedit. A good place to start your copyediting journey is by reading User:Tony1/Redundancy_exercises:_removing_fluff_from_your_writing. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Okay. I started by printing it out and trying to remove as much redundancy, but I was lacking a good guide. I'll go through this while you are taking a peek at the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC) It might take me a day or two to get there, but I'll try to do it soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC) RFPP First of all Mark, I would like to express my dissatisfaction with what happened earlier today with that unjust block when we both know you were just trying to help out the article, and used your right as an Administrator to do that. You can believe that I was in the process of writing up responses here and at ANI, if it was not for the edit conflicts due to uproar that the blocks resulted in. I am really happy the issue did not discourage you and you are still very active at RFPP, which I have not been able to express how thankful I am for. I really appreciate the work you do for Wikipedia! On the issue though, you protected Ryback (wrestler) only for a week when it has been protected 5 times previously in the last eight months, including a PC trial where the majority of the edits were rejected. This page has been a major BLP vandalism target for many months, so I think a longer protection period would definitely be better. STATic message me! 02:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Hey, thanks for your support. Always good to have people like you helping out. You are right about Ryback, usually I look for past protections but it must have slipped my mind when doing that one, so I've extended it. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Alright thanks again Mark, see you around. STATic message me! 02:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Another thing, when you moved Chris Brown (American entertainer) to Chris Brown you did not move the protection settings correctly. As I can tell from this it was semi-protected indefinitely, and you only protected it for three more days after the move. It just got unprotected, and this needs to be fixed before the sure BLP vandalism pops up. STATic message me! 18:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Got it. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC) can we get the reconstruct permission? Hello Sir ... ref. Shekhar Gurera, may be due to not been touched the Notability guidelines or some modification error while editing it due to fully unawareness of DOs & DONTs etc ... can you please allow us to reconstruct the page with the same name as per the guidelines ... or it can be a English translation of the same http://hi.wikipedia.org/s/6wrk --Gurera (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, I've moved the article to your userspace, User:Gurera/Shekhar Gurera, as a draft (WP:USERSPACEDRAFT) so you can add citations to reliable sources (per WP:V). Please note that press releases and blogs do not qualify as reliable per our standards. Once you have the article fully sourced with citations to significant coverage of the group (WP:GNG), you can apply to have it reinstated at WP:DRV. Also, please be mindful of our WP:COI rules. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC) ok sir .. thanks a lot .. we'll take proper time .. nothing to hurry .. we already saved this text from u, we'll do accordingly after reading proper guidelines .. the only doubt we have abt the "citations to reliable sources", if some contents is more than a decade old history, its a rare chance to find it .. those days keeping online archive was a rare phenomenon .. instead v already hav origional hard copies (It can also be in the form of scanned copy) of the certificates / newspaper cuttings / documents / photographs / videos etc .. this can also b provided if needed .. v need your kind cooperation in the form of a seniors help to make this article perfect to publish :) ... regards --Gurera (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Well actually, a source doesn't need to be online to be used. You just have to provide enough information when citing it. See Wikipedia:Offline sources for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Hello Mark Arsten! Hello Mark Arsten, I was going through Wikipedia Requested Articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/People_in_business and I saw some requests and in that I found about a person called Ayaan Chawla and other and when I saw the page I found that it was created by a editor previously and deleted by you, so is that article can be recreated, in any new manner? Benjohnson61 (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia, I see you just started editing yesterday afternoon. What made you decide to focus on creating this particular article so soon? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Hello Mark Arsten, actually I was going through requested articles to get started, and on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/People_in_business first name of person i found Ayaan Chawla. Benjohnson61 (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Ok. Just out of curiosity, have you ever edited Wikipedia before? You seem pretty skilled for a one-day old account. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, I have already edited some article. Edited till yesterday : Haat Bihu : References added. Riga Merchant Guild : Raised for deletion. Benjohnson61 (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC) May I know why you are asking these details? Benjohnson61 (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Your request is somewhat unusual, that's all. Most new users take a while before trying to get articles like this undeleted. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC) I got your email and replied back, Spartaz blocked Benjohnson while I blocked another sock of his and create protected two more of his spam targets. Hopefully that should take care of this minor inconvience. Secret account 01:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Oh, just got it, thanks for your help on this! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Aam Aadmi Party After you page protected Aam Aadmi Party to admins-only, I can't seem to edit the Talk page of the article and get a server 500 message whenever I try to save my comments (I've been trying regularly over a 3 hour period). I can save edits to my User page though. Is this a program feature at Wikipedia or is it just me ? TheWikiIndian (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC) A server error (such as HTTP error 5XX or 7XX) generally has nothing to do with protection (unless the protection somehow screwed up everything and server is failing to take instruction and communicate with the user's computer and thus showing "internal server error" message). Tito☸Dutta 08:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Sorry for the late reply, but I have no idea what could e causing that. WP:VPT might be a good place to ask for help. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC) How to set up article feedback now? Hi, Mark, I see you archived the previous page about using a category to enable article feedback on Wikipedia articles. I think there is a new way to do that, but searching Wikipedia hasn't revealed to me what the new way is. How does an editor who watches a page regularly enable reader feedback on that page? Thanks for any tips you can provide. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker) On the left side of the page, under "Toolbox," there's a link that says "Enable feedback." Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Joseph Booton AFD review Hello Mark. You have just concluded that my first article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Booton (actor) should be deleted . Could you please advise me where I can find the source code so as to improve the article for possible future consideration? Also, could you please provide an answer to the request by davidwr (the AFC reviewer who initially accepted the submission) when he request the following: "Note to the closing admin: This should only be deleted if either he fails WP:ENT (I contend that he passes WP:ENT, but that's obviously open to interpretation and discussion) or if he passes WP:ENT and is therefore presumed to be notable, but someone takes the trouble to do a deep search for evidence of notability and comes up dry or mostly dry. I am requesting that if the article is deleted, the closing admin specify whether, in his opinion of the consensus, the person fails WP:ENT or, despite passing WP:ENT, has been shown to fail WP:N. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)"? Thank you for you consideration. Papawazo (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC) If you'd like, I can undelete the article and move it into your userspace for you to work on. Then maybe you can get the deletion overturned if you find new sources or if he gets more roles. As the the question about WP:ENT: it's possible for someone to reach a specific guideline like ENT and still be deleted if there's a consensus that he fails the general notability guideline, WP:GNG. That doesn't happen very often, but people are allowed to make that case in discussions and as the closing admin I judge things based on the consensus that people in the discussion have come to, not my personal opinion. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Mark: I'm the one that asked for the closing admin to be explicit as to whether this subject failed WP:ENT or if he was one of those rare "false positives" that passed the subject-specific guideline and was therefore presumed to be notable but on further inspection was not. If you could go back and clarify your reasons for closing, it would prevent future issues. By the way, even though I was asked to come here (see User talk:Davidwr#AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Booton (actor)) I had it in my mind to ask you to do this even before Papawazo asked me to. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC) To both Mark and Papawazo: The fact that this went from passing through AFC only to immediately fail at AFD is my fault - I obviously was too quick to accept this submission. I'm human, I occasionally make mistakes, please accept my apology for wasting time at AFD instead of handing the notability issues inside the AFC process. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Well, only one delete !vote specifically felt that he failed ENT, the other three seemed to think that he failed general notability. (Their language wasn't that precise though). Mark Arsten (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Mark, if you could kindly move the article back to my userspace I shall continue to work on it as and when the article subject gains more notoriety or further sources come to light. This has been very much a learning curve for me and I hope it better informs my future article creations of living persons. Mark and David than you for your help in this matter. I hope that the article will come to light once it is ready. Papawazo (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Ok, I've userfied the article to User:Papawazo/Joseph Booton (actor). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks. Papawazo (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Order of the Eagle of Georgia and the Seamless Tunic of Our Lord Jesus Christ Hello, Mark! I created an article on "The Order of the Eagle of Georgia and the Seamless Tunic of Our Lord Jesus Christ" which I now realize is a topic for which you deleted an article a few years ago. Would you look at mine and make sure it meets your criteria? I don't know what the original article looked like, but I hope that the new one is ok. Thanks! Nick Nicholson RomanetNYC —Preceding undated comment added 01:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Well, actually, you should have asked me before recreating the article. It may be deleted as the recreation of a deleted article. I'll see if the person who nominated the previous version of this article, User:Ravenswing, approves of the current version first though. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC) No more so than the original, truth be told. My nom for the previous iteration was "Non-notable faux order created by members of a self-appointed Royal House of Georgia. Sourced only to that organization's website and to the article creator's blog. No news hits, no Scholar hits, Google search dominated by Wiki mirrors and heraldry blogs. Fails the GNG." I'm quite happy to nominate this one for deletion in like fashion, seeing as this "order" hasn't become any more notable over the last year. Ravenswing 06:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC) I think renominating it might be a better idea than a G4 deletion, considering that a couple editors have protested the first deletion. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC) extending block of 203.184.40.73 I hope you don't mind, but since 203.184.40.73 (talk · contribs) has a solid record of vandalism dating back a year, I reblocked for a month, up from your 31 hour block. —EncMstr (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC) No problem at all, looks like that was my mistake, actually. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Special When Lit (album) How is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special When Lit (album) a keep? There was not a single credible keep !vote in there. Baseless accusation of vandalism and a personal attack on the nominator and a vague claim of inherited notability. A lie about it being well sourced and other stuff exists. A keep with no reason only if sources were added (they weren't). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Mark: I wasn't watching this or I would've echoed Erpert's comment, which was really "delete/merge UNLESS other sources are added." The two editors who said "strong keep" did not provide relevant arguments to keep these articles. In fact, Mrmoustache14's rhetorical question suggests that all of this artist's albums should be reviewed for notability, and only those that are notable should be kept. If I had been the closing admin I would've downplayed the "strong keep" !votes because they didn't really provide any argument for notability but closed it as as "no consensus" rather than "delete" mainly due to the polarized opinions and the low participation, plus Erpert's choice to phrase his !vote as "weak keep, but only if..." rather than the equivalent statement of "delete, unless..." (in other words, I'm not brave enough to make the bold call to delete in a case like this, where the strength of the arguments favored deletion but more people wanted to keep the article than delete it). The key difference between closing as keep and closing as no consensus is that a no-consensus close does not prevent a quick second AFD for the same reason. Quickly renominating after a plain-old "keep" for the same reason is generally considered disruptive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Msg for Duffbeerforme: To prevent future nominations of this artist's works, please improve the articles so they clearly indicate that they meet either WP:GNG or WP:ALBUM, remembering that notability of music is generally not inherited from the notability of its composers, songwriters, performers, etc. (famous artists such as The Beatles are arguably excluded, but that doesn't apply here). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Looking at it again, that does look more like a no consensus than a keep. I've amended my close on the Afd. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for having another look. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Edits to Ryback page I find it hard to see why you reverted many of my edits made, seeing that much of what I had added, such as the moves, have been what he had done, so I don't see how it is vandalism. And as for the information on him, you have obviously not watched it recently, as he had turned heel and has a bully gimmick, I see no reason why this is vandalism and I demand a proper explanation. None of what I did can be considered vandalism. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.240.218 (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC) What edits are you referring to? It doesn't look like you've edited that page with this IP. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Sorry if I seemed hostile before, but I have edited the page, and updated his moveset+storyline, and I was just wondering why it was deleted. My I.P is wierd because it shows edits I have made on different ones. If you look on my page, it shows I made edits to movie pages. In 2008. I didn't make edits to them in 2008. --121.214.206.81 (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Understood I sent report to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Hassan Rouhani 2. --HistorNE (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Ok thanks, that's a great place to go for more input. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Dominique Young Unique Could you delete the above redirect, move Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dominique Young Unique there and then restore all its revisions?--Launchballer 16:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)  Done, no problem. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks! Thanks for the semiprotection on Albania–Yugoslav border incident. Socks never sleep, alas. bobrayner (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC) No, they sure don't! Hey, maybe sometime soon you'll be able to help out with the RFPP queue :) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC) You flatter me; sadly I don't have the wit, patience, and devastating good looks that all admins are required to demonstrate at RfA. bobrayner (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Understandable, some Rfas really are brutal experiences. If you do run, though, I recommend waiting until two other candidates are running as well. It might just be a superstition, but it worked in my case. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Question About Article on Hbmdb Hi i wrote an article on a website by keeping in view of the page Bollywod hungama but my article was tagged A7 and G11 although it was much more informative then this one. can you guide me which specific words you feel like are promotional stuff Any suggestions? I don't think that really qualified as a G11, but the A7 was probably valid. The issue is: you didn't explain why the site is notable or important. Why does it deserve an article? How important of a website is it? Have people written about the site? See WP:NWEB for the kind of information we need to see to keep an article. The WP:Teahouse is also a good place to ask for advice. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC) List of massacres in Turkey Hello, I am writing this to you in order to inform you that some Turkish-related articles have for quite some time been hijacked by a group of editors whose only goal, it seems, is to negatively portray the Republic of Turkey, its predesseccors and its people as warmongerming murderers. This has especially become a problem in the article of List of massacres in Turkey where they only allow information about Turks killing others, and delete all reliabely sourced information about massacres against Turks/Muslims. By doing WP:OR, discrediting sources and authors, source falsification, distortion and tag bombing. Sources which state the number of Muslims casualties during the Greco-Turkish war is persistently being deleted. Your help is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.178.77.28 (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC) The best thing to do is to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. If you're unable to come to a consensus there, then you could consider other dispute resolution steps (WP:DR). Let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Une-bloque Thanks for your offer to unblock early, I appreciate it. Yintan  23:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC) My pleasure, looks like someone beat me to it though. You do so much for the project, the last thing we need is to have you out of commission! Mark Arsten (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Kelly Lovell Hey Mark, Just got your message. I noticed that the awards section was criticized for not having any citations. I had added those to compensate for the message at the top of the page, claiming it to be unsupported. Let me know if there is another way to fix this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.144.240 (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Oh sorry about that, I hadn't noticed your earlier edits. I thought you were just removing the messages at the top of the page for no reason. My mistake. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC) My recent RfA I should have said thanks for your support sooner. ```Buster Seven Talk 03:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC) No prob, glad to participate. Mark Arsten (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC) John Kerry Hello, no I have no reliable sources, I was just planing an act of vandalism as I am pissed off with John Kerry. Itcertainly is a minor issue regarding what he and his friends have just decided on our/my life. But anyways I find it doubtful to call it a secret society when everyone can know who is in it, who was in it, the history of the society etc...2.6.190.237 (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Peace Well, vandalizing his page really isn't a good way to get back at him. Mark Arsten (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, I can't anyway2.6.190.237 (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC) BPO Plus FYI as closer and salter of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BPO Plus - the author Jaggijsp (talk · contribs) has persisted, despite an earlier warning, with Bpo plus and when that was salted BPO+. This is taking WP:IDHT to the point of disruption, and I have indeffed him. I considered a week, but he is an SPA (request at REFUND refers to "our company") and I think he would just start again. JohnCD (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC) G13 Possibly we disagree about this, but I think it was agreed not to do single-handed deletions of G13s. I for one count on being able to check them at CSD, at least if I can catch them. Of course I can check them anyway, but its much harder. I also thought it was agreed to go in chronological sequence. There are many still not done in 2010, so why are you doing 2011s? I certainly count of being able to try to scan ahead of the deletions, and going this way makes it impossible. So far. I have undeleted 5 or 6 of the articles you deleted, and either improved them a little for future editing, or fixed and accepted them. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Hmm, I didn't know that, thanks for filling me in. I must have missed those discussions, sorry. Just a thought, but it might not be a bad idea to update the text at Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Mark Arsten. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Quantum Materials Corporation (2nd nomination). Message added 02:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Cheers! Unforgettableid (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Another thing about the Ryback page I put a lot of information on it, and while it seems petty, it took me a long time to put it on there because of slow internet. If you look back in the history, I updated his move-set and storyline. If you could, please revert it to how it was before. You can keep the pag locked if you want to, and I can provide a link to how it was. Thanks, 121.219.64.162 (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC) p.s.I might make an account so I can update other pages as well! I didn't revert you, I just protected the page. You should propose changes on the talk page for now, I recommend. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC) I made an account. Is there any way you can revert the changes(since you seem to be an admin)? Or will I have to go onto the talk page? I guess someone else deleted it. Rebel Pattern (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Protection for Aam Aadmi Party Could you please restrict edits for this page to auto-confirmed users to keep IP edits off.TheWikiIndian (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Sorry I missed this, but you should generally just post it on WP:RFPP. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC) What's Up, Mark... Hi Mark, Long time, no talk. I took a (what ended up becoming extended) wikibreak, but I'm back and sniffing around for stuff to do. Got anything interesting on your plate? Or is your wikilife consumed with admin-drama?  :) I don't think I ever said "congrats on the mop," so there you go. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 17:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Hey, thanks for the message. Glad to see that you're back editing again. We need all the help we can get at Afd these days. I close a lot of them and there has been a real problem with lack of input. So yes, most of my wiki-time has been devoted to admin work (and drama) lately. Clearing out backlogs is a great feeling. I haven't been doing too much writing for a while, but I just started doing some research for a new project. I'd love to have you take a look at it when I get it out of the sanbox, if you're willing. Take care, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Ooh, I'd like to check it out when you're done too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Well, I guess I have to deliver now! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Well now I'm intrigued... :) For sure let me know when you're ready. I'm usually hanging out in AfD too, so I'll see you there. Just looking for something a little more intellectually stimulating, ya' know? :D Livit⇑Eh?/What? 19:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Yep, got to keep things interesting :) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC) AN action Could you please help to get my question answered? Last week when we complained these issues at AN, our posts were more elaborate than detailed than what Jimbo Wales' is saying. No one supported us, not a single comment in our favor, Actually Bbb23's act was endorsed (and few editors from this noticebaord went ahead to protect Bb23 there). And now the same noticeboard is taking an 180 degree rotation (links have been posted at AN)--Tito☸Dutta 00:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Hmm, that is a good question. Do you have a link to last week's thread handy? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Yes, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive252#Asaram_Bapu_and_WP:BLP. note there are two thread here. First AN and then ANI. We posted at ANI too, but they did not allow to post there and moved our thread to AN. You'll see the references which were "gossip" that day are becoming "reliable" and "trusted" today. --Tito☸Dutta 01:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Well, there were only a few people who commented on last week's filing. Sometimes consensus can vary just because different people happened to show up, particularly when a thread doesn't get much input. It's one of the flaws of our system, really. And I guess the guy's arrest probably played into things as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Jimbo Bbb23's conflict started before the arrest. And Bbb23 can say it, even it is true that only few people participated there they supported him. There were more serious questions, if an admin does not understand Hindi, how can he redact it as BLP violation? --Tito☸Dutta 01:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC) If something in Hindi goes into the article, it should be reverted as not English. My opinion, at least. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Crisco 1492 the source/reference was in Hindi (not anything in the article). --Tito☸Dutta 01:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Yeah, the question of Hindi sources does really complicate things here. Do you know if Bbb knows Hindi at all? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Oh, okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Explanation request Please explain your decision at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive221#User:Codename Lisa reported by User:Dogmaticeclectic (Result: Decline). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC) What do you find confusing about my decision? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC) I don't understand, for instance, how you can possibly imply that reverting a particular portion of a page 5 times without a consensus for doing so is not edit warring. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC) I see two reverts on the 13th and two more of the 15th... this is well outside of what we usually block for. If I did block for that, I imagine it would have been overturned on ANI quite quickly. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Your "fan" Either this vandal is talking about you there and at another article, or someone else. If he or she means you, then you clearly have a fan. Flyer22 (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Personally I thought this comment was way out of line. I mean, c'mon, I think we all recognize that there are centaurs better than Mark, but world's worst? Really? Zad68 15:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC) LOL!! Flyer22 (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Wow, those are funny. I wonder what I did to earn such an insult, I would hope I'm a better centaur than some guys out there :) I wonder if it was the same guy who wrote this, or have I found a new admirer? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Same person, in my opinion. Looking at that IP's talk page, I conclude that the person behind that IP at that time never forgot about you and reemerged under a different account (this time registered). Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC) IP User 71.249.192.199 edit warring on Bulgarian Children's Chorus and School Gergana again I previously requested a page protection on this page. You ended up blocking the offending user and said something along the lines of contacting you if problems continue. Well, the user is at it again. Transcendence (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Looks like someone else has protected it. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Major League Baseball controversies An article that was deleted one year ago, has been recreated. Since you were the one to close the AFD maybe you would like to speedy delete it. I already nominated it under G4....William 20:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Looks like someone beat me to it. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Kerfew listed at Redirects for discussion An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kerfew. Since you had some involvement with the Kerfew redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 07:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC) New Logo mig33 Requested for a new logo to be uploaded to the mig33 page since the logo is now red and blue and not orange/blue as the page still promotes. I've asked several people on Wikipedia but no one has gotten back to me yet. Can you help? I am currently unable to edit using this IP. 116.15.156.54 (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Jo Can you provide a link to the new logo? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Not exactly sure how...but I found this online and I have an actual copy of the logo....116.15.123.50 (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC) It's updated on Google Play....116.15.123.50 (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Ok, I suggest you ask for help at Wikipedia:Files for upload. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Question about IMDB.com Does Wikipedia consider IMDB.com an unreliable source that shouldn't be linked to on Wikipedia entries? A person editing the Curse of Chucky page is making this claim. I see IMBD.com links on almost every page dedicated to a film on Wikipedia. Perhaps I'm not aware of Wiki's policy. Thanks for the help! Partyclams (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Well, first of all, it shouldn't be cited as a source, but usually it's used as an external link. I just checked 15 featured articles on films and they all had IMDB as an external link, so I think it's acceptable, at bare minimum. That's not to say it has to be present on film articles though. But if I were you I wouldn't worry too much one way or the other since it's a pretty minor issue overall. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Regarding a deletion of a page Hello Mark. First off, I hope that I am doing this correctly since I am "new" to the editing of Wiki, and even "talk" to someone on here!! My apologies IF i have done it incorrectly!! I noticed that a page, gilflo was deleted due to not having references. I know that there were links to IMDB since this is a producer who does a lot of work for tv, film, etc. Is there some other type of "references" that will help get this page back up again? Anything that I can add to help the page re-exist, I am good to do. Is there something you can "suggest"? Just googling gilflo, you can see that the production has done multiple things, but a lot of the things mentioning him are from random pages and articles, not really a solid website as for now. please help so taht I can get this matter resolved. Thank you 0811gv (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC) A few things: 1. please only leave one message saying the same thing. 2. Don't indent your comments or it adds a box around them and makes them hard to read. 3. To get the page undeleted, you would have to offer coverage in reliable sources (WP:RS), i.e. magazines, newspapers etc. Or offer evidence that he meets the WP:MUSICBIO guideline or WP:ANYBIO. Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Sorry about the double post, Im not sure why that even happened. As for the "references", how to I go about getting these to you? Is there an email that I can send to "explain" where his work is mentioned, etc? He worked on an album that went up for a grammy in 2010. I have link that have the artist name, where his work is proved to be on that album, the actual nominee list of that year, as well as some other things (links) showing his work with these "known" people. Im still NEW to this type of thing, but I am getting this done for him. So again, forgive me not "knowing" the ropes to get around here on Wiki, but I am doing what I can to take care of this matter. Thank you 0811gv (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Basically, what we want is links to articles (preferably online, but can be offline) that show he's received decent coverage or has met the MUSICBIO guidelines. You may not be able to find enough though. I recommend asking at the WP:TEAHOUSE for general advice. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your info, I will try the Treehouse as well. When, or IF I DO have some links, where do I "paste" them for review? A lot of the info I did found is referencing the "album" and Artist that "his" work has been on and caught recognition for (grammy nomination) I found links that show his name doing one of the tracks on the album and a separate link that shows the album that has his work on it being a final nominee for the 2010 grammys. There are other link that reference "artist" using his producer name stating that they are working with him, or doing a track produced by "his name". Those are the only things I can find in articles, but those are articles covering the artist he has worked for and what they are doing with this album his work is on. Other sources again are from "tv.com" and imdb that SHOW his credentials in the TV/film world. Based on this info, is there somewhere I can "paste" these links to be verified to meet the standards? (i did read the guidelines where it stated they must have at least one major recognition (in nut shell) and him working on the album that was up for "album of the year" in the 2010 grammys, I thought, would def fall in that guideline alone. Thank you again for your time, and I don't mean to carry on, I just want to get this resolved properly. 0811gv (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC) If you want, I can move the deleted article to a subpage in your userspace so you can add references to it, as a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC) That would be awesome! I am "learning" my way around wiki and will have it eventually, BUT i really appreciate ANYTHING you can do to help me get this back to life. Thank you VERY much Mark! 0811gv (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Ok, I've moved it to User:0811gv/Gilflo so you can work on it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Thank you again Mark. I will be working on this throught the next few days into early next week. Have some travels to do, so will tie this in. Thanks again and have a great weekend! 0811gv (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Hello Hi. Not sure if you know or not but you are mentioned at AN in the section, "Administrator Nick-D, editor EyeTruth, former editor Blablaaa and the battle over the Battle of Kursk page". Caden cool 09:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Request Could you please delete this redirect to make way for an article to be moved to that title? Thanks:)— Arre 12:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)  Done It might be quicker just to G6 tag it in the future though. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Thankyou! Okay, I will do that in the future. — Arre 09:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC) User talk:108.95.180.195 Hi Mark. I need to request that User talk:108.95.180.195 be blocked. The user seems to be on a quest of revising as many running times of movies with incorrect data as possible. Also, as you noted, the user never gives reasons for what they are doing. I have spent over a week undoing all the damage and incorrect formatting for the Three Stooges article. The IP needs to be blocked ASAP. Thank you for your help. Oanabay04 (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC) I suggest you open a discussion about them at WP:ANI. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar Thank you for helping protect 2013 SAFF Championship from persistent vandalism. Ash Chetri 10:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks, I appreciate it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC) You're at WP:AN Please see the "Template edit protection" section of WP:AN, where User:Lfdder is objecting to your actions. Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Garden of Eden Hello Mark Arsten! I hope you are doing very well, I've realized, that by naming a location of the garden of eden, I almost accidentally took the mystery out of life for a lot of people. I am very sorry I didn't have the foresight to realize this in the moment. I really enjoy reading the Bible, the King James Version provided by the Gideons at a hotel I stayed at somewhere, it taught me what I needed to know about my family, so that I can pass on these stories eventually to the little ones I hope to help make eventually. I think your discretion to delete my post was a wise one indeed, and I would independently support your own search for family and history truths as well. My full name is not necessary on a public forum. I'm not jesus though, just so that's clear. I know that a lot of people including myself hope. I'm not an angel, i'm not the devil, I'm just a dreamer with a lot of hope for the world. And hope for love in my life and hope that all in the world can find love; if you'd like to find out some interesting connections between languages in the world, feel free to write me back! however, I think it would be wise to continue this conversation in another article, I prefer more intimate conversations, in terms of you know, like idk, just a one to one chat. i am, therefore i think — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.92.181 (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Very interesting, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC) fyi Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC) I'm aware the case is ongoing, what in particular do you wish to draw my attention to? Mark Arsten (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC) risker is not a named party. Not sure if you think it's worth bringing in. Secondly, the actions of David Gerard in reverting your protection have been mentioned. If you're aware and following I'm not proposing any particular action just wanted to inform you in case you were't aware. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Yes, those both do relate to me. I'll look into it, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Congratulations! The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar Congratulations, Mark Arsten! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and -- t numbermaniac c 05:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC) 17 deaths he killed 17 people I know this as a fact!!! he is my friends uncle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Macc (talk • contribs) 06:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker) You need to cite a reliable source, and don't edit-war with yourself. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Manning I replied on the evidence page. You're right: it's not a biggie and on another day may even have been a good thing. But in the overall picture of David's actions on that page on that day, it paints a picture of someone sitting too close to the buttons. --RA (✍) 16:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Ok, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Page Protection Please have a look! Thanks -- L o g X 16:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC) I think I got them all. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC) File:IFSLogoT12345.png What did you do here? There is a file there but there is currently no file information page present. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker) He undeleted the file but not its description page. Also, note that the assertion that the file exists on Commons (seen when creating the description page) is not correct. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I screwed that up. I'm still kinda new at image deletion work. I think it's fixed now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Continued vandalism by IP account you blocked on September 8. See and . Mattnad (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)  Done Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Carl Jenkinson content dispute Hello, I have requested protection for Carl Jenkinson if you could protect due to a content dispute. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Looks like somebody beat me to it. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Avengers Age of Ultron Hi Mark. You have helped on this page and other Marvel Cinematic Universe pages before. The Avengers: Age of Ultron's page protection expired today, and almost immediately after the block was lifted, an IP came in and vandalized the page. Was hoping you could readd the block, as I know that this IP's edits won't be the last. Or if you suggest, I'll wait for more evidence and go to RPP. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)  Done Mark Arsten (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the block and the time length given. Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC) You're welcome :) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC) AN3 When one party doesn't care about being blocked for edit warring since they know they will be unblocked, it's not a useful venue. Locking the page itself could have helped. Forget it. One more page off my watchlist. Hope the Cum Hard jokes come back soon and are missed by patrollers. --Onorem (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC) I don't really know what you're talking about with this cum nonsense, but I think both parties in the edit war very much dislike being blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC) One party would dislike it. The other would dislike it momentarily...then they would be unblocked because they are a contributor of epic proportions. If you don't want to look into the page history to catch my unrelated reason for watching the page in the first place, fine. --Onorem (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Well, complaining about him on my talk page will do you very little good. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC) I wasn't complaining about him. I was complaining about useless admin response to things that involve him. You are right about very little good coming from bringing it up here. Have a great night. --Onorem (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Please stop posting on my talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC) STiki Help I see you use Stiki and I need some help! Every time I use Stiki, nothing happens, I do edits on Stiki and they don't appear on my Contributions page. Every time I use it, I get a red error message at the bottom saying, "RB'ed 0 Edits conflict or error check page hist." Help! Sorry to bother you! ///EuroCarGT 01:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC) I think that means there was an edit conflict, WP:EC. I don't know too much about Stiki though, so you might want to ask someone who is more experienced with it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure it is an edit conflict cause ever since I used Stiki, nothing was edited using the program, I always make sure there is no edit conflict by checking back at the page history. Do you know anyone experienced in Stiki by any chance?! ///EuroCarGT 01:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC) I think the problem is an old version. I've left the upgrade message on your talk page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Alrighty then! Let me download the newer version too see this problem. ///EuroCarGT 01:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Fixed All good, thanks to both of you guys! ///EuroCarGT 01:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern dictators Greetings, I'm currently considering listing this article, where you performed the closing administrator duties, to deletion review. I believe this is those cases where consensus was not really formed because only very few people commented on the latest round of deletion and the editor who listed this to AfD did not notify major page contributors. This had survived at least three previous deletion discussions (one of those was incorrectly, against clear concensus, closed as "delete" by admin and later overturned, other nomination was created as part of POV-pushing campaign of since then banned user). I don't see any of the arguments from the keep-side addressed in the most recent discussion and participants were likely not even aware of the long discussion history as there was no pointers to previous AfDs in the nomination. Consensus is not formed by listing pages to AfD yearly, and then hoping nobody who knows about the topic notices the listing on this deletion round! Therefore I suggest this gets at least relisted, to get more opinions from editors who are currently active in Wikipedia to review the old arguments. I find it incredible that we are not allowed to label people like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mugabe etc. dictators, that kind of defies common sense. Equally crazy is to invoke arguments from BLP policy to protect the reputation of people who are more or less oppressing entire nationstates! And of course contentious BLP cases can and should be removed from the list, but that does not justify prohibition for listing the obvious cases (you can rank dictators by the rough number of people they have murdered for instance). The deletion policy says that deletion should not be used instead of editing the article when there are NPOV issues. There are ample references to oppressive political leaders labeled as dictators available and edits like repeatedly adding George Bush to the list should not disqualify the list itself. Also, we currently have list of titles used by dictators, which implies we can define who is a dictator and what alternative labels they have used to refer to themselves. I'd like to hear your opinion before taking any steps with this. Cordially, jni (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC) The crowd at DRV is often hesitant to enforce deletions that occurred more than a year ago, so you might have a good chance at getting it relisted if you go there. Good luck, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC) In that case it is good I waited year and a day :) I'll see if I can improve the list however, since it has some clear issues. jni (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)