Jump to content

User talk:Mark Arsten/Archive the second

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Input Wahabi

Your input is needed for the Wiki page on Wahabi. The user Sakimonk constantly violates the rules stating that only factual information be placed on articles. He has constantly changed the first part of the Article to read that Wahabi is a form of Sunni Islam, when in fact is is not, but rather it is a sect unto its own. It has its own laws, leaders, rulings, etc. Thus, I, theone9988, would like you please to ensure he is prevented from changing such factual info in the near future. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theone9988 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious why you want my input on this? I seldom edit Islam-related articles and know very little about Wahabi and Sunni Islam. I suggest you discuss the matter on Talk:Wahhabi. You should try to offer some sources to support your argument, see WP:RS & WP:V for our policy. Good luck! (and happy Ramadan, if you're Muslim) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that they think you won't notice that it is a reincarnation of Organometalic1 (talk · contribs) who was blocked for making edits that I now see you had, in part, reverted. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
To think that I would see the day when I'm attacked for stating that "only factual information be placed on articles" :) Sakimonk (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, Ok, I understand now. Well, I guess if you stay around for long enough around here, you'll get accused of pretty much everything ;) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Input Young and Restless

Your input is needed on Talk:List_of_The_Young_and_the_Restless_characters_(2010s) for Ricky Williams. Arjoccolenty (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Any reason why you want my input? I'm not much of a soap fan. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Appreciate your eyes on my new page Allan Graf. I've not been able to do page work recently, and tonight I broke my writer's block. Helped that the story was interesting and that I didn't get boggled by too many sources. I think there's a DYK hook in there somewhere. I've asked someone I trust to give it a look. Anything you'd like to contribute or say would be appreciated. Congrats on Bloody Bill Anderson at FAC, sorry I couldn't do too much to help. Like I said, I've been self-blocked and purely reactive. Trying to unblock; building pagespace I only have marginal interest in is a good throat clearer for me. BusterD (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear you broke the writers's block, that really is a pain. I haven't looked at the article too closely but it seems to be in pretty good shape, I'll try to check it out again when I have more energy. Thanks re:Anderson, I was pretty happy with how that one came out. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

For you

The Content Review Medal of Merit  
By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the second quarter of 2012, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. - Dank (push to talk) 19:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Nice reverts today. Good job! ‴ Teles «Talk ˱@ L C S˲» 03:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the quick reverts of the baffling vandalism on Funtime. 28bytes (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem, yes, that was quite odd. I wonder what people are thinking sometimes. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hawaiian

Hi, sorry for the late reply, I don't keep track of wikipedia and I didn't realize all this time I had a message from 2 people. I also apologize if i'm not replying correctly, not sure how to edit these pages since I don't frequent the site regularly. In any case, the meaning of o ke ao ana kristiano to me refers to the Christian era, the time that christianity was introduced, while he olelo hoonaau seems to relate to encouraging or enlightening words. I'm not sure if that word should be hoonaauao, since olelo naauao would be a proverb and then hoonaauao would be the act of creating these proverbs, which is why to me it refers to enlightenment. Mamoahina (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

New Labour

Hi there Mark, I was wondering if you could look at (another) article of mine. I've been working on New Labour for a little while and would like to get it to GA standard; I don't usually work on political articles, so I'd appreciate you taking a look. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

tsk, tsk, "you taking a look" is a fused participle. Anyway, sure, I'll take a look at it. I don't follow British politics too closely, but it won't be completely foreign to me. Sounds interesting, actually. I see things are moving slowly at FAC, hope they pick up soon. That's the problem with writing about "dry" topics, I guess. You did a great job on that though, however the FAC turns out. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh no! Not the grammar! Anyway, thanks for doing this, I appreciate it. And you're right - getting anything remotely philosophical reviewed on Wikipedia takes an age (but I seem to enjoy it, despite the waiting). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, there's something to that. I usually try to work on topics that I know will keep my interest, but in the past I've thought it would be an interesting challenge to work on Lapsarianism or the Governmental theory of atonement. Not sure I could push myself through all the necessary reading though. Marshall Applewhite has been a lot of reading, but that's interesting enough to me that I haven't gotten bored yet. I just have two more book chapters and one Newsweek article left to read on that project. (BTW, I have an open peer review on that article, if you're interested.) Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
No article ever failed GA for having a fused participle :P Then again, this could change... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I've seen some picky GA reviews lately, but that would take the cake. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks Mark Arsten! You helped in various ways on the Paul McCartney FAC. In addition to your fine suggestions you also offered outstanding recommendations for copyeditors. Thank you! Without your help McCartney would not be a FA today! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Soegija

Thanks for taking the PR. I'm probably gonna put ? at FAC first, then Soegija... wonder when I'll have time for Oerip Soemohardjo or Sudirman... or Belenggu. Guess I should start co-nomming. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just find someone to make 30 null edits in case someone checks the contributors edits tool :) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • That's a good question. I haven't worked on that one at all since it passed as a GA. To be honest, I started finding it somewhat boring, actually. Writing about UFO religions has been a lot more interesting. Who knows, maybe I'll get back to it sooner or later. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's a more interesting (and less controversial) topic. The only problem I see with Mr. Dragon's article (now, him himself... a lot more) is that there is little coverage of his post-KKK career. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I know of a couple small details between his retirement and death, but not too much. Well, maybe I'll take another shot at it. The UFO groups that I've been writing about have been pretty conflict free thus far, but there have been some real major New Religious Movement conflicts in the past. One must tread lightly, there are a couple articles I'd like to work on but will avoid due to the presence of POV pushers. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I tried a Donal MacIntyre infiltration of our local Dianetics chapter; it went well for a time until my buddies decided to call and give them my real name and number. They are some terrifying people. GRAPPLE X 02:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
lol, wow, with friends like those, who needs Marcabian enemies? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I live in fear of R2-45. GRAPPLE X 02:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry, Xenu will protect you :) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

article request

Hi Mark,

Looks like its an article in an Italian (Vatican?) journal published by the Pontifical Gregorian University. I'm assuming from the title that the article is in English, but the journal publishes in Italian, German, Latin and French as well as English so it may not be. I should have it for you in a few days. GabrielF (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to hear that you'll be able to get it, much appreciated. It's not an urgent request, but it has definitely piqued my curiosity. I saw that some chapters were in other languages, but let's hope the title is a good sign... Mark Arsten (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Thanks for editing the De Clementia article :) Theophilus Wallace (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Author/Mark Arsten

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Vacuatiner. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, but I believe you have made an error, I don't think I've ever edited our page on Vacuatiner (or Vacutainer). I've e-mailed you. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons category

So, what is not beneficial about pointing to the photos of the civil administrators? Your Reversion/Removal: Thank you for your interest in editing Wikipedia. Your edit on the page United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands was successful, but because it was not considered beneficial to the page, the edit has been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.196.159 (talk) Also, according to Wikipedia: "It is generally against Wikipedia guidelines for one Wikipedia reader/editor to "target edits" by another Wikipedia reader/editor for the sole purpose of "reversing" or "undoing" those edits."

PR

I will be glad to look at it, but am pretty slow in reviewing things lately, so it may well be a week before I get to it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine, things have been moving fairly slowly lately, I suspect that summer has something to do with it. Anyway, I'm sure I can keep myself occupied until then. Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Fuck off

I strongly suggest you fuck off. 94.8.106.255 (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I will give it careful consideration. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Help on improving article

Hi Mark Arsten, I have been contributing articles in Wikipedia since 2004, however, I locked my old account, as such I had to create a new, I saw your contributions for articles concernning biographies of living persons, will it be alright if I ask for you help on improving an article for Judy Ann Santos, I figured you don't have an idea of who she is, but I wanted to contribute in improving this article with a neutral point of view, i have already started with the lead, though the body/section headings need would need to be refurbished as it is mainly of fansite content. My aim is to have it tagged as one of the featured articles. Your inputs and help will be greatly appreciated Pseud 14 (talk) 07:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm a bit curious as to why you decided to ask me? I contribute to very few BLPs these days other than reverting vandals. My best advice is to find the sources you want to use first, then rewrite the article section by section, then do the lead. There's not too much I could help you with at this point if the article needs a rewrite (which it might), finding good sources and developing a draft are good starting points. Working in a user sandbox is also a good idea. Since the lead is a summary, I think it's easier to summarize the article once it's been rewritten. After the rewrite you should submit it to WP:PR and WP:GOCE. Asking for help on a relevant wikiproject is also a good idea. There are some pretty active editors from the Philippines, so you should be able to get some good help. Good luck! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for editing Yoo Ara Urville86 (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps...?

Hey, Mark. How are you? I'm working on Pedro I of Brazil. Astynax did me a great favor by copyediting the article, but I'd appreciate an extra pair of eyes to see if there is anything else wrong. I wonder if you could do it? In case you're willing, take your time. You can review from "Birth" up to "Endless crises". If you can't, due to time or lack of interest, don't worry and leave it. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lecen, sure, I'd love to help out. I'll try to make my way over there soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Mark. I new I could count on you. Since you're not familiar with Brazilian history, please let me know if there is something in the text that doesn't make sense or isn't clear enough to someone who has no previous knowledge of the subject. I want to be sure that to understand the article no one will be required to have a PhD in Brazilian history. --Lecen (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarence 13X

Well, they're off to Borobudur with Mrs. Crisco and since I have work at 12, I didn't go. Done the review (as you clearly noticed). BTW, if we're to combat Triskaidekaphobia we should work on a much more "curvy" Thirteen. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I think I saw a picture of that site recently. Looks quite interesting, as does that House character. Thanks for the FAC review, it's good to be back in the game. Hope you don't let the Chinese Indonesians thing get you down. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

RfA

I have no idea if you're interested (and I couldn't blame you if you weren't), but I thought I'd throw this out there. It's something you may want to consider. To be honest, perhaps I'm a poor one to be approaching you on the subject since I've become so jaded on it all - but the project /does/ need good administrators, and I have no doubt you could be one. (of the good ones that is). Your article work is impeccable, your common sense exceptionable, and your devotion to the project undeniable. I honestly think it is something you should think about. Chedzilla (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it ok to ask why you quit editing under your other name? Just curious. I think you'd be a wonderful admin. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, it's fine to ask. I guess I was editing Wikipedia one night and thought to myself, "I wish I could start over as a new user, knowing what I know now about the site", and then figured, "Hey, I actually can do that". Around the same time, some users I interacted a lot were blocked, so I didn't think many people would miss me. And I had just moved to a new state around the same time, so I was starting over in real life too, and that may have played a role. I guess it was a mix of things in the end. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Damn, I've always thought I'd like to nominate you for adminship, but it seems you have quite a following already. I'll certainly support any request you make. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I hope others feel the same way you do :) Mark Arsten (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey Mark, I don't often log into my adminy account these days, but thought this deserved that. I've added my nom statement. Feel free to answer the questions, and when you've decided to step into the fire - transclude at will. It's been a long LONG time since I nom'ed a RfA, so I hope I got it right. Best of luck to you. — Ched :  ?  21:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Good luck; I'm sure that you'll make a fantastic admin. Enjoy your week of restlessness and unease! ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I certainly hope the week passes quickly :) Mark Arsten (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
WOOF WOOF — Puppy of Dog The Teddy Bear • WOOF • 23:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I !voted – fingers crossed for you :) Accedietalk to me 23:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a ton! But, it looks like I picked the wrong week to quit smoking... Mark Arsten (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, you'll be fine, clearly.
Btw, I see from your old user page that you're a Pynchon fan! I knew I liked you for a reason :D I have the Tristero horn tattooed on the inside of my forearm – been meaning to take a photo for Commons, because all the hand-drawn horns currently up there look really janky. If you ever want to tackle the graduate student PhD thesis mess (no offense to graduate students and their theses) that is The Crying of Lot 49, lemme know. I've tried, but I need reinforcements. Accedietalk to me 03:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
lol, I love the edit summary. That is awesome that you have that tattoo, very cool. I had forgotten about that userbox and had to comb through the page to see where I had mentioned Pyncheon. I recall reading that book as an undergraduate, it was quite the experience. Afterwards, I tried to read Gravity's Rainbow but quit about half-way through. I had thought about working on a Pyncheon or David Foster Wallace (another favorite of mine) related article in the past, but never got around to it. The Crying of Lot 49 would be a fun article to work on though, but yes, it would be tough. It probably would take a couple determined readers to wade through all the jstor articles. It would be a very interesting challenge though, I'll keep that in mind. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Y'know, I hadn't heard much about you before I saw your name at RfA, but I'm thinking you'll make a great administrator. If something bad happens in the RfA, just remember to keep your cool at all times – even when a candidate has a perfect edit history, one poorly-worded comment by them in their RfA can sink it. Keep up the excellent work! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I appreciate the advice and compliments. I've been watching Rfas for a while, and kept thinking about the horror stories when I was submitting mine. I'll do my best to keep my cool whatever happens, hopefully it will all go well! Mark Arsten (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Luois Riel (comics) FAC

No problem at all. I'm just glad that someone's having a look. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 22:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, you might want to ping Wehwalt about a review, he brought Macdonald's article to featured status. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do that. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 23:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinion

Could you opine on this this matter. Regards AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I could, but that seems like such a minor issue that I find it hard to care one way or another. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Could I have your opinion?

Hi there Mark; might I ask your opinion on something? I am looking to bring one nation conservatism to good article standard, but have hit somewhat of a mental brick wall. I was wondering if you could suggest what else I might add to the article. I was considering a section on key political figures, but that would just repeat what I've got in the history & political philosophy sections. I also though that a reception section might be a good idea, but the key challenges were from the New Right, who are mentioned in the history. Do you have any ideas? Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to take a look at it soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

STOP SMOKING!!!!!

This is the BEST week for you to stop that nasty habit! GIT R DONE! WOOF WOOF !! — Puppy of Dog The Teddy Bear • WOOF • 23:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice doggy, nice doggy... Mark Arsten (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
My owner doesn't let me bite people, but since I'm a pup he lets me pee and poop all over people's talk pages. — Puppy of Dog The Teddy Bear • WOOF • 23:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, a little incontinence never killed anyone, did it? Mark Arsten (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
ROFL!!! But pups are SUPPOSED to do that sort of thing. PumpkinSky talk 00:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Puppy of Dog the Teddy Bear should see if he wants to visit User:Pesky's (That Pesky Commoner) animal sanctuary. Might be a good fit. Montanabw(talk) 02:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

*cough, cough*

never tempt people with red links ... LOL. Chedzilla (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

lol, that's a good point, WP:BEANS and all... Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you know...

that you're not the only current RfA candidate with a drama llama? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

lol, yeah, I saw that just the other day, pretty funny. What a coincidence that was. The four current Rfas are a combined 374-1-1 right now, pretty funny how it's working out. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Peter Sellers

Dear Mark Arsten, I hope you don't mind the interruption, but I have recently sent Peter Sellers up for peer review. If you have any time or interest in the subject, I would be most indebted if you could have a look at the article and provide and comments or suggestions. It's not a problem if you are unable to comment. Many thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll probably be a bit busy this week, but I'll try to make some comments if I can find time. Good luck! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mark, That's very good of you: thank you very much indeed! - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ideas

Think you could bring this back to FA class? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I probably could, with some help. There's always a lot of attention to Clarence Darrow. But, the first thing I would do is attack the popular culture section with a chainsaw... Mark Arsten (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Trevor Nelson

Thanks for battling against the disruptive editing at Trevor Nelson. Now semi-protected and one block handed out. Cheers. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure! Mark Arsten (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyediting the Clitoris article

Hello, Mark Arsten. I noticed that you started copyediting this article not long after Malleus Fatuorum decided to quit copyediting it. Did you somehow see this discussion and decide to take over? Can we now consider you the new copyeditor of the article? I'm asking because the article is currently up for WP:GA status, and, well, you can see what the GA reviewer stated in that section on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I did see the situation there. I'm not sure if I'll have time to copyedit the whole article, but I'll try to get to it. (I'm not as skilled as Malleus though!) From the few paragraphs I've read, the article looks pretty close to GA quality prose. You also might want to ask MathewTownsend to take a look, he's pretty experienced with GA prose and such. Accedie is also a great copy editor, she would probably be willing to help if she has time too. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay. If you're not typically a copyeditor, that's fine. I'll probably have to get an editor who specializes in it, though (maybe one of your recommendations), per what GA reviewer SilkTork stated on my talk page. I'll talk it over with SilkTork via email. Flyer22 (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I am somewhat of a regular copyeditor, I typically just do it when I'm reviewing an article though. I tend to work pretty slowly and make fairly light changes. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Mark, I notice that you use "very" in place of "significantly." I want to know if you have come across objections to using "very." I have, with people arguing that it is a WP:Weasel word. That's why I usually use "significantly" in place of it or some similar word that an editor would probably describe as weasel-wordish. Flyer22 (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I suppose "very" should be used sparingly, although I haven't had anyone bring it up to me before. "Significantly painful" sounded odd to me though. Use your best judgment, I guess. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, in this edit, you removed "from." But since it is a quoted word, I was wondering if it should be removed, or do you consider it to be an obvious typo/grammar issue? Flyer22 (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
DOH, I didn't notice the quote there, my bad. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the replies. The "very or significantly" matter is all about personal preference anyway. I would still be using "very" if I hadn't seen some editors object to it over the years. I was like, "How else can we convey that it's very [so and so] if we don't use 'very'"? Because, you know, sometimes "very" needs to be used. That's when I came up with using "significantly" in place of it. As for the quote part, it's an understandable mistake. I'm there to help out. I've also contacted Accedie via email, per your suggestion. And I gotta say that I'm psyched that Accedie's female. I'd rather just have you two working on the copyediting, or just one of you. Looking over one editor's edits to help maintain accuracy is work enough. I can't handle more than two, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
lol, yes, it does seem like a good idea to have another woman looking at the article (they're a minority on here, I gather). Yeah, it can be a real mess if you have two or three copyeditors working at the same time, and then try to pick and choose what to keep. Oh well, that's part of the fun, I guess. Do you think you'll try to bring this to FAC eventually? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The "female editor on Wikipedia" is very much a rarity, according to Wikipedia discussions about it and reliable outside sources. Not to mention...personal experience.
Mark, WP:FA seems to be your speciality (spellcheck notes "speciality" as wrong, by the way; how annoying). But like I stated to Malleus Fatuorum on the article talk page, I'm hardly ever interested in getting an article to WP:FA. The reason is that I know how much more stressful the FA nomination process can be. A few or several editors wanting an article this way or that, too many debates going on at the same time. Not only have I participated in the FA process before, I've watched some FA nomination processes from time to time.
LOL, I know what you mean, Crisco 1492. Flyer22 (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

(Late to this party) Thanks for the invite! I'll be happy to take a turn at this in the next day or two. I mostly focus on boring stuff like comma usage and making sure the trains run on time prose reads smoothly; I leave the more sophisticated reference-checking and such for the experts. As for teh ladiez on teh Wikipedias, there may be fewer of us, but that just means we're that much more awesome :) Accedietalk to me 05:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Crisco, that is...yikes.
Accedie, very funny. And thank you so very much. Flyer22 (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out Accedie! I'll try to get some more edits in on the page later today. About FAC, I think a lot of people are intimidated by its reputation. There are a few Ian Flemming and Paul McCartney like brouhahas, but you're more likely to have the opposite problem and wait a few weeks for any comments. Some argue that FAC is getting easier these days, as well. I think it's probably worth trying at least once or twice, for the experience. As long as you lean heavily on GA and skilled Peer reviewers, you'll probably have a good experience. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure the process is getting easier but I've definitely found my past few attempts to be a lot easier and less stressful than earlier attempts. I'd say it's well worth a try, at the very least it'll help you figure out your strengths and weaknesses in editing and allow you to focus your efforts accordingly. It's also luck of the draw sometimes whether you attract helpful comments from a good reviewer, languish for a while with nothing, or find someone who appears helpful but is simply unhappy with seeing the article promoted and will continue to find fault with it, all of which are possibilities you'll see time and again. GRAPPLE X 15:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Definitely, there are great reviewers and then there are people that make you pull your hair out. There are more of the former than the latter though. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've been watching this article for quite a while, since it was nominated at GA. But what's going on now? I hope you take it on, as I've had some contact now and then with Flyer22, always pleasant even if we disagreed, and it would be a shame if this massive work doesn't make GA. I can't see what Flyer22 has done wrong. And I'm not sure what the differing opinions are about. Is it all about prose issues? If so, I'd be willing to help out. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Mathew. I think the reviewer (who's doing a fine job, don't get me wrong) expressed concerns about the technical language and readability of the article. He mentioned that it was well written, but possibly not accessibly written for those without a solid background in anatomy. There was also a bit of a conflict involving Malleus and Trappist on the talk page, but that's somewhat tangential to the GA review, I think. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you all for your input, and especially you, Matthew, for the kind words. I feel the same about you. And I would certainly take you up on your offer to help out, but, as I stated above, "Looking over one editor's edits to help maintain accuracy is work enough. I can't handle more than two." Mark and Accedie have already pitched in, and therefore the copyediting of the article should be fine now. Not to mention...it's received a lot of copyediting already. But then again, since most of it has already been copyedited, it might not be that much more work to assess any changes made by you as well. Essentially, what happened to make Malleus quit is that he felt that every improvement he made to that article was being questioned, even though only a few of his edits were questioned, and, per my talk page, that I was perhaps trying to humiliate or patronize him. I assured him that I wasn't. Maybe my comment that there are perhaps editors who assess articles the way he does when they copyedit, combined with his frustration over his squabble with Trappist the monk (who largely deals with reference formatting on the article), is what made him quit. I'm not sure. As for the technical language, the GA reviewer -- SilkTork -- was generally referring to the lead, the Embryonic development section...and the General structure section. But it's been worked out. And like I stated, "The technical language is only used where it needs to be, and many other medical and/or anatomical articles, such as HIV/AIDS, use technical language (more than this article in the case of HIV/AIDS). [Most of the technical language cannot/should not be discarded; most of it can't be reworded in a way that readers will easily comprehend what we mean.] And I understand about explaining terms that are not readily and/or easily understood; like I told SilkTork, I'm okay with that, especially if briefly explained in parentheses, as long as we aren't excessive with it, the article remains professional-sounding and the text's meaning isn't changed." Flyer22 (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

FAC for The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic

Many thanks Mark! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC))

My pleasure! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Unless you get voted off the island in the next hour, congratulations! Seriously, best RfA I've ever seen. Good luck! :) MJ94 (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the early congrats! This has gone much better than I had thought it would, I'm very thankful to the community for the way they've treated me. P.S. Say goodbye to the main page :) Mark Arsten (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Block Jimbo, block Jimbo! MJ94 (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
lol, I'll get right on that. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
HOOO YAAH!PumpkinSky talk 22:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Well done Mark Arsten! You are well-deserving of this responsibility! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations Mark. Well deserved and a great day for WP. -- CassiantoTalk 00:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations Mark. Well done!Tamsier (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations!! --j⚛e deckertalk 07:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Just returning to your talk page to congratulate you. From what little interaction I've had with you thus far, and seeing what others have had to state about you, I'd definitely say that you are a great editor and deserved the promotion. Flyer22 (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the congrats, let me know if you ever need a protected template edited :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Successful RFA

Your official uniform.

Hi Mark, I have closed your RFA as successful — you are now an administrator. Please consider the guidance at Wikipedia:New admin school, it'll keep you from ending up here. All the best, WilliamH (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Will be good times with you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You know what to do, so get to work ;>

—Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet  Br'erRabbit this user is a sock puppet 00:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to see a photo of somebody at wikimania actually wearing that crappy admin t shirt...♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see Jimbo dressed up like The Burger King. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, wouldn't take much doing!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Three cheers for passing RfA without so much as a scratch! Congrats, and may you steer the seekrit adminz cabal in the right direction ;) Accedietalk to me 23:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Because I know how much a cheeseburger goes well with a beer. I'm so glad you ran the gauntlet Mark, and I am not a bit surprised that you came through completely unscathed in the process. I see great things for this admin, and for the community he will serve so well. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

In hoping you don't become one

It's protein!
Congrats on passing RFA with a better ratio than most current admins. Here's a devilled kidney... just don't become a devil!

Besides, you need more protein for the upcoming Huggle wars.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

a pie in your eye

a pie in your eye
Now I can go to sleep, assured that all is well, having complete trust in your judgment (mostly)! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks to everyone who has commented above or voted in my Rfa. I am honored by the trust the community has placed in me, and I'm thrilled to be able to explore a new part of the project. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Gratz Mark, glad you ran! - Dank (push to talk) 17:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

For passing RfA! Congratulations! Thine Antique Pen (public) 08:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You know, it is really funny to see the [edit] tab on the main page instead of [view source]. If you click edit there's a big red message that says "Administrators! Yes, you!

Please be careful when editing the Main Page. ANY edit that resembles vandalism might be perceived as one made by a compromised sysop account, and you might be blocked and your privileges revoked." Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

...now that Mary Nightingale is a real treat, I'd give her a cupcake or two if you catch my drift...♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

... I think I do. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:PREVIOUSMONTH.YEAR

Thanks for protecting this template. Would you mind protecting at least some of the templates linked in the See also section of its documentation? I didn't check all of them, but at least one other is heavily used, and by their nature they appear to be high-risk templates that will be used in lots of places. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I got them, thanks for the reminder. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

3RR

Thanks Mark.--Santos30 (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem, hope your discussion is fruitful. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

United States Post Office, Courthouse, and Federal Office Building

Wasn't that a redirect to United States Post Office, Courthouse, and Federal Office Building (Oklahoma City)? Marcus Qwertyus 06:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it wasn't--it was a redirect to itself, actually. The text that I deleted was:
{{db-redirnone}}
 #REDIRECT [[United States Post Office, Courthouse, and Federal Office Building]]

Was the Oklahoma building the intended target? Mark Arsten (talk) 06:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I'll just recreate it correctly. Marcus Qwertyus 06:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, looks good now. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see you

Nice to bump into you adminning. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

lol, that is funny, I EC'd with you on another entry too. Thus far I like being an admin, feels good to help out with more stuff. And I see that your religious language FAC is going well too, that's good to see. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you are enjoying it; there are some really dull parts, but it is very rewarding. Anyone accused you of admin abuse yet? ;-) It's nice to see others helping out at RPP - that can get very backlogged, and they are rarely simple (I've spent hours dealing with protection requests before). The FAC is going well, yes - the comments have been useful, but I still get nervous with them. Still waiting on a GAN for New Labour... I don't know if you've forgotten or are just busy, but will you be able to look at & give advice on one nation conservatism soon (sorry if I'm being impatient). Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
No admin abuse allegations yet, probably won't be long though... Yeah, it's funny how complicated things can get with that, sticking to the easy stuff to start, I guess. I haven't found time to look at one nation conservatism yet, but hopefully I'll be able to get to it soon. I didn't forget, just busy... and working slowly. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Amazing how you find time to edit wikipedia, being a news anchor and all..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Applewhite...

Noticed Marshall Applewhite has been nominated for FA, do think it meets the criteria easily and I'll be happy to support. But is two sole nominations allowed on FAC or I take it you are a co-nom on Clarence 13X? Lemonade51 (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You know, I really should have noted this on the FAC, I received an indulgence from GrahamColm last night to go ahead with two at a time. Good to know you're paying attention though :) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks for the reviews on that one, that might have been the easiest FAC yet for me. Interesting about the portal idea, I hadn't thought of that. Clarence didn't start a UFO religion though, but he was a member of one at one point. The thought of a good or featured topic came to mind, but I'd need a central article for that, List of 20th Century American Founders of New Religious Movements might be too specific. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
However, Lafayette is already featured too. GRAPPLE X
Yes, and a fine one at that. There are two sub-articles (about his military career and early life) that are good articles. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarification Request

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Kentucky (BB-66), but are we to interpret this as keep both articles as separate or merge and redirect? I am only asking because I want to be 100% sure as to the result of the afd before I make my next move, and I can not afford a delay or setback in the next phase of this plan do to the afd results being open to interpretation. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I was unclear there, I've updated my close rationale. It seemed to me that there was a rough consensus to keep the articles, but the consensus against a merge was not as clear, so I think it would be acceptable to discuss a merge on editorial grounds. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I now know what my next move is going to be. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, good luck. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Other MEGA International Pages

Hi Mark, I noticed that you deleted the MEGA International page. FYI there is also a russian and french copy: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEGA_International http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEGA_International 64.62.244.53 (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I suppose that could be brought up if someone takes the close to WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Peter Sellers

Hi Mark, the above is now at FAC as and when you can drop in. Your comments would be gratefully recieved. -- CassiantoTalk 21:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Aright, I'll try to make it there soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks. -- CassiantoTalk 21:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


proposed undeletion of Adobe BrowserLab page

Hi Mark, I'd like to propose undeletion of the Adobe BrowserLab page that was initiated for speedy deletion by user:Mabdul . I am one of the 4 people that created this software (it isn't just a web page or plugin) that tests websites to help users with Diabetic Retinopathy, Glaucoma, Color Blindness and many other visual ailments. The software was/is patented, has many innovations on the client and server side, it was created from scratch over a period of 2 years by the four of us in our small office, and it has helped millions of web users. We sold the software to Adobe so it could get the scale necessary to help so many people. How can this not be helpful content here? I've contacted user:Mabdul to ask him to remove his a7 speedy deletion request as well. I appreciate your help in bringing this page back. Tbillups (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Tbillups

Actually, it was deleted under WP:PROD, not WP:SPEEDYDELETION, so it has been restored per your request (Prods can be undone by a simple request). Note that someone could still use WP:AFD to try to have it deleted though--there will be a 7 day discussion in that case though. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mark. I appreciate it. Have a great day. Tbillups (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Tbillups

Mrt3366

Hi Mark, the user Mrt3366 has started an edit war in Kashmir Conflict and inspite of repeated requests and warnings, continues to push pov, undo edits and remove content. has edited the page dozens of times in the last couple days and has blatantly ignored warnings. Would appreciate.98.225.186.174 (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to help, but this is a controversial subject and I'm not sure I want to get involved. I recommend you ask Magog the Ogre; he has a lot of experience dealing with problematic behavior in the Indian/Pakistani conflict. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Angels

Hi Mark, i've received yr message to put a citation for my edit. I have put the ISBN number for the book, publisher link and name and details in but my edits to Angel Ariel and Angel Raphael were still removed. May I ask is it an offence for novelists to contribute to wikipedia by providing information about the characters in their novel? I'm Sibel Astarte who u messaged 30minutes ago. I've tried putting reliable citation to my edits according to your instructions but not sure why my edits were removed again....thanksSibel astarte (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sibel, sorry if we weren't clear with you. Generally, you should include a citation to a third-party source when adding information to articles, see WP:IRS for details. Also, writers are discouraged from adding information about their own books, see WP:COI. Your best bet is to edit the talk page of the article you wish to add information to first and explain what you want to add, hopefully others will show up there to discuss the issue with you. Good luck, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Cos I thought people who wiki about the individual angels may also be looking for literature which featured them and the novel does have "non fiction" information about the bible and the individual angels (as according to popular religious beliefs). thanks for the clarification Mark. I hope when the novel do get more popular in future, someone will put it in wikipedia for me instead :)27.104.174.130 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, I hope so. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your help over at László Csizsik-Csatáry with your semi-protection and RevDeletes. I'm also honored to give your first Administrator barnstar. Keep up the good work! -- Luke (Talk) 02:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention your first death threat and nazi accusation as an admin. Big night; if you're accused of being a nazi and a communist in one day there's an award. Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
lol, very true, thanks :) Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Brain

Can you restore the move-protection (sysop) to the article Brain? Thank you. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Did I accidentally remove that the other day? I'm new at this stuff. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Gabrielle Douglas

Hi Mark. Can you please consider protecting Gabrielle Douglas. Now that Douglas has become the Olympic champion, there have been ongoing disruptive edits in the article. Many have been to change her nickname (in the lead and infobox) from the Flying Squirrel (which is fully sourced) to Flying Princess. It may be the same user using multiple accounts that keeps making this false change solely to be disruptive. There have also been a number of racist edits; some changing it to Flying Monkey, others with derogatory words about her race in the general content. Thanks! --76.189.114.163 (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done, glad to help. In the future, posting on WP:RFPP might be a better idea, since I sometimes walk away from the computer for a while. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow, you're fast Mark. Haha. In fact, you got there so quickly I was unable to correct another disruptive edit to the nickname. Can you just change "Flying Squirrel" back to "Flying Squirrel" (bolded) in the lead? Thanks a lot. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
lol, that is funny, ok, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Another editor got in there and made lots of changes, including moving that entire nickname sentence out of the lead. I give up with that article. Haha. I tried my best. Thanks again, Mark. :) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Bianca Jade Wiki Page Deletion

Please help me understand why Bianca Jade is not a person of notability. She has devoted her life to helping women realize the importance of fitness and teaching them how to enjoy it in new and modern ways. I looked at all the comments by the editors who think she is 1) a trainer 2) not brought up on search results by Google 3) not mentioned by honorable publications or featured on news shows. All of this is wrong. Perhaps it's because I posted most of the links. Is that so wrong? This is not about press. This is about making resources available, and the fact that Bianca Jade of MizzFIT.com is listed on Wikipedia helps women get healthy, helps people learn about this health revolution that she and many other women like her are furthering. It's not about press it's about health, fitness, and living a happy life. I beg of you to please reconsider. I am sorry that I do not know much about Wikipedia but I have learned much contributing to this page, and continue to learn. Please do not penalize this page just because I am the one posting what I find about Bianca Jade. That is not fair and if you like, to preserve her page here on Wiki, I will never add to her page again. If that is what it takes, then so be it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShanaScala (talk • contribs) 04:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're upset by this, I realize a lot of editors feel badly when an article that they care about is deleted. My role in closing the deletion discussion as an administrator is not to judge whether the subject of the article is worthy of a Wikipedia page, but to judge the consensus among the participants in the discussion. Five of the six participants felt strongly that she did not meet our notability guideliness, so I see that as a strong consensus. For what it's worth, Ms. Jade seems like a great person, and I hope she's successful in her mission. It's possible that she will receive more coverage, at which point her page can be restored. Also, if you feel I have erred in my close of the discussion, you can open a review of the deletion at WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Mark, More coverage? While you were deleting her article, Mark, I was posting this: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/07/19/more-latinas-leveraging-digital-media-for-entrepreneurial-success/?vgnextrefres

And this: http://mizzfit.com/images/uploads/People-Style-Watch-Bianca-Jade-MizzFIT-press2012.jpg

One is link from fox news!!! The other is a evidence that she is currently quoted in PEOPLE MAGAZINE's People Style Watch which is sold in every drugstore in the country! I even noticed that you are working on Gabby Douglas's wiki page. Well Bianca Jade recently tweeted that she will be interviewing both Olympians Gabby Doublas and Dara Torres on her website. Not many journalists that aren't notable have that kind of access, do they? I hate to make this personal, but in light of the Olympics, please reconsider the deletion. Bianca Jade helps connect women with other inspirational women, to help them change their lives and get healthy. She's not an actress, she's not someone looking for fame, she seriously has commited to her life to fitness and making it a serious issue in women's lives. I can't stress this enough and I really beg of you to help keep her page up. Since I am basically a dummy when it comes to wikipedia, may I ask that you help me or guide me in the steps for opening a review of the deletion? This is a really important issue and it would be unfortunate in light of the Olympics that this page would be taken down. For god sakes, the first black female won best gymnast tonight. Why are you going to take down the page of the woman who is going to interview her? That just seems wrong to me. And I'd like to do something about it. Please help. I dont want to bother you endlessly about this but just because 5 people didn't like Bianca Jade's page and didn't even bother to google her is ridiculous. I wish you had waited a day before deleting the article because I was just adding the links above which I consider to be very relevant. I appreciate your response and help with this. I really do. THANK YOU.

--ShanaScala (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Mark,

I followed your suggestion and opened a review of the deletion. Thank you for your help and consideration on this matter. It means a lot to me and I hope you might realize it's importance. It is NOT a press page. Thank you.

--ShanaScala (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bianca Jade

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bianca Jade. 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. ShanaScala (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to stop by there soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU, MARK!!! (from the real Bianca Jade and thank you for saying I sound like a nice person). Disappointed to hear my page was taken down considering all the money I have donated to Wikipedia over the years to help support the community. Even more discouraged to hear what editors had to say about me. I believe in Wikipedia and want to see the community thrive. I'd like to see more reciprocal support and see Wikipedia embrace the growing fitness community and firestarters within it! THANK YOU AGAIN! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.74.139 (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, I watched some of your videos on YouTube last night, you're a very gifted woman. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark, what came of this. Curious. Is there any way to get it back up? Advice? --Bianca Jade — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.7.235 (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, it doesn't look like there's any way to get the article restored at this point since the deletion review was just closed with an endorsement of the deletion. The way to get Bianca Jade restored at this point would be to wait a little while, probably six months minimum, then register an account and create a user sandbox draft of what you would like the article to be. Then go back to deletion review and propose to have your sandbox draft moved to Bianca Jade. They will probably only agree to move it there if there is more evidence of media coverage than the version that was deleted, though. Sorry if this is confusing, Wikipedia's rules can be somewhat labyrinthine at times! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number twos

Uhhh what? Why was this closed two days early as 'no consensus'? The article should have been relisted to produce a clearer consensus. Now an important discussion over a questionable article has gone to waste, thanks. Till I Go Home 06:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the discussion had been open for 12 days and had 12 people !vote on it, that's a lot more than most deletion discussions. It was a pretty even split, so I doubt a clear consensus would have emerged any time soon, note the third paragraph of WP:RELIST. Since it was a "no consensus" close, you can feel free to renominate fairly soon. Or even go to WP:DRV with it, if you think it was closed in error. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. Sorry for my snappy-ness. Till I Go Home 07:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem, I understand the irritation. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Content ideas

Check out these. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's a great article, thanks. I hadn't heard of a couple of them. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I was familiar with the Raelians, Snake handlers, and the Family, and I think I may have heard of the Bretheran, but the others were new to me. Actually, the Raelians might be the subject of the next project I start, they're the only religion that has endorsed Playboy magazine, if I recall correctly. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • You I know about (Mrs. Crisco, Indonesia your studies and all) but Mark is, um mm, questionable as to origin, due to his "interests" which seem to be crackpot US religions. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to make an Irish joke, but in the interest of putting stereotypes to bed, I will refrain. Reminds me of the time an Asian student I knew asked me if Americans of Irish heritage were more likely to be alcoholics than other Americans. I said, "Of course not... [then I realized how hung over I was]... although it is true in my case, so maybe there is something to that..." Mathew, I'm curious as to why you thought I was a UK person? I had actually thought you were from Europe, given that you don't edit much after 1:00 UTC. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't seen those, interesting. Adam Beach was my sister's favorite actor for some time. I suppose if someone were committed enough, they could eventually figure out I use American English as a default... although I guess I don't have very committed stalkers. Interestingly, I know one Wikipedia who is from the U.S. but works hard to keep that a secret... Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Wow, at GAC now. I recall that article was very popular with the Wikipediocracy crowd, evidence that "The Wikipedia is Decadent and Depraved" or some such nonsense. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Arsten is a good old-fashioned bloody American MUTT. His ancestors have been kicked out of every country in the world and he's proud of it! Mutts are stronger and healthier than pure breds, you know--no genetic inbreeding defects and all. PumpkinSky talk 02:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm quite glad that I've never had to worry about Haemophilia :) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for Jolla keep

Thanks for ending Jolla deletion discussion with positive result of keep the Jolla article Ocexyz (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Biiomolecules

I have rolled back your unlinking of biomolecules. This wasn't very sensible, the intended targets of these links were all to biomolecule, not the journal Biomolecules (the deleted article was originally a redirect - now restored). SpinningSpark 21:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh really, I hadn't realized that it had been a redirect before someone turned it into a journal--that make sense now. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Always worth checking the history first. SpinningSpark 22:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Will do, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

JAANUS

Hi there, please can you revert all your robot edits because I don't know how to and you're evidently highly proficient at it, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I wish you had caught that while it was still prod'd, but I'm glad to see that you've sourced the recreation. I'll re-link all the occurrences shortly. (my edit count is going through the roof!) Mark Arsten (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Great - thanks! Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I restored the redirect and talk page and reverted my delinking on 50 or so pages. Let me know if there's anything else you need/something I messed up. Mass reverts like that are pretty easy with WP:ROLLBACK. P.S. good work on Egg-and-spoon race! Mark Arsten (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
That's unbelievably quick - it would have taken me an age; thank you once again (and I'm glad you liked the egg-and-spoon!) Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Mark Arsten/sandbox: some friendly advice

Mark, I don't know what you think you're doing here, but you're an admin now. Stop writing articles and start blocking people. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

lol, good point, my priorities are all out of whack. I better make ANI my browser's home page or something. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
While you were busying yourself with trivia I blocked one user and fully protected an article. Winning! Drmies (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Hold on, I just saw someone swear in a discussion, I'll block him right away. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
What would you do if called someone "cunt"? PumpkinSky talk 03:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd file an Arbcom case, of course. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't be a dick. Ha! Sue me, Pumpkin. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
This is where I started getting afeared, right? GRAPPLE X 04:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Have you ever been beaten over the head with a mop? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
It was more like a tarring brush but I think the sentiment was the same. GRAPPLE X 04:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution: admin style. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Applewhite - FA!

I always knew it would make it. Congratulations Mark on another great article and possibly the quickest FAC I have ever seen! -- CassiantoTalk 05:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and congratulations... I can't believe how quickly and smoothly that one went! Mark Arsten (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jade Bailey (footballer)

Hi Mark. Why was "21:00 UTC, Sunday August 5th" mentioned six times? Has the nominator contacted you privately with a recommendation to close early? Or has something else happened? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea why the "21:00 UTC, Sunday August 5th" was mentioned so many times, and no, the nominator has not contacted me about this. I realize I closed it about an hour early, but I doubt that a different consensus would have developed in an hours' time. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I am guessing that the nominator was hoping to make the decision process as transparent as possible. But you closed at 18.19 BST. By my reckoning, isn't that 17.19 UTC? That's 3 hours and 41 minutes early? You may be right, that no new information would come to light in that time. But I am very surprised that you chose to do that. I do hope the nominator, or indeed any other editor, will not want to present any new information which might have a large impact on the consensus. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, the Afd had been open for about 167 hours and 8 minutes and there was a strong consensus in one direction, (I count 14 delete or redirect vs 4 Keep) so I don't see any problems here. In any case, feel free to file a WP:DRV if you feel this has been closed in error. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC
I don't think anyone can really judge if there has been any "error" until 21.00 UTC tonight. I just thought that, given the rather vigorous debate there, it might have been proper to wait until the time that had been explicitly agreed? After 167 hours and 8 minutes, I don't quite see what the rush was. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I suppose we disagree then. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
A disagreement that could easily have been avoided. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, well, feel free to file a WP:DRV whenever you like. I can also userfy it if you want. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I think any efforts might be better directed, over the next hour and a half, to the search for material on Bailey that might have a bearing on her notability. But whether or not any is found, I think that if the editor who has been most concerned to avoid deletion turns up, in that time, they might be a bit surprised to see it already redirected. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm being falsely accused of being a sockpuppet

Hi Mark. A user named Tenebrae is harassing me by falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet of User:Mcusa in this talk page discussion. I didn't even know what a sockpuppet was until I looked it up. I read on one page that a user can get banned for making that accusation without reporting it and without providing some evidence. Tenebrae has now done it twice, without reporting it. This guy, and another user named Malik Shabazz, acts as if he owns List of African-American firsts; just browse through the talk page discussions and the edit history of the article and you'll see what I mean. These guys, especially Tenebrae, act as if they're the boss of the article and their word is final on who's worthy of getting added to the article/list and who isn't. I told him that articles are not owned or controlled by anyone; that it's a community effort. And I told him I won't be bullied (by his false accusation). This all started when Mcusa wanted to add Gabby Douglas, the Olympic gymnastics champion, to the article and it was immediately reverted. Mcusa subsequently started a talk page discussion and posted a comment on the Gabby Douglas talk page to let editors there know that there was a discussion going on at the List of African-American firsts talk page, in case anyone wanted to give their input. So I went over there and commented that I definitely thought she should be added, as you'll read in the discussion. I never even heard of this guy Mcusa until I saw his comment. So anyway, here's what Tenebrae and Malik wrote in the List of African-American firsts talk page discussion:

So anyway Mark, can you do something about this guy? I don't like being harassed by being falsely accused of being another user on a public talk page. Apparently, they do not like it when other editors disagree with their opinions. Thanks for your help. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't let me paste in all the quotes. I'll try to put in the links to the edits where they said it. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Here they are: [1][2][3][4] --76.189.114.163 (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, it's not terribly uncommon for a skilled IPs to be suspected of sockpuppetry, we even have a page on that: Wikipedia:Lurkers. I think the best approach may just to be to register an account, though. You may still be called a sock, but I guess if they insist that you're a sock you could ask them to open a WP:SPI case to have it decided for sure. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey Mark, if you read the talk page discussion you'll see I told them if they think I'm someone else they better report it, otherwise stop accusing me. As I said, I recall reading an admin telling someone that accusing someone without reporting it is a great way to get banned from editing for awhile. Can you say something to this guy Tenebrae? Or ban him if he doesn't report it? --76.189.114.163 (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to be blocking him, that's a last resort kind of thing. If you think they're bullying you, try opening a thread at WP:WQA or WP:ANI to get wider community input. Good luck, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Mark, this guy will not stop harassing me. He just posted again on the talk page:

" And you yourself might not want to throw aroiund accusations of WP:OWN when a look at the edit history will show that not just Malik and I but Fat&Happy and a host of others have all contributed constructively to this article — whereas you are simply a single-purpose account uninterested in trying to improve this altruistic free encyclopedia but simply trying to shoehorn in an apparent fan favorite of yours: Your history shows you doing nothing for Wikipedia except adding to Gabby Douglas, so if anyone here has an agenda, it's only you. And for a "new" user you seem to have remarkable familiarity with Wikiepdia terminology, although not with the policy of WP:CIVIL. In any case, a meat puppet wouldn't show up in an IP search, and I continue to maintain that the timing of your sudden appearance is suspect.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)" --76.189.114.163 (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, you did make comments like "Interesting how you are going out of your way to denegrate Douglas's accomplishment. I wonder why."--that is uncalled for. Not to say that it gives people licence to attack you though. You might want to post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject African diaspora to attract wider attention, or follow WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION steps. Good luck, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mark. What was wrong with that comment?? I cannot for the life of me figure out why he's trying to downplay her accomplishment, an accomplishment that's been recognized and reported internationally as a huge moment in Olympic history. So what's the problem with my comment? Haha. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, it seems like the conflict is that he wants a very narrow inclusion criteria for the list and you want a broader one, so I don't think it's quite fair to say that he's trying to denigrate Douglas, just that he as a very strict idea of what to put in the article. I agree with you that this is a huge milestone, BTW.Mark Arsten (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
My question to you was: Why was my comment "uncalled for" and gave people "license to attack" me?? There was absolutely nothing inappropriate about my comment. He IS denigrating her, meaning he's saying her accomplishment is just not that important, when clearly it is (based on all the media coverage). He even made some snarky comment comparing Douglas to Snooki on the MTV show. And you are making my point about this guy thinking he owns the article when you talk about what "he wants." Exactly. The entire history of the article shows it's all about what this one guy wants, going all the way back to the creation of the article. Look at the talk page discussions. Look at the edit history. He makes the rulings on almost everything. Look, all I came here for was to ask you to say something to him about repeatedly accusing me of being someone else and doing so without reporting it. And you're turning it into analyzing my well-intentioned comments in that discussion. And if you agree with me that it's a huge milestone, then why are you questioning my comment and saying it's uncalled for. Mark, you don't make any sense on this one. Sorry. Haha. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, well, when I first saw your comment I thought you were trying to imply that he was racist, which would be going too far. I hadn't seen that he compared her to a Jersey Shore cast member--I guess that is denigrating her accomplishment, in addition to being totally untrue. When you have a case of a person controlling an article, it's usually best to get wider input on it, via the dispute resolution process. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh! Now I understand why you thought it was inappropriate. I couldn't figure out what you were talking about. I had my wife read what I wrote and she didn't get it either. So thanks for explaining because you were totally confusing me. And as far as doing some dispute process, that guy isn't worth it. He's been controlling that article since 2006. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
lol, well, glad we got it settled in the end. Alright, well, I hope you stick around to some extent, even if you leave that page behind. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks Mark — your vote of confidence is much appreciated. Best, Malljaja (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turban Tide and Hindoo Invasion

Please merge what you can to the main article. Bearian (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, will try to get to it soon, merging to Stereotypes of South Asians, right? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I think I did it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Mark Arsten. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Aaron • You Da One 17:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Whoops

Sorry bout that. Didnt even notice. I'll try with WP:RPP, but I've been told before about unconstructive edits not constituting vandalism before. Dan56 (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that can be frustrating. Typically you won't get blocked for 3RR unless your edit-warring over a specific inclusion, but better safe than sorry, you never know when you'll run into a Cowboy. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Appreciate it. Dan56 (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

ANEW/3RRN Closure ragarding John Foxe

Hello Mark, I was recently notified on my talkpage about a thread regarding the editor I had placed a conditional unblock on (John Foxe). I looked over the material at hand and John Foxe was in violation of his unblock restriction. Can I ask why your finding was just to protect the page? After he's been blocked over it again twice since I placed the restriction, and had his talkpage revoked once, I'm surprised that the page was just protected. Maybe I'm not seeing something, so I thought I would stop by. Thanks :) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi DQ, I looked at that and saw what seemed to be two users reverting each other, and then figured that protecting would be the best way to start discussion and end the edit warring. I've seen times in the past when two users break 3RR and an admin protects the page rather than blocking, so I assumed that was an option that was open to me. I didn't think too much about the 1RR restriction though. This is more complicated than I thought when I first looked at it. I'll revert myself and let you handle it as you see fit. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the discussion about the footnote at Samuel L. Mitchill was complete several days ago. Kraxler seems to have made no objection to my rewriting of the footnote, and I think the article can be unblocked immediately.--John Foxe (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, well, I've unprotected the article. I didn't think a block was warrented in this situation, but I find the 1RR business complicated, so I guess I'll defer to other admins on that. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"I suggest that you open a new Rfc then, instead of trying to shoehorn your complaints about her into this one"

He's not going to do it - nothing to go on. That's why you'll see him, Lionelt, etc. continue to try to derail this RFC/U. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This is turning into a pretty messy Rfc, which is really saying something. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

please merge occupy cleveland

thanks Darkstar1st (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, where should I merge it to? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
OWS? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
merge it to occupy wall street or movement. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, will try to do that later today. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thanks. a rather important milestone in the occupy movement for one of it's members to be the 1st man ever to plead guilty to using a wmd. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Iain Martell

Hello, I noticed that you were the deleting admin for this AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iain Martell (2nd nomination). I should state now before continuing now that I indeed intend to take this to a deletion review if I cannot convince you to change your result because, as I stated towards the end of the AfD on this page, I simply could not see a clear enough reason for the result have been a delete and after so long with the page being under an AfD the decision really should not of been delete.

I am not here to cause any problem between you and I here, but I would just like a better understanding for your decision and to convince you otherwise. When you made your decision, you stated simply "Will userfy upon request since this one was close" which to my opinion really doesn't give any kind of reflection on the overall position the AfD was in by that point. I have also been vocal about each of the three user's votes which were delete in which I am going to break down.

The first user didn't seem to have read through the page properly, nor did he understand the elements of Iain Martell's MMA career/celebrity status. On his MMA, he simply stated "Not notable as an MMA fighter", which is not true at all. Martell currently fights for UCMMA one of the UK's biggest MMA promotion along with BAMMA and Cage Warriors, he is undefeated under the banner and has been tipped for a title shot if he wins his next fight later this month. For his celebrity status, he simply said "an appearance on a reality TV show doesn't make him notable". Now simply because of this part I truly feel that the user didn't read the page at all, as the 'reality show' he describes is actually Take Me Out (UK), a dating game show that is very popular in this country, and after that he appeared on another show called John Bishop's Britain, a comedy show hosted by John Bishop that he gave his opinion on certain things in everyday life. The episode he appeared on drew 4 million people. But of course he would of known this had he carefully looked at the page properly and looked at the links relating to them. After that, there just wasn't any valuable reasons to deleted from this user in terms of policies the page failed that would of helped his case had he provided one.

By the time the second user voted, nearly 2 weeks passed and went through TWO different re-listing to determine notability but it still took two days after the second one to get another vote, and even when a vote was made, it hardly gave any kind of reason for deletion. The mocking at the end said it all really it just wasn't something you can use to push in favour to delete. The user stated "the non-mma-related coverage that's being pointed too seems mostly celebrity gossip-type coverage that's actually related to Katie Price", which again doesn't reflect the page by a mile. The mentions of Kate Price on the page, in fairness, is mainly covering a segment in Katie Price's life but it isn't like the sources covering it just gave him one line. There is a fair bit of detail which mentions a possible crush from Katie on Martell as well as mentioning Alex Reid being confrontational towards Martell and members of his gym about it, on more than one article. There are also different articles covering his appearances on the two TV shows he has been on, some from good sources like the ITV website. So all-in-all, I believe that this vote wasn't made with any real thought or investigation largely due to the lack of researching through the page and the mocking is a clear sign of any seriousness made whilst writing it.

The final one did seem to attempt to make a legitimate case for deletion, however I still feel it wasn't enough to go for an overall deletion vote. The user uses WP:MMANOT as a policy it fails to meet in terms of fighting for a notable MMA promotion, yet the policy is a very poor one. As I have stated in the AfD, it is indeed a guideline that, according to the top of the page, "This page is an essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how notability may be interpreted within their area of interest" so, to me at least, this means that following this guideline is an optional and should not be enforced to determine notability. I stated on the AfD that the guideline also doesn't include similar size promotions such as the Super Fight League (India's biggest promotion), One Fighting Championship (the biggest and fastest growing promotion in Asia), the International Fight League (covered by mainstream sources and competed with the UFC at its height) or Invicta Fighting Championships (biggest woman's MMA promotion in North America) so for the guideline to not include UCMMA shouldn't affect notability at all. After that point, the user did admit that the page can pass for WP:GNG, the policy which I had use for my case to keep the page. So even though the user's intended vote was to delete, by breaking down what the person's reason and reading between the lines, you can then see that by taking away the poor reason to delete and see that the user did say that the page passes WP:GNG, that they really saying keep.

So with all this in mind, I would like to discuss with you about changing your result and reinstating the page for Iain Martell. It is like I said I am prepared to take this to the deletion review but I feel that after bringing up the points to do with the AfD and breaking down the delete votes made on the page that we can agree that it was a misunderstanding and that we can correct this issue very soon. I will be looking forward to hearing from you. Pound4Pound (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, that's a lot of reading to do. I'll go through it and give it some thought, will hopefully get back to you soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, please take your time with your research for us to get the best result of this! Pound4Pound (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I've thought it over, and I should have relisted instead of deleting. So I've undeleted it and relisted the discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Barelwis

Barelwis do not worship Shrines or graves. This is a wrong information which you are spreading as the leader of Barelwi school Imam Ahmed Reza Khan was strongly against "WORSHIPPING OF GRAVES" this is actually a false accusation on Barelwis hurled by Wahabis and Deobandis whereas in reality Barelwis are firm believers in oneness of God Almighty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aamirik (talk • contribs) 00:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, feel free to change it if you provide a reliable source for the information. (See WP:RS & WP:V) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recalcitrant Interdependence

Why was this relisted? it was a unanimous delete consensus? LibStar (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the relist - 2 delete votes, one with no reasoning ("explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy"). I've now added a third, however! Nikthestoned 11:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I like to see at least three delete votes before closing a discussion as delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I meant three !votes other than the nom. I hadn't realized how much feedback Admins get on relisting an article, good to know people are paying attention, I guess. Oh, Crisco, sorry, but I kept an article you nominated for deletion earlier today, can't recall what it was now though. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
A relist is quite reasonable here, but a delete would have been justified too, ie, IMHO it's on the fence of those two calls.PumpkinSky talk 02:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I'll keep that in mind. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The 5% solution

Nice work. I was watching an episode of Ho-Ho-Ho-Homicide which featured The Nation of Islam. How could I resist reading about a movement that claims to have "Supreme Mathematics"?!? :D

Keep up the good work! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the perfect blend of science and religion :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mark Arsten. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 41 Business (Marquette, Michigan)/archive1.
Message added 23:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Imzadi 1979 → 23:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

YRC RFC

Hey thanks for the advice. On Ricardo Arjona, it was another user although i still had my issues with YRC in the past. I removed my comment for now. Maybe i participate with an Ouside view or something similar, Thanks. —Hahc21 02:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Feel free to endorse or oppose some of the views if you like. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

RevDeleting your own edit summary?

Hi Mark. In the midst of cleaning up User:Fasttimes68, you seem to have to have RevDeleted your own edit summary. Was this on purpose, or did you mean to delete another user's edit summary? By the way, why was Fasttimes68 indefinitely blocked? It's fine if you can't tell me (privacy, or whatnot). David1217 What I've done 04:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yep, Crico's right. What happened was someone with an insulting user name {you could probably find it on my contribs since I put a blocked template on them) vandalized his page, and I revdeleted their vandalism since their username was designed to insult an identifiable person. Then I realized that when I rolled them back their user name was in my edit summary (reverted edits by...) so I revdeleted that too. Not sure if that was the best way to do it, I'm still new at this stuff. As the why he was indeffed, I can't tell you... because I don't know why myself. User:Hersfold blocked him and didn't say why, just to contact the Arbcom mailing list for an explanation. I was surprised to see that, but odd things happen on this website from time to time. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
You're probably aware, but the best bet is to have a bureaucrat rename the account and revdel what needs to be, based on content or edit summary. There are times, and this sounds like it was one, that you may need to put the cart before the bureaucratic horse and deal with your own edit summaries too. Without the bureaucrat's account rename, the block logs and other public logs will still contain the account name though. <-- Preceeding comments by a drive-by commenter. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, that hadn't occurred to me, good point. I'll ping a crat about it. Thanks for the clue adjustment. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, now I get it. Funny case, huh? David1217 What I've done 13:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae excessive reverts

Mark, this guy Tenebrae made the following 5 reverts in 5 hours on List of African-American firsts. Like I told you before, the talk page and edit history on that article shows that for many years he's been acting like he owns it.

00:50, 8 August 2012‎ [5]

00:42, 8 August 2012‎ [6]

00:40, 8 August 2012‎ [7]

23:30, 7 August 2012‎ [8]

19:45, 7 August 2012‎ [9]

Thanks, --76.189.114.163 (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, you might want to consider reporting him to WP:AN3, if he's broken the WP:3RR rule. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not involved in the edit war. I haven't even done any edits in that article, but I reported it. It took awhile to figure out how to fill-in the form, but I managed to get through it. Haha. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that is a tricky form, good luck. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Pinsex

I was in the process of adding the information that was requested of me to the Pinsex page when it was deleted. I thought I would have more time to submit references. I am the author of the article and I've complied with absolutely everything that was asked of me and was in the process of adding more references and updating information. - Juanaffiliato (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

?

Do you think you could perhaps strike the addressed comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/? (film)/archive1? I've never seen one of my noms this dead, and am worried that the long list of unstricken comments is the issue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Mhm, I've had bad luck with OTRS / requesting images. My first try was an email to Beverly Lee of The Shirelles, and... well, nothing. Most of the others haven't had any luck, either. I think Ucu Agustin is the only one who contributed an image, and I had the head of Wikimedia Indonesia as a go-between. (that being said, Andrea Hirata's publicist contributed two pretty good images of him in preparation for the international release of his novel The Rainbow Warriors, so that's cool). You ever try that?
Oh, wait. You pretty much never write BLPs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's not intentional really, but it probably is a good thing when dealing with controversial groups. See the talk page of Keith Raniere for an example. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Rouge Admin
 MarkArsten We can learn a lot about human behavior from arachnids
03:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, if you think about it, the ridiculous pricing of academic resources is one reason spreading free knowledge on Wikipedia is so valuable.

Daniel Sharman?

Hey! Was the Daniel Sharman page deleted (wasn't mine) cause the article had no sources or that and because the actor is not deemed notable enough? Cause if the former I'd like to write a better sourced article. If the latter: I don't want to waste my time. Thanks! D is for... (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It was only deleted because it had no sources (WP:BLPPROD). If it were recreated with good sources (WP:RS), it probably would not be deleted. The text of the page I deleted was:
  • Daniel Sharman was born on April 25, 1986. He is known for his roles as Isaac Lahey on MTV's Teen Wolf and Ares in the film, Immortals.

Good luck, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Venganza del Otro

How many times do we re-list? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was 3 times at max, but I just checked and it turns out I was mistaken, oops! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 Chick-fil-A AfD

I was impressed with your closure of the 2012 Chick-fil-A gay-marriage freedom of speech controversy AfD. I didn't participate in it, nor do I have a strong opinion either way, but your evenhanded and thorough handling of it was exactly what was called for. Good job!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For successfully closing a conroversial, emotionally-charged AfD. Owen× ☎ 14:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

AfD on Genesis 1:2

I appreciate you stepping in to take part, but you closed the discussion 3 days early as "no consensus". If you feel there's no consensus, could you please re-open the discussion and let it run for the full 7 days to see if consensus is established? The discussion hasn't garnished much interest yet, and I'd hope we'd be able to attract a bit more before the full period. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken, you opened the discussion at 03:56, 3 August 2012 UTC and I closed it at 03:59, 10 August 2012 UTC. Is there something I'm missing here? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Strange. When I looked at the AfD just prior to posting this message, I swear to you it said "5 days ago" beside my nom. That was just as it turned midnight here, so I figured it was 3 days early. Now when I look, it says "7 days ago". Of course, you are correct that August 3rd was a week ago. It appears that I was mistaken. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sock at Harold Macmillan

You blocked an IP address, 92.7.24.144 (talk · contribs), for 24hrs for edit warring at Harold Macmillan. I think the block should be indefinite. This guy shows every indication of being a sockpuppet of User:HarveyCarter, an incorrigible socker who keeps returning via 92.7.x.x IPs, and keeps throwing unbalanced and biased negative material at this and other articles. Earlier today I filed a new report on the guy at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter, adding to the very long archive. I have been working to stop him for months, others for years. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to defer to another admin on that one, I have next to no experience dealing with sock puppetry cases. I'd suggest you ask an admin who's more familiar with this case than I am. Sorry, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, back to whack-a-mole! Heh heh...
Dang Crisco, that photo has been through the wars. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Greenie Bus

Why do you invite open the door to an immediate new AfD?  How can such be anything but disruption?  If there is some theoretical way that this article can be deleted under our policies, you should explain your viewpoint, otherwise, please support the community consensus as embodied in our policies and guidelines.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure my close invited an immediate renomination, but I'll revise my wording to make that clear. I think a merge discussion before renominating would be a better idea though. I do want to support the community consensus of our policies and guidelines, but at the same time, it's up to the community to interpret them and lack of participation makes it difficult to judge the community's interpretation. Some of the arguments in the discussion were fairly weak, on top of that. So I don't think another try at consensus would be disruptive, though the ideal would be to seek alternatives, as you pointed out on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The original close rationale said "no prejudice twards..." which is about as neutral as can be. Why so pedantic?--GrapedApe (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Care to !vote: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenie Bus (2nd nomination)?--GrapedApe (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about the pedantry. Well, hope this one goes well. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In spite of the plan that you would "make that clear" that you were not inviting an immediate renomination, I agree with GrapedApe that in the actual rewording you have left the door open for the speedy renomination that has now occurred.  The word "invite" in my original post was probably not the best word, so I've changed it to "open the door to".  Be that as it may, how is stating in the new closing, "...I don't think that it would be disruptive to renominate the article" anything other than an invitation to a speedy renomination?  Unscintillating (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting points, I'll think about it a bit more before I respond. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Replied on Afd2. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Did you?  One could also read that response as avoiding replying to me.  In particular, I am interested in a response to, "If there is some theoretical way that this article can be deleted under our policies, you should explain your viewpoint."  Unscintillating (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand this line of questioning, I'm afraid. I do not see why I should provide an explanation for why the article should be deleted under our policies, since I didn't do so. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, that traces miscommunication back to my first post above, but I don't know what is not clear.  Do you agree that "Greenie Bus", even without the Greenie Bus article, is a topic covered in the encyclopedia, so there is no case to delete the redirect?  Do you agree that no argument has been made that the current content objectionably violates our content policies such that the edit history needs to be deleted?  Do you agree that if there is no case to delete the redirect, and no case to delete the edit history, there is no need for the time of AfD volunteers or admins to be used in an AfD?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, Ok, I see what you're saying now. I tend to agree with you that deletion isn't needed here, but I can't close discussions based on my opinion, since the community didn't come to a consensus on the issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
How much weight do you give to !votes that !vote to delete due to lack of notability, when the topic already is covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia, and there is no case to delete the redirect?  Unscintillating (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I would still give them some weight, but wouldn't rule out a redirect because of them, particularly if others have brought it up in the discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
In the current case, it was not one that had discussion of redirect or merger.  So I conclude that the delete !votes, even though they had no theoretical basis, were given "some weight" such that they weighed in toward a "no consensus" result.  You don't have to agree, but I'm thinking that the delete !votes might have been re-weighed as "merge or redirect somewhere" !votes.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Would Unscintillating care to reveal where exactly the "topic already is covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia."-_GrapedApe (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The word "reveal" means as per m-w.com #2 "to make (something secret or hidden) publicly or generally known <reveal a secret>".  It is a case of "have you stopped beating your wife", because whether or not I agree to "reveal", I impugn by implication that I have been keeping "something secret or hidden".  I documented one such target in my 30 July response in the fourth sentence I wrote at the AfD, and the nominator has redirected the article since on 2012-08-11 to another such target.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Huh?--GrapedApe (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, I meant that Unscintillating was being pedantic about the very clear wording of your original AFD. Sorry that it was unclear.

Ángel Berlanga

You recently deleted the article Ángel Berlanga however the article Ángel Luis Berlanga Vina still remains. Can you please it also. Ángel Luis Berlanga Vina redirects to Ángel Berlanga.Simione001 (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, zapped it. I had forgotten to check the box to delete the redirects. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

FC Rohožník

Can you undeleted please, article about Slovak club FC Rohožník, who currently plays in IV. football level in Slovakia. He will play against Slovak legend club FK Inter Bratislava. [10] Thank you. IQual (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer if you filed a WP:DRV on the issue. It's difficult for me to evaluate the subject guidelines and Slovakian sources on the subject, so I'm not comfortable restoring it without discussion. Sorry, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Scrambled Eggs with Sriracha

Mark Arsten: Paul Ryan vs. Scrambled Eggs w/ Sriracha, who wins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.106.160 (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I certainly do like Sriracha sauce, I'm not sure about Paul Ryan though. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

re: Jack king & Jeffrey Monakana

  • re: Jack king & Jeffrey Monakana Well tomorrow is the first OFFICIAL match they WILL have. Like a few days made a whole world of difference!!!

They WILL be starting is the word locally, (Yes, I live in Deepdale, right next to the stadium, and know a few things not that it matters!) but seeing as I am the original author, I hope you do the right thing and restore my articles tomorrow!

Here is a reference >> [1] << that suggests (Not supports) it also!

But you will know tomorrow anyway!


Ok, keep me posted so I know when to restore it. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey Monakana and Jack King, Both in the starting line-up![2]

Can you please restore my work ;) DaPlayerX (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ "King 33/1 To Score First". PNE Official Site. 12 August 2012. Retrieved 12 August 2012.
  2. ^ "Preston Vs Huddersfield League Cup Tie". BBC Sport. 12 August 2012. Retrieved 13 August 2012.

DaPlayerX (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A question about peer review

Hi,

I wandered into the Peter Sellers FAC, not meaning to cause a stir. But the section heading were so confusing (me not knowing all that much about Peter Sellers) and they seemed put such an ugly cast on his personality while minimizing his artistry that I commented on the FAC page about them.

Now it seems that the section headings were renamed per a peer reviewer's opinion, and it seems the current editors think that peer review is set in stone:

The section headers were changed per a this peer review to satisfy the concerns of a reviewer. It wasn't "our opinion". I have already said above I would prefer them shorter, but we have to oblige with the PR as otherwise it would make a mockery of the whole thing.

Is that true about peer review? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think that the opinion of a peer reviewer necessarily carries more weight than a suggestion from anyone else. Refusing to change anything because of a peer review would be making a mockery of the process, but disregarding a suggestion here or there doesn't seem like an issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Caputo Bibliography

Mark, Would it be possible to insert the "Articles" section from the "John D. Caputo, Bibliography" section that you recently deleted into the article "John D. Caputo"? That is a valuable list of articles and it is not part of the "John D. Caputo" article. Thanks, Jdcaputo (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)John Caputo

Well, since it was deleted via WP:PROD, you could have it undeleted via WP:REFUND. For now, I'll undelete it and redirect to his bio, and you can then access the page history and merge what you like. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Note I prodded it because much of it appeared to be a WP:COPYVIO so if you merge the material back please ensure it is no longer a copyvio. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 00:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, good point. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "Pending Changes level 2" protection on Paul Ryan

Hi,


I don't suppose there is any chance that the upcoming change to the page protection policy could be implemented early, or late, in the case of the Paul Ryan article? Ridiculous amounts of time are being wasted spent adding and reverting the "voted best brown noser" comments covered ubiquitously in the media. Despite warnings, postings, etc., I have no confidence that this will not continue for the foreseeable future with this issue. I have attempted normal remedies, such as talk page moderation, dialogues, warnings when appropriate, etc.(and have no doubt I'll be dragged into postings on the noticeboards as well). The media is now commenting on the edit war. If the pending page protection level 2 is not available, are there other remedies besides full page protection (which might be premature)? Thanks for your help. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't been following the pending changes issue other than a brief comment in the Rfc (supporting PC), so I'm very hesitant to make a decision on that. It seems like quite a bit of reverting is going on, so I agree there is an issue here. I've seen WP:1RR restrictions placed on some pages (Wikipedia:General sanctions), I don't know a whole lot about that either, though. I'd have to suggest asking on a better viewed page, perhaps some people with more experience in this kind of thing could weigh in. It probably wouldn't hurt to ask at ANI, since you are looking for admin intervention (in some way). Sorry I can't be of more help, I've tended to avoid these types of disputes. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Any clue what that IP's message four sections up about hot sauce and Paul Ryan means? I feel like I'm missing a joke here. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Topic 1, Thanks, me too. I was happily busy working on the new Curiosity rover article when STiki went on a continuous Paul Ryan loop. I regret ever getting involved. It's like being Mini Me in the shark pool. ;0)
Topic 2, I have no clue. There was vandalism on the scrambled eggs page regarding hot sauce that showed up in STiki too. Maybe they were talking about that? OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's pretty much how I came across it too, I was huggling the night Colbert told people to edit the pages of potential Republican vice-presidents and ended up semi-protecting a few of them. That's what I like about fighting vandalism, you never know what to expect next. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Geniuses

Sounds like an interesting topic (and an easier request to fill than my own). Look forward to reading it. BTW, what do you think about her? Shame she died so young. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, she was beautiful. Yes, too bad about her death, it looks like she might be part of the 27 Club. The CoSG is a very interesting group, one of those odd movements I first heard about on Wikipedia, probably. Should be a challenging, but fun project. Thankfully there's a solid academic study of the group available. P.S. Just saw List of piss related articles, lol. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

RE Missing My Baby at FAC

The article just received a copy-edit by User:Stfg. Please revisit article to see if the prose has now been satisfied. Best, Jonatalk to me 16:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I've struck my concerns for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

another genius

a while ago I suggested Church of the SubGenius as being right up your alley. (It actually is rather interesting - more so than seems at first.) MathewTownsend (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's right, I had forgotten that--thanks for planting the thought in my head. I've found the research pretty interesting thus far. I agree that there's more than there seems to be, particularly looking at it through the lens of postmodernism and commercialism and so on. It will be tricky to tie it all together in an organized article, but I'll certainly try. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Have you read my more recent project? I really need to track down a good fair use image for that. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the Church of the SubGenius is more worthy of your genius, with its elements of religion, parody, aliens etc. Plus there's an image! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Images are nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

resource request

Hi Mark,

I've uploaded some articles you requested at the resource exchange. You can find links to the articles at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, I meant to download them earlier but got distracted, thanks for the reminder. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

an AFD you closed 11 days before, had the same nominate renominate it

Please look at this. [11] You closed the first AFD as no consensus, so the same guy nominates it for deletion again 11 days later. Dream Focus 14:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Replied at the Afd. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Massive lol

Nicely done. pablo 23:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was a very unusual thread. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for reliability check

Hi Mark, can you give some feedback regarding the reliability of this source for my GA review of "The Pine Bluff Variant"? It's not used directly, but the reliability of one of the sources depends on this one's reliability (the writer doesn't have any reviews published in mainstream works, so this is what his reliability depends on) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Semi protection of sex symbol

Hi Mark

I'm not sure if this the right place to ask, but looking at the logs, this is the 4th time that the article has been semiprotected. Each of the semiprotections lasted about 4 months minimum, so although each successive protection did not lengthen, it has been repeatedrepeatedly protected. Infact, it was indefinitely protected a few years back before the last 4 semiprotects, but was reduced to a time limit. Is 6 months really the best way to protect the article versus indefinite?Curb Chain (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I guess indef is fine, on second thought. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hi. I was wondering if you could copy-edit for Episode 2 (Twin Peaks) Episode 14 (Twin Peaks) for a potential FAC nomination. You don't have to. Thanks and cheers, TBrandley 03:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, of course, I love that show. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Once copyedited, and of course, after a peer review, it will be ready for FAC? Thanks again! TBrandley 03:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, also, I feel guilty that you are doing all the work. So, is there something I can do in return? I'll try to get to it ASAP. Regards. TBrandley 03:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Wait, Episode 2 (Twin Peaks) is already featured... were you thinking of another episode? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, sorry. I meant Episode 14 (Twin Peaks). Regards. TBrandley 03:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, that's a good episode. Will try to get to it soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy move

hello,

could you speedy-move Abutiu to Abuwtiyuw, per talk? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

tools to close the AFD don't work right when the article was moved

Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car still has the deletion notice on it. You also posted on the talk page at the old location Talk:Agha_Waqar's_Water_Fuelled_Car instead of the current talk page. Dream Focus 15:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, fixed now, I wish people wouldn't move articles during Afds. Also, you can boldly remove tags from closed discussions when the admins forget to in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
That happened to me the other day; very annoying. Someone's even written an essay about it! ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
There was even one epic Afd during which an article was moved three times. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hilarious

"Goatse as a GA? That would be quite a stretch." I lol'd. Well played. :D Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you liked it :) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I just came here to say, "you magnificent bastard!"  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it's good when we can have a little bit of fun on ANI instead of the usual angry drama. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

This may need reprotection because of this. Letting you know as instructed on Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Protection. 88.88.163.29 (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the heads up, I'll keep an eye on it. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Advice

Hey Mark. I (and obviously a good bit of the Wiki community) trust your judgment, so I'm seeking your advice on this issue. The section of Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball regarding memorable teams has been the subject of an edit war of late. Particularly, two IP editors have been reverting each other regarding whether the 2012 national championship team should be nicknamed the "8th Wonders" or "The Undeniables". As a Big Blue fan, I've heard both informally, but as you know, we don't deal in informality if we can help it, especially when trying to stop an edit war. I semi-protected the page for a few days and started a discussion on the article talk page. The discussion has generated a little participation from both sides, but has fallen far short of consensus as yet. Worse, when the protection expired, both IPs and and Jbfwildcat (talk · contribs) continued the reversions, while only one IP has continued the discussion, reducing the likelihood of reaching consensus. I'm loathe to start handing out blocks, especially since there has been some minor attempt at discussion by all parties, but the revert war is trumping the discussion at this point. Semi-protection will no longer help, as JbfWildcat would still be able to edit. He's been blocked for edit warring on this page once already and has been known to use socks in the past. The option I'm considering is removing the offending section altogether and slapping full protection on the page for about a week to see if that motivates more discussion and reveals adequate sourcing for one nickname or the other or both. That still strikes me as a bit extreme (although preferable to blocks). What's your opinion, as a level-headed outsider? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) Try "The 2012 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball, known by fans variously as the "8th Wonders"[citation] or "The Undeniables"[citation] ... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey, thanks for your trust, hope I don't disappoint :) I tend to agree with Crisco here. Well, since it's not a BLP issue or anything drastic, I guess it would be an Ok idea to try out the citation needed templates for a week or two, and then move toward more protection if things degrade from there. I would tend to use blocks as a last resort, hopefully avoidable here. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I've implemented that, with a bit of mild scolding on the talk page. Hopefully, we get the desired results. Never thought I'd be playing arbitrator between my brethren in the Big Blue Nation, but it has come to that! LOL I'll probably seek your advice again if this escalates, which it hopefully won't. In the meantime, if you have time to keep the page watchlisted to ensure that I don't do or say something "out there", I'd appreciate it. Thankfully, I don't have to mediate many content disputes, but when I do, I like to make sure I'm doing it right. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Down the rabbit hole

Looks like Sandy thinks we're Merridew apologists. Well, "usual band of supporters (Wehwalt, PumpkinSky aka Rlevse, recently Crisco and Arsten)" and whatnot. If Jack's pushing it I'll warn him, but usually he's more or less in the right. Also, in case you miss it: "[Mark Arsten] is a consistent supporter of less than quality articles"... Huh? I haven't seen you support on many that fail. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm flattered actually, I didn't think Sandy knew I existed. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Sandy mentions some fairly strenuous holiday pursuits, so perhaps she is just tired. But also, possibly, regrets giving up some things. It must be something of a wrench. I would imagine she'll be fine tomorrow. This whole conspiracy and cabal stuff makes my head hurt, anyway - Crisco and some rabbit (and Malleus?) and some copyeditor are trying to overthrow Raul and Sandy and someone, and then "Arsten" is part of it, and Raul was "harrassed" at DYK. Raul spends a lot of time at DYK does he... I'm lost. :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
You should have taken the blue pill :) Mark Arsten (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm finally getting my JSTOR and Highbeam and so on sorted out, so sadly the drama (llama) boards will have to have their cabal versus conspiracy versus "support group" nonsense without me, for the most part :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Oooh, good deal, glad to see more people using those. Paywalls are a real pain. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Teh drama is addicting...
lame me only collected a few diffs for entertainment, too bad I didn't see there's a template for those as well, feel free to fix/add/improve --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
did you read my mind or were you THAT fast? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
don't blink ;>
There's also a tool to convert raw diff-urls to {{diff}}
Taht's not wut FAP means. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
"FA people" might be the word we were looking for, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

←Wikipedia:FAP Oh dear. pablo 15:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

gargoyle111

is there anything u can do about this moron continuously vandalizing the 'the glass house' pages? can u lock all the pages down so nobody can edit til they get bored and move on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.34.174 (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he's been reverted for now, I'll try to check in later. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Featured article process and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Rschen7754 09:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I decided to take initiative. Hope it doesn't backfire on me... --Rschen7754 09:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I'll take a look. I doubt there will be any "winners" here, but I'd be surprised if it backfired on you. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, for the record, I think FAC/FAR are generally running fine (got CA 57 through on Sunday), it's the conduct that is the issue. They may have to take a look at whether Raul can ban people from a page unilaterally to answer the conduct question, though, in my opinion. --Rschen7754 18:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, conduct is real tough to sort out when dealing with experienced contributors who bring friends to the party. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

SysIQ, Inc. Talk page

Mark, SysIQ, Inc. page has been restored. Is it possible to restore the talk page as well? Thank you very much in advance. Godzhesas (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible to restore the page.... are you asking me to do so? :) Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Pedro I of Brazil

Well, Mark, I've got some good news to share. Pedro I of Brazil is now a Featured Article. I am glad that this nomination was not a painful exercise asa few others were. Well, if it was an easy rider it was in great part because of you, who was very professional and helpful there. I wish I could shake hands to let you know that I really appreciate the many times you helped me. Thanks, I'm in debt with you. --Lecen (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear it went well, that was a great article. I wish I could shake your hand too, it would be nice to take a trip to Brazil. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of geoengineering papers

Hi Mark. I think you forgot to delete the articles List of geoengineering papers (part 1) and List of geoengineering papers (part 2) when you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of geoengineering papers. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Doh, hate when that happens. Thanks for the note, they're gone now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Opinion?

Noone is reviewing articles these days

Thought I'd poke you for your opinion on this. Also just for poking's sake. GRAPPLE X 21:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Whoosh" goes the reference flowing over my head. I'm thinking dykes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Today's vocabulary lesson. Pity Roger's Profanisaurus doesn't allow searches. GRAPPLE X 06:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Help Please

If you have time, can you please help me with the page I created. I'm literally getting attacked (maybe a little dramatic to say "attacked" lol) by the same three users. I even had a user put up a "COI" against me, then later realised he was wrong, apologised and had it removed - but it was still very frustrating and time consuming. It all started with I saw "Jonathan Hay Publicity" page built, that was very poor - and I created a Jonathan Hay (publicist) page that has came under constant attack while I was building. Eventually, two users did help edit and improve the page and taught me a bunch of stuff. Now, I have a user named Tomwsulcer who is wanting to have the page deleted, and a few days ago put he up "RS" on the notice board post and didn't really reference it properly. If you look at my history, I haven't had any isses with anyone until this last week and lately it's gotten crazy. All these things, keep in mind were happening as I was trying to build this page. I don't like feeling this way and I think it's been very unfair treament, so if you could, HELP!!! :) Causeandedit (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, sorry to hear that you've been treated unfairly. Part of the nature of this site is that anyone can edit--and that includes a lot of dysfunctional people. The best thing that you can do, though, is to be polite and civil in return. Just try to make your case clearly and try to comment on content, not contributors. Given the subject of the article, you might ask for help finding good sourcing at WikiProject Rihanna (not that you can't ask people to !vote Keep though). Sorry if this doesn't help much, if they keep treating you poorly you could open a thread on WP:WQA. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice Mark!! :)Causeandedit (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Questions on your AfD close of Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability

Hi. You recently closed this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thirty_Years_of_Research_on_Race_Differences_in_Cognitive_Ability. I have three requests. First, would you mind placing a copy of the last version of the page in my user area? Second, would you mind providing some more color on why you closed this as delete? It would be helpful (for me, and I think, others) to know your precise reasoning, in particular would you agree that there were "reliable sources" providing "significant coverage"? Third, do you have any interest in revisiting this decision? I can provide details, if that would be helpful, but there may be a process problem with the discussion because the original proposer's description of the sources was not accurate, as he admitted [12]. That may have caused some votes to be different than they otherwise would have been. Thanks! Yfever (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, sorry about your article being deleted, that's really no fun. I'd personally favor a weaker notability standard for academic works, so I'm sympathetic to your view here. But, as an admin, I have to close discussions based on the consensus of participants than by my own opinion. I can restore a draft of the article into your userspace, that would be helpful if you want to selectively merge its content into other pages (be careful of WP:STALEDRAFT though). If you can improve the sourcing of the draft, you can apply to have it restored at WP:DRV in six months. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, it's at User:Yfever/Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability now. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! But could you also respond to my second request? That is, it would be useful if you could provide your view of just what the "consensus" was, beyond to delete, as an addition to the official decision. This has been helpful in previous AfDs that I have seen. (Or, if this is all you sought to establish, please make that clear.) In other words, I "think" that the consensus was that this article had significant coverage from reliable sources but that that fact alone was not enough to make the article notable for Wikipedia. However, one might dispute that this was the consensus, i.e., that some editors argued that the sources were not truly reliable or whatever. Of course, the reason that this would be helpful to me is that, if/when I go to DRV, it would be useful to have this fact, if it is one, made clear. Yfever (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's somewhat unusual to have an article on an academic study up for deletion, so it's harder than normal to come up with a concise summary. The best arguments for deletion (Lquilter and DGG) point out that the coverage seems to be fairly routine for an academic paper, taking a narrow interpretation of WP:GNG. The closest guideline seems to be in the "Academic and technical books" section of WP:BKCRIT, which includes "how influential the [work] is considered to be in its specialty area" as a possible criteria. I think the consensus in this discussion was that it was not a particularly influential study. Hope this helps you understand my reasoning. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your summary. I think that a fair description of the consensus is that, although the Wikipedia article itself did cite reliable sources which provided significant coverage, the underlying article needs to be more influential, more "field-changing" or "classic", to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. But, could you please add this description, or something like it, to the official closing of the AfD. Your summary should be preserved somewhere other than this talk page. Yfever (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, sure, will do. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Ruth Norman/GA1

Smile!  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

lol, thanks for the review. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You asked: I know you often copyedit articles that are on the main page, so I thought I'd ask if you'd be interested in going over Ruth Norman (on DYK today). I'd love if you could look at the grammar in prose, if you're interested and have time. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm (almost) always interested in good grammar! I must say that I was impressed at the overall quality of this article. So many of the DYK listings are short to the point of incompleteness, poorly written, less-than-fully cited, and generally haphazard that this was a welcome change. I made a number of edits, but they are, by and large, pretty low on the significance scale. I do have an issue with the heavy reliance on one source (Tumminia), and noted that in the GA review. Keep up the good work!--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's a possible source of material: http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/unarius-academy-of-science; I seemed to remember reading about this group while in L.A., and it looks like I was right. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Oooh, good thinking, thanks for the link, I'll try to use those. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

u sux

so how're you my boy

Oh, I can't complain. How are you? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not Peaks, but it's damn good coffee

Thought you might be interested in this; I really surprised myself with how much I was able to cobble together so quickly. Looks like it's a lot more substantial than an unproduced footnote in the man's career anyway. GRAPPLE X 04:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That is interesting, I hadn't heard of it before. Good job finding all that. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
If you're looking to kill some time there's a full script floating about online. I've not got sitting down to read it yet but I probably will pretty soon. GRAPPLE X 04:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be pretty interesting. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification

This is to let you know that Albertus Soegijapranata, an article which you have reviewed at the GA or PR level, has been nominated as a featured article candidate. Any feedback would be appreciated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, will try to get to it soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Constitution Square State Historic Site

Just wanted to let you know that Constitution Square State Historic Site, an article you peer reviewed a while back, is now up at FAC if you'd like to have another look. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, glad to hear it, I'll try to get to it right after Crisco's article. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amsterdam Magazine (2nd nomination)

Hi, I appreciate your closure of this AfD and realize that the "delete" that I was looking for was not in the cards. However, several editors besides me expressed serious doubts about the quality of the sources. When reading through the discussion, I really think that "no consensus" would have been more appropriate, but again, I realize that is subjective. Nevertheless, I'd appreciate if you could have a second look. In any case, I would also appreciate if you could keep the article on your watchlist, if possible. It has been an unmitigated pain at the lower end of my spine, because of continuous attempts to insert POV edits. Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You know, I recall seeing a case like this at DRV last year. I've clarified my statement, hopefully to your liking. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I rarely if ever look at DRV. And I've never disagreed so much with a closing admin as to feel the need to go there myself. Thanks for the clarification! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Divine command theory

Hi Mark. I don't know how busy you are at the moment, but do you think you could look at the GA review I've requested for divine command theory. If not, don't worry. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, that does sound interesting. I have a couple reviews lined up ahead of it, but if no one has grabbed it by the time I'm finished with them I'll do it. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, have you read anything by John E. Hare? He's written a bit about the subject that might be useful. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
That's great, thanks. And I'll see what I can find about Hare. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

what to do?

Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders is on the main page (I just realized because I edited it - not a good edit on my part - I was trying to clarify per tag by using the cited source) and it's filled with citation tags and clarify tags etc. Isn't there someone who reads through these articles before they go on the main page? (As far as I can tell, the tags are justified - an editor has been improving the prose over the last few days, but I didn't realize about the tags until now.) MathewTownsend (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll check it out now, but it might be Ok to just revert back to the version that passed FAC. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think he has valid points. I always did have trouble with the writing and sourcing of that article. Might want to consult with him, so as not to alienate him - as he seems to know what he's doing. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Did he get notice of main page appearance? He's usually very active. (But the article has real problems IMO. I don't think he really knew what he was writing about. Two GAs, two peer reviews, etc. ) MathewTownsend (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I've seen him take a few days off at a time before, I recall that because I pinged him a couple times about Jesse Washington, so I'm not too surprised to see him take a couple days off. Bad timing though, certainly. I tried looking on google books for cites to fix tags, but didn't get very far. Not a good show when we have tags on TFA. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ladies

  • You're probably tired of this by now, but you need a laugh.
Lies Noor (poor lady died at the age of 23)
Titien Sumarni (also died fairly young, age 35)
Roosilawaty
Okay, no laugh... they mostly died young :-( — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow, that is young. Tough life back then, I guess. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

AFD Closure for Juan Santori

Hi,

I'd just like a clarification on your closure for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Sartori. Was the keep based on a general agreement to morph to a more general article on the company? I'm preapring to do the work but I want to double-check before moving the article. Thanks, -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say that there was a consensus to limit or to expand the article--I closed it as keep because no one other than the nominator wanted to delete it. I'd say your're free to propose an expansion on the talk page, or to boldy do it if you're not worried about opposition. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. I shall likely be bold later today. I see you're a somewhat freshly minted admin. Congrats on the unanimous RFA (wow!), and also thank you taking on the admin tasks. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome, it feels good to be able to help in a new way. I had heard lots of horror stories about Rfa, but it turned out to be a great experience. And I've even managed to resist the temptation to vandalize the main page... Mark Arsten (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

David R. Hawkins

Inquiring to see if you fully read the article for deletions discussion. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Do you agree with my closing decision? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
No, but that's fine. That man is notable and I think people should be made aware that though some of his works have been promoted by people such as Wayne Dyer, that also he has fallen into some disrepute with his more ominous claims regarding "kineseolgy" and such, people turn to Wikipedia for details like that. I have been a Wikipedian for a long while and I think many people here are caught up in technical perfection for poor reasons and fail to strive for excellence in what is put out there. One does not achieve the other. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the nature of Wikipedia is that it works on consensus (WP:CONSENSUS), so it's possible for one "lone voice" to be correct but have his/her views overridden by the majority. I find that it's often best to find a quiet part of the project and work on uncontroversial topics. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
No worries, Mark. I am well aware of the nature of Wikipedia and its processes. I appreciate your observations. This individual has been a point of contention on English Wikipedia for many years, just as he has been in his life. I know the head of a very large international umbrella company who promotes and uses Dr. Hawkin's book Power vs. Force with his companies, who recommend that I read it as well. I have about 4,000 books on my shelves and I was surprised to see that I actually had the book and two others by the author (I am often gifted books I don't get too). So that it was started this whole thing about a month and half ago when I saw that he was not mentioned on Wikipedia but yet had previously been on several occasions. Wikipedia is what it is and there is no contesting that! :-) Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That being said, according to policy I am to take this up with you as the closer. I do contest the issue and I am suppose to discuss this with you first. So I will open that discussion. For example, text from the short bio listed from independent publishing company Hay House (before he created his own publish company) ...Author of more than eight books, including the bestseller 'Power vs. Force', Dr. Hawkins’s work has been translated into more than 17 languages. In the 1970s, he co-authored Orthomolecular Psychiatry with Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling, revolutionizing the field of psychiatry. He made appearances on The MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour, The Barbara Walters Show, and the Today show. Dr. Hawkins has lectured at Westminster Abbey, the Oxford Forum, the University of Argentina, Notre Dame, Stanford, and Harvard... (Link listed first below.) This was used in the last article but was deemed "unreliable" along with the rest by one person and not by 'consensus'; yet the independent bio points out his national TV appearances and his previous work with Linus Pauling and rather important notable points. I find it reliable, the person requesting previous deletions did not and removed the information some time ago. I still think the article should remain, wonder if it should go to WP:DRV. Can you extrapolate further on your reasoning at close?

These separate sources have been brought up before as references in a variety of Wikipedia discussion forums:

Though not perfect in many respects, the man is notable and the article should be listed on the English Wikipedia. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, my opinion as to whether he is notable or not isn't relevant here. As an admin closing a discussion I let the community do the deciding, and only judge whether (A.) they have come to a consensus and (B.) whether they came to consensus by basing their arguments on our policies and guidelines. In this case, I think it's pretty clear that the community reached a consensus and that their reading of the issue was reasonable in light of our guidelines on notability. If you believe that I have closed it incorrectly, you have my blessing to open a WP:DRV on the issue. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your contributions! SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Zoophilia and the law

You may be interested in this DRN thread --Guerillero | My Talk 01:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Frank Cordaro

Can you please give some insight on the decision to keep this article? Biccat (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My reasoning was that there was a consensus among the participants in the discussion that the available sources were significant enough to demonstrate that he met our notability guidelines. Do you agree with my close? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Even if the articles sourced by user: Arxiloxos are sufficient to establish notability, the article is silent as to the information contained in the sources. These sources have been haphazardly appended to the end of the article. Wikipedia is not a ... repository of links. Mr. Cordaro's alleged notability is wholly disconnected from the content of the article.
I also contend that Mr. Cordaro is not notable. His involvement in various groups mentioned on the page (Catholic Worker group, Roman Catholic priesthood, and peace rallies) is minor and low-profile. Finally, while being an orphan article is not a condition for deletion, no other articles consider Mr. Cordaro (except "list of people from Iowa") notable enough to include, and his involvement in other areas is insufficient to merit mention in those other articles.Biccat (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
That all may be true, but the community is generally hesitant to delete articles that could be fixed by regular editing. If you feel that I have closed the discussion incorrectly, feel free to open a new discussion at WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ruth Norman

Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wichita Junior Thunder AFD

Hello Mark Arsten, I just wanted to inquire as to why the deletion discussion on the Wichita Jr. Thunder was closed as a keep rather than a no consensus (which I understand has no tangible difference). The two editors who voted delete cited that the argument that other teams had pages violated WP:OTHERSTUFF and that the "multiple independent sources" were of other teams in their level, rather than the specific team whose article is in question. The way I saw it, 2 editors plus the nominator voted delete, and 4 voted to keep. Could you explain this for me? Thanks, by the way I am watching your talk, so no need to post a talk back message. I have no intention of applying for a WP:DRV or anything, I was just trying to understand the argument of the other side. Have a good day. Go Phightins! (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, good question. That was definitely borderline between Keep and No consensus, so that's a good question. For the Keep voters, the strongest arguments came from DJSasso and Rlendog, who referred to the quality of the sourcing that was available for the team. ilamb94 and DMighton didn't really advance solid reasons for keeping the article. Among the delete voters, Shirt58 pointed out that it didn't meet club, which is Ok, but he/she didn't really deal with the question of how much available sourcing there way. You pointed out that that first Keep voter made an OTHERSTUFF argument, which is true, but you never really said why the article should be deleted. TerminalPreppie indicated that he couldn't find enough sourcing to convince himself that it is notable, which is a pretty strong argument for deletion. So, it was a slim majority, and I could have closed it as no consensus. The difference between a NC closure and a Keep closure is that you're allowed to renominate sooner if a debate is closed as NC. In this case though, it would be better to wait until the hockey season to see if the team gets more coverage. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem, just was a little confused. Go Phightins! (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thanks for the copy-edit of Episode 14 (Twin Peaks). Cheers, TBrandley 18:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sigh

Deleting Mitt Romney's tax returns was completely the wrong decision. Now I get to spend from now until November explaining to trolls that WP:UNDUE doesn't mean you get to not WP:PRESERVE material in the project. Fun, fun, fun. (Work, work, work.) Thanks a lot! -- Kendrick7talk 01:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, hopefully November will come quickly! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
LOL. If this is all a nefarious plot to bring me out of retirement, well played. -- Kendrick7talk 02:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it would have been much better to close with an explanation on the page. For example there were many !votes for merge, but you chose delete. Why? There were also many people who said that there just is not enough information on this to write an article. That is stupendously wrong. This has been a front page story since last December. The President and Romney both were on the evening news yesterday on this topic. And frankly, there were just people playing games with the material. Deleting material, saying that it was WP:UNDUE without even trying to add material that they think supports their own POV. Adding material about Donald Trump asking for the President's college transcripts. Removing a scatterplot that was published by the Washington Post because of it supposedly not being from a RS and being POV.

I think a closing statement is required in this case. Smallbones (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, sorry Smallbones (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for the revert on my talk page Fraggle81 (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Review of Sandra Fluke

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sandra Fluke. Because you participated in the original deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ruth Norman

I've left a long list of minor points and nit-picks on the review page, but looks good overall. And I suspect that many of my questions don't have answers anyway, but it's worth asking! It's quite a story... Sarastro1 (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! Thanks for the copyedits and feedback, I greatly appreciate it. It really is quite the story, my life seems so boring compared to these people who talk to space aliens and archangels all the time :) Mark Arsten (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Dostoevsky

Hello,

the article Fyodor Dostoyevsky is currently in the GAN queue; perhaps you are interested in reviewing it ;)? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 14:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that is a big subject, and an important one too. I'm not sure if I'll be able to get to it, I have 3 or 4 articles lined up to review at the moment, but if it's still open when I finish with them I'll consider it. Good luck! Mark Arsten (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you know someone who is interested in such articles? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Not off the top of my head, but SilkTork, Aircorn, and MathewTownsend are usually willing to do GA reviews of long articles, in addition to being pretty reasonable people. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion: Margo Rey

Hi Mark,

Before I submit this deletion for review, just wanted to have a chat with you about it (as suggested in the Deletion Review process guide). Given that the discussion was ongoing as recently as this morning, just wondering about your decision to close it. Any commentary you can provide to help me understand will be appreciated. Many thanks. Vertium When all is said and done 17:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I closed it because, although your rationale for inclusion was an acceptable argument, the only other Keep !voter noted that his preference was weak and there were five supporters of deletion, most of whom made arguments that were well grounded in our guidelines. Feel free to submit it to WP:DRV, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Mark, I really appreciate the time you take to do all this. Thanks for your response. I know that consensus isn't supposed to be a !vote count and 3 of the 5 delete votes were before the article had been changed, so to my thinking it remained "tied" and under active discussion. I'll consider the DRV and I again, thank you for your time. Vertium When all is said and done 18:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that is a good point, and something to take into consideration. Hard to judge though, I suppose. One option at DRV is to ask for a relist, which may be prudent in this situation. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the advice. I came across this AfD and have no vested interest whatsoever in its survival, but I do admit to getting frustrated when it becomes a piling on of negativity, despite what anyone does to improve the situation (hence my decision to consider the DRV before I take any action). I can easily let doing what I genuinely think is right and just get in the way of what would certainly be the easier path. All the best to you. Vertium When all is said and done 18:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Advice

Thanks. I've been wondering the whole time if it would be best to limit my responses to formal questions in "Questions for the candidate".—Bagumba (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's best to show a lot of caution when replying to oppose voters. Of course, easier said then done if a few people are throwing accusations at you (see here, for example). Limiting it to answers to questions is probably a good goal, sometimes oppose voters will ask a question like "What do you think about the rationale for oppose #3? That being said, I don't think you really went overboard too much, and it looks like the nomination is going quite well overall. Another word of advice--avoid any controversy if at all possible this week, stay off of ANI etc. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Much appreciated.—Bagumba (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Restoration of deleted players

Hello. Please kindly restore these players, as the two top Albanian football leagues are fully professional (I evidenced that here). Thanks! Albaniafutboll (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Other players to be restored for the same reason are:

Albaniafutboll (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Last, could you please advise if I have to go to Deletion review? Albaniafutboll (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, reading closely DRV, it needs to be used only if I'm unable to resolve the issue with you. In order to simplify, let's focus exclusively on this deletion and not on the other ones.
  1. I can help you with translation on sources
  2. It was demonstrated that the Albanian Superliga and the Albanian First Division are fully professional.
So given my willingness to help and given that the suspects were unfounded, is there any other reason why we can't resolve together and I should go to DRV? Please understand that I don't expect you to give a quick answer: we can wait for more editors to give their thoughts here. Thanks. Albaniafutboll (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd prefer that this go to DRV, perhaps seeking a relist, given that I'm somewhat unfamiliar with this area. Or you could kick this over to an admin in the football project and ask him/her to restore them. Sorry, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, no problem, I understand. Giving you notification below then. Kind regards. Albaniafutboll (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatjon Tafaj

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatjon Tafaj. 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. Albaniafutboll (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Frank Nazikian

Hi Mark - I think it may be worth re-evaluating your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franck Nazikian. Every keep vote came from accounts connected with this sockpuppet investigation. I'm pretty sure the AfD had organized socking intended to change consensus, so I think it may be a good idea to reopen the AfD (or to discount the sock !votes at least.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Facepalm Facepalm , I didn't check their histories. How about just opening a new Afd and noting the sockpuppetry issues? Since it was a no consensus I think it's fine to avoid the wait. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I haven't thoroughly evaluated the sources myself as to have a 100% firm opinion about deletion, and have enough on my plate that I'd rather skip doing so this week, but I've left a note on Zaldax's talk page suggesting he renominate. If he doesn't, I may eventually take a closer look at the guy and then do so myself just given the degree of sockpuppetry involved. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I've already spared him the trouble by renoming. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I missed that. Shows how much this week is frying my brain - yay crunchtime! Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Margo Rey

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Margo Rey. 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. Vertium When all is said and done 21:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  • lol, yeah, I am enjoying it. It's nice to be able to block someone when I see them writing PENISPENISPENIS on Justin Beiber instead of waiting for someone else to do it. I hadn't realized how many people come and complain after you close Afds. Some of them make good points, most don't though. Oh yes, and Sandy Fluke is a women who feels strongly that Catholic colleges should offer their students insurance plans that cover contraceptives. This somehow made her a minor political celebrity. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Request re-opening of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitt Romney's tax returns

As the article has been returned, redirected and totaly confused editors on what to do to rectify this situation. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Replied at ANI, and gave a final warning to Kendrick. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi,

Thanks for making the move for me. I was trying to figure out what to do next to get it moved! There was no reason for "Behavior" to be capitalized and was contrary to wp naming conventions. So great thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, I think there is a way to tag it for speedy deletion as holding up a move... probably just easiest to ask an admin to do it though. Let me know if you spot any more of those. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

CHeMin

PLEASE hold your edits for a short time, as I kindly requested in the rather large tag at the top of the page. Your edit caused a conflict and the loss of a lot of work and data. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry to hear that. I try to avoid doing that, but I was using AWB (which has a smaller edit box) and missed the tag. Sorry! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, my friend for helping out. I'm done now. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Users reverting a solidly-reasoned edit

Hello, Mark. I noticed you had recently edited John Roberts and are an administrator. I am writing regarding a problem with some other editors in that article. I was reading that article and noticed that on July 30, a user (108.36.80.228) had made a great, simple edit to fix grammar/usage in the article.[13] Yet it was reverted by a another user (Fat&Happy) who gave what I believe to be a very weak edit reason ("original was better"). User 108 clearly explained his edit reason and even wrote Fat&Happy to further explain it in detail.[14]. User 108 is obviously a very good writer and was improving the content that was already there. I put back User 108's edit and explained in the edit comments why, but other editors keep reverting it back with no legitimate reasons given.[15] And one of the editors who reverted sent me a warning about edit-warring, even though I clearly explained why I made the edit, linked to user 108's reasoning, and asked them to please take it to the talk page to discuss it if they disagree. One of the editors who reverted (Arthur Rubin) is actually an admin and his page says he was blocked in the past many times for edit warring many times. I feel really bad for user 108 because he clearly is a very skilled writer who made a nice little improvement, yet was shut down without any reasonable cause. And I think he left Wikipedia for good because he got so frustrated. I have no idea who he is, but I looked at some of his other edits, and his comments to the editors involved in reverting him in John Roberts. Can you please help? Thank you very much. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Btw, if you disagree with user 108's edits (the ones I put back and keep getting reverted), I'll accept that and move on. I totally trust your opinion. But I think you'll see what 108 did was really good. Thanks. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I partially replied on the talk page, and I've locked the article for the next day. While I do have an opinion on the issue (I prefer "having been", "died", and "admission") I don't really see this as particularly worth fighting about--although this is a classic example of the kind of thing that makes new users less likely to contribute to the project further. (Note that Arthur Rubin's revert was acceptable under the widely held WP:BRD philosophy.) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for replying so fast. I know how busy you must be on here, so I appreciate it. Yeah, your point about driving new editors away is great. I was thinking about that when I saw what happened to 108. He obviously is great at writing and you could see how frustrated he was. I think Wikipedia needs more users like 108 who can do nice cleanups like that. It sounds like he's an English professor or something. Haha. I'm probably doing the same thing he is; seeing how it goes first before becoming a full-fledged editor with an account. ;) And as far as your preferences ("having been", "died", and "admission"), can you please put those in the talk comments, along with part about not driving newbies away. Your suggestions on the edits are totally acceptable to me. Like I said, I trust you (based on reading your talk page). You seem like a great admin who's really logical and fair. Thanks again for getting back to me so quickly. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome, glad to help. It's tricky sometimes, most vandalism is done by IP addresses (rather than registered users), but most IP addresses are not vandals. We have a page on the issue: Wikipedia:IPs are human too. I just left a message about the issue for our in-house grammar expert (I think he's an academic editor in real life), so he might be able to offer an uninvolved opinion, as well. I am pretty interested in grammar in general, but since I've used my admin tools in regards to the situation I probably shouldn't argue in favor of one version now. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
That's great that you sent to a grammar expert. Thank you so much for doing that. I totally understand how you don't want to argue for a position since you're an admin who protected the article, but can you just put a neutral comment on the talk page showing your "suggestions" as opposed to instructions? After all, your opinion agrees, in part, with both sides. :) Thanks again Mark. And thanks for saying I'm human. Haha. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

None of my business but I don't see how "was" is any less passive voice than "having been". Plus me being a fan of Tony's view, I think the more direct "was" is better than "having been". Just my view. MathewTownsend (talk)

Well, since you're uninvolved and you're pretty good with editing, you might be an ideal mediator here, Mathew. The IP's explanation for the wording is here, he says "having been" is "weak and archaic verb structure". Mark Arsten (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the input, Mathew. I feel that "and was", "died" and "admission" are the best usages for the reasons 108 stated. So Mark only differs on the first one. Had 108 not given such a clear, logical explanation of the edits, I wouldn't have even addressed the issue. I agree with Mark that you'd be a really good mediator. Thank you both. Btw, who's Tony?? :P --76.189.108.102 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Tony is User:Tony1, the grammar expert I mentioned earlier. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, gotcha! Thanks. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Also agree that "after Chief Justice William Rehnquist died" is more concise than "after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist". The words flow better. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, you're making me laugh at how you give your opinion one issue at a time. Two down, one to go. Haha. But can you please put whatever thoughts you have in the talk page discussion? I'm glad we have editors with great writing skills looking at this. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
You should see how long it takes him to get through a whole article :) Mark Arsten (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Attention deficit disorder! (Plus had bunches of trees cut down today. Traumatic!) Agree with "admission" over "being admitted". It's those awful verb forms like "having been" and "being"! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, "being" is way overused around here in my opinion. And I'm a pretty slow reviewer myself, I still haven't gotten to doing an FAC review for Constitution Square State Historic Site after getting the notice a week ago. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
You guys are so funny. I wish editing articles was as enjoyable as talking to you guys here. :p Sorry about your trees, Mathew. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

don't blame you on that one (Constitution Square State Historic Site). Seems strange that the lead says: "The site comprises the majority of the Constitution Square Historic District which was added to the National Register of Historic Places on April 2, 1976." MathewTownsend (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the historic site and the historic district differ by three buildings, one's near-FA quality and one's a redlink.
@IP Well, there are some very fun parts of the project and some very annoying ones... kind of like good parts of town and bad parts of town. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed. If you have a subject you're passionate about and can reference what you add, article work can be a breeze. I've written GA-class articles in under a day... it's the reviews that kill you, cuz you have to wait so long — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Section protection request: Technologies used for Olympic sports

Hi, Mark: Can I request a "section" protection for Technologies used for Olympic sports (other sections are OK and should not need protection) because of this? We may also need some advice on this section as the issues raised are hotly debated. But let's get the protection in place first. Thanks and regards, (Showmebeef (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC))

You can request a section protection, but the software doesn't allow it--everything is locked or nothing is. Remember, it takes two people to edit war, sometimes it's best to walk away. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for putting in the protection. I think a bit more time than 12 hours is probably needed so editors involved can have some time to exchange views and try to reach some consensus before protection is lifted (other sections have been relatively quiet these days). Thanks! Showmebeef (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I was hesitant to keep the whole locked for long, but I'll think about extending it. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Faithful Word Baptist Church

Hey Mark (again). ;) Can you tell me if I did something wrong? I saw a speedy deletion notice on Faithful Word Baptist Church and it says "If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice." So I did a search on Google News archives and found numerous articles about them and their controversial pastor. So I removed the speedy deletion notice. And I added a cite to the article. But someone reverted both things I did so the speedy deletion notice was put back and my cite was removed. Was I allowed to do what I did based on finding all those sources? Thank you. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: another editor just removed the speedy deletion notice and added back my citation. His edit note said it was allowed to be removed. I'm so confused. :P --76.189.108.102 (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

A couple things A. Good job adding cites to that article, that was good. Technically you were allowed to do so, but it is fairly common for an article creator to log out of their account to remove speedy deletion tags in violation of the rule, so that's probably why you were reverted. It isn't very common for an IP to try to improve an article up for speedy deletion without being involved with it in the past, but of course, it does happen sometimes. B. You appear to have gotten involved with multiple articles that Arthur Rubin has edited recently. From now on, please do your best to avoid him and articles that he has worked on. BTW, I disagree with the tagging that page, being an SPLC designated hate group is surely in indication of importance. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Now I see the editor who added the speedy deletion notice in the first place just put a notice on the article that says it's being nominated for deletion. With Arthur Rubin, the thing is that we are both involved in RfC's involving numerous organizations that are labeled as "hate groups". So Faithful is one of the ones involved in the discussions (among many editors). He must've followed me to the unrelated John Roberts article because he hadn't edited that article for like three months, but got there shortly after I edited it yesterday and reverted me. I saw he's an admin, but by his talk page it looks like there are some users who aren't happy with the way he's behaving. Anyway, thanks for the explanation on the speedy deletion thing. As I said, I never would have gotten to that article had it not been involved in the ongoing RfCs about similar articles. Btw, I just checked Faithful again and it looks like Arthur Rubin and another editor are going back and forth with various edits and notices. Thanks, Mark. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the SPLC-related articles are minefields, I'd try to avoid them. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I think minefield is a good term for them. ;) I just don't get how an article like Faithful can get nominated for deletion, let alone speedy deletion - and by and administrator - when there's plenty of coverage about them in reliable sources. I even told them about this yet they're pushing so hard to get it deleted. Obviously, I'm no fan of this Faithful group, so I have to be extremely impartial to advocate for keeping it. :P Thanks for everything you're teaching me. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
In return for all my help, now you have to copyedit the article in the section below... to lighten my workload ;) Just kidding, although you're free to do so if you want. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Not only are you a great admin, you're also very funny. :) I think I better leave that copyediting to you. I got a beating today on here, so I need to recover. Haha. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Hey, Mark. I hate to ask again, but, could you copy-edit "Nightswimming" for a potential FA nomination. Please note that I am open to doing anything in return. Regardless, cheers. TBrandley 01:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty short, so it likely won't take hours and hours :) I'm a bit busy (in terms of Wikipedia stuff) at the moment, so I probably couldn't do it for a week or two, but I'm willing to do it, sure. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I have to what about two weeks before nominating anyway, so, thanks! TBrandley 02:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/New Kingdom Of Lundy

If you're not busy, would you be willing to delete this AfC submission that I tagged four hours ago? Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope, too busy, find someone else to do your dirty work ;) Mark Arsten (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for David R. Hawkins

An editor has asked for a deletion review of David R. Hawkins. 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. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David R. Hawkins

Why is there still an AfD template on this article? I presume you actually deleted it, did you leave the template on? I see Iconoclast is complaining editors weren't notified and that it shouldn't have been deleted because he's notable. Sigh. Dougweller (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been removed. I would have done that but wondered if you had left it on in error when deleting or something I missed. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
No, what happened was I deleted it, then DGG restored it for the deletion review. He restored it to the last revision before deletion, which had the Afd tag on it. It's kinda tricky, I've accidentally done that a couple times myself. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not sure why I didn't see that, must look again. Dougweller (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Resource exchange

Hello.Your request was fulfilled.You can find a link to the article/s you requested in the relevant section at WP:RX.Please indicate when you've downloaded successfully and add a resolved tag to your request.Thank you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

vandal tools

Hey,

I'm taking a vandal class and got my second lesson Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism. A bewildering number of tools are listed. (All I've ever used is Twinkle or fixing by hand.) What do you use/how do you do it? Do I have to use IRC to be effective?

One of my test questions is: "What does the tools make?" Do you know what is meant by this? (Think I'm way out of my knowledge range here.) MathewTownsend (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope what you mean is that you're taking an anti-vandal class :) Wow, I didn't know there were so many different anti-vandalism tools out there. I've used three different tools: STiki, Igloo, and Huggle. 1. STiki is pretty easy to use, and it typically shows you older edits than the other two (at least it did when I was using it). You can find stuff that falls through the recent changes cracks, and can flag things as productive edits so it isn't presented to others. It has a vandal revert and a good faith revert (which I think allows for an edit summary now). 2. Igloo shows you recent changes, and my impression was that it is probably the fastest of the three. I haven't used it for a while, but I only recall there being one standard vandalism revert edit summary, which was kind of a draw back to me. 3. Huggle is what I use the most and the one I would recommend. It patrols recent changes, and is almost as fast as I recall Igloo being. It has a drop down of 10 different edit summaries, which is a large part of why I like it so much. If there's something that's maybe vandalism, maybe not, you can leave a warning about adding unsourced content/removing stuff without an edit summary/biased writing instead of a vandalism warning. You can also set it to monitor a page, and it will make a click sound whenever there's an edit to that page. I do that with TFA on occasion. The only drawback is isn't not quite as fast as I would prefer, but it's still pretty quick a lot of the time. So that's what I'd recommend. A word of warning though, these tools can be pretty addictive--you might find yourself with 5,000 edits a month before long! BTW, I e-mailed you. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The tools make fighting vandalism easier. That's my guess, at least. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
well, I looked at Huggle since I noticed it's used a lot. And I got led by a link to a page on Meta! Apparently I have to download something on my computer? And then set a bunch of configurations? Am I up to all that? MathewTownsend (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I found the process pretty easy, but yes, for Huggle and STiki you do need to download something. For Igloo you don't though. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Cardmobili

Could you please expand your closing comment in Cardmobili AfD? The "no consensus" outcome is at least not obvious there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, expanded my comment. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Hi,

I will stop as you are editing in between mine. (I can't keep track of what's going on.)

MathewTownsend (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you can go ahead, I'll be moving on to something else shortly. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't want to have to review again the parts I've already done. The article is unstable. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I probably won't do more, I have a lot on my plate as it is. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
well, I'm not going to re review it. And I can't pass it without doing so. This is the first review I've done in over a month, and did it really as a favor to you. Otherwise, I couldn't have made myself do it. This is my 169th GA review. It's grinding work. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Alright, that's understandable--reviewing definitely is hard work, and you've done far more than most. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Checking the article history, you haven't undone all your edits since I started reviewing/copy editing. I won't resume reviewing until you do. I worked hard copy editing it to suit what I would pass. I don't know if I agree with your edits; looking at the popups, I don't think I do. I trusted that you would undo, and you didn't. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that I did revert the two edits that I made after you opened the review. I left in place the edits that I made on the 22nd, but that was several days before you opened the review. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't think so per [16] One on August 26 not reverted.[17]. I can't review and copy edit while someone else, other than the nominator, is doing so also. The lack of stability means I have to second guess my own edits and comments, an agonizing chore. I was thinking the article was aiming for FAC so I was trying to do my best per Tony1's rules which I study and check regularly. I would have been finished by last night, so why couldn't you have waited until then before editing yourself? Kinda ruins it for me. What was your point? I don't think you realize how much I think about each evaluation I make. So my questions/suggestions in the failed GA1 can be disregarded. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


Dolibarr ERP - CRM removal

Hi Mark. I saw that you removed the page "Dolibarr" in august. Reason that appears is "does not meet notability". I have checked again and again and can't see what can be the reason behind this term ? All descriptions of this term, found into the "Wikipedia:Notability" page seems to speak about something that was ok with the page. I spent a lot of time to update this page because Dolibarr is as notorious project in a lot of countries in west europe like france, spain, ..., even more than Salesforce and other commercial products, but the difference is that Dolibarr is unique for a lot of reason: It is a project with no company behind him (only a foundation like Mozilla has the Mozilla foundation) and there is so few softwares, as famous as Dolibarr (at least in west europe, where dolibarr is as famous than anyother opensource project you may know like firefox, openoffice, ...), that match all need of users working in small companies with no technical knowledges, that I think it should be online. Can you spend some time to help me to find what's wrong among all things related into the "Wikipedia:Notability" page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldy (talk • contribs) 15:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

A couple things, A. I see you missed the big sign at the top of my page that instructs petitioners to start new sections at the bottom. I think I might have to make that bigger so people will notice. B. Dolibarr was deleted under the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion criteria, so its page can be restored under the Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion process. Would you like me to restore the page? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for quick reply Mark. For A, about your notice to add new articles at bootom, let me give my feedback. I have seen the text and for a reason I don't know, I read "at top" instead of "at bottom". So it's after reading your notice that i wrote my question at top "on purpose" (oops). I really don't understand how i made this error, your text was clear and I read it, but despite having taken care of this, i did this opposite. Sorry. May be adding a down arrow onto the text may solve "unconscious effect" of reading too quickly the notice.
For B, yes please, can you restore the page ? I made some changes after the tag PROD was added, to fix what i think was wrong (several fix in fact). I didn't want to remove the PROD tag myself after that, thinking I wasn't allowed. I thought it was role of the guy who set the tag to remove it after reviewing and validating my fixes. That's probably my error (wikipedia doc say we can removed it). So it would be great if you can restore the page ? (if you would like me to send a "Request for undeletion" before, just ask me). --Eldy (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I've restored it, could you write a note on the talk page that it was deleted and restored? Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I added the note into the talk page --Eldy (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Forrest Yoga

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Forrest Yoga. 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. -Was just asking for a follow-up explanation on the closing for Forrest Yoga. The page had 2 successful speedy deletions, and the AfD was solid on the process of manipulating sourcing and information for inclusion of the material in Wiki. Multiple rewrites did not change the questionable intent of the material. What prompted you to include it despite its obvious faults? (curious :) Яεñ99 (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ren99 (talk • contribs)

Hi, the reason I was inclined to keep the article was because of the strength of the Keep voters and the improvements to the article during the Afd. You and Curb Chain made decent arguments about the state of the article. The Keep voters seem to have focused on the available sourcing and the potential for improvements to the article. The article was also substantially improved over the course of the discussion, which isn't in itself a reason to keep it, but it weakens the previous arguments that focused on the state of the article. Feel free to pursue deletion review if you disagree though. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
After careful thought, I put the DelRev up for review (this time I think properly formatted so people can comment) on 29 Aug 2012. It's my first, but I spent a lot of time on it. My concern still circles the fact that this was an intentional, personal invention that was researched, developed, and marketed by an original person. The article seeks promotion and exposure, not simply to discuss yoga, and various elements thereof. As such, it's meant for public exposure, and in that regard financial return on a "original" form and for marketing development. I am trying to assume good faith, but what we see here is a business and exposure model. The trials and tribulations of her prior life should not play into our assessments, and "please don't" compromises the integrity of encyclopedic content Яεñ99 (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Eric B. Hughes. Again, why delete this article. Wiki encourages people to contribute, yet when they do- all of a sudden it gets deleted. Hughes is an award-winning filmmaker, he has 2 films do out this year, he's a produced screenwriter. There are so many over articles that should be looked at before this one.....just doesn't make sense. People were contributing links and all kinds of info to the page....so why delete? Please give me an answer. Bellatarr (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Radionuclides associated with hydraulic fracturing

Hi, Mark Asten. You closed the AfD for Radionuclides associated with hydraulic fracturing. In this process, you also removed OR tag from the article. Is there any specific reason for this or was it just accidental removal? Beagel (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that was an accident, will restore. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No Consensus closes

Between you and me, you seem to be producing too many of these. If you feel unable to make a call, leave it for someone else, if you would. Best, Carrite (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If you have any concerns about a particular Afd I've closed, feel free to bring it up. This type of comment is unhelpful though. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

India and state sponsored terrorism

Could you restore it to my subpage and have it . Then i can take a look and see whats POV and otherwise. The subject is certainly notable (As you agreed). Please ping me when its doneLihaas (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, will do. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, moved it now. My advice is to try to stick to academic sources as best you can--the best way to write a neutral article is with neutral sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thx.
Will do. Also media ones could possibly used, just phrased as alleged i would thinkLihaas (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, definitely can use media ones, I usually have a mix of both on my articles. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Could you also userfy the talk page of India and state sponsored terrorism please? That would be great, if not already necessary.
The talk page contains many important rationales back and forth as to why many of the claims in that article are straight WP:POVs and WP:SYNTH (that's why it was deleted, right?). Since wikipedia is all about consensus and discussions it's only fair that you also make the talk page accessible simultaneously, because now I can not even cite the discussions already have taken place, for saving time. Then the significant comments of those who commented on the article talk-page, will be lost and they might hesitate to reiterate the same things again and again in the user page of lihaas. Besides, Lihaas also wanted a rationale to understand what's POV and otherwise. Mrt3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 08:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I added it to the talk page of the userfied article. IIRC, there were also some substantial discussions on WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN or something. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Yup there were! And thanks. Mrt3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 14:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Signpost

Feel free to take a peek. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, I made some small copyedits, but otherwise looks fine. This way fun. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural racism

This nomination included Cultural racism in the United States. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I make that mistake all the time. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Big apology from me

Hi Mark,

I deeply apologize for my cranky and unreasonably behavior yesterday re Fyodor Dostoyevsky. I'm very regretful about responding so poorly. I hope this lapse of mine won't change your opinion of me. I ask your forgiveness. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You are forgiven, and I will not change my opinion of you. Of all the problems on Wikipedia, a good contributor who occasionally responds poorly to a difficult situation is a very minor issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

DRV Note

Someone raised a DRV against one of your closes. Spartaz Humbug! 02:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, finally eh? I could try Belenggu next but... TK said #Themes might need to be further expanded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Margo Rey

Hi there Mark! Can you do me a quick favor and restore the page for Talk:Margo Rey ?? It'd be most helpful for the WP:DRV discussion to check which WikiProjects were listed there, if any. ;) Thanks so much! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Little Lost Hen

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

I just restored the article The Little Lost Hen that you deleted under Prod. It was Prodded 2 years ago and someone contested it. Therefore any new prod is not valid and it needs to go to AFD. GB fan 16:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, my mistake, sorry. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I just saw two other articles that you deleted 10 minutes after I removed the Prod from them Vatra (album) and Wild Strawberries (album). Just wondering do you look at the article history when you are reviewing Prods? GB fan 16:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh damn, what happened was I opened like 15 articles in tabs with PRODs on them, then got distracted and came back and deleted them, sorry. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, it was just odd, that things I had just taken care of were being deleted. Thanks for the explanation. GB fan 16:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article Age

What does it mean by it been promoted between 1 and 2 years ago? Does it mean that's how long ago it was made? Also, could I nominate, since I am a new user. Thank you. --Lucky102 (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you're asking about the Today's Featured Article points, then that means the article was promoted to Featured Article status in that time; you can find out when a Featured Article was promoted by looking on its talk page at the "article history" box. GRAPPLE X 20:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer.--Lucky102 (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to Wikipedia, you've chosen an interesting place to get started... But, yes, Grapple is right. For example, today's featured article was promoted on August 23, 2011, so it was promoted just over one year ago. Anyone can nominate articles at WP:TFAR (which the possible exception of one user, who may or may not be banned from that page), it's generally advisable to ask the major contributors if they would mind if you nominated the article (unless they're retired from the project). Hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
What happens if this page was promoted less than 1 year ago? Could I still nominate?Lucky102 (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep, you still can, it just won't have as many points. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
People get a barnster for promoting a featured article. Does this mean that they suppourted, highly contriubted, or nominated an article for featured status?Lucky102 (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, pretty much. The total list is at WP:WBFAN if you're interested. Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page is also of use on this subject. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I am going to nominate William McKinley for the 14th of September, to mark the 101st year of his death.Lucky102 (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, you probably want to run that by User:Wehwalt & User:Coemgenus first though. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your help. If I need any help for Featured Articles, or anything, I will ask you. Also I will use this header for anything FA. Thanks again!Lucky102 (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
William McKinley won't get many points though since a politician was on the main page in around 2 weeks.Lucky102 (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Can I review a good article nominee, even though I am not a reviewer?Lucky102 (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you can, but I'd recommend you get experience writing a few articles here before reviewing them. There are a lot of small things that reviewers should ideally watch for. I'd suggest you get 3 or 4 articles promoted to good article status before reviewing any. Then again, your mileage may vary, as the saying goes. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

India and state sponsored terrorism

You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India and state sponsored terrorism.

I came across it after your closure, and it seemed to me that many of the arguments for deletion were not valid criteria for deletion as per my understanding of our deletion policies. I thought our deletion policies recommended articles on notable topics that have POV problems or contain segments of OR should be rewritten, not deleted. I thought deletion should be a last resort, when good faith attempts to address the editorial issues failed.

I encountered the same arguments from the same crew during the 2nd and 3rd {{tfd}} on Template:Kashmir separatist movement.

Executive summary: I tried to make the point that no topic is "inherently POV". I think any topic, no matter how controversial, where there are sufficient good reference, can be covered in a neutral manner, if good faith contributors make enough effort. Although the nationalists who claimed that template was hopeless POV implied they had made an attempt to reach a compromise, the record showed they had not. They claimed provocative edit summaries as their attempts to reach a compromise. If there is a complicated or controversial issue to discuss it really has to happen on the talk page.

You userified the article to User:Lihaas/India and state sponsored terrorism. Was there a talk page? If so, can I look at it?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've generally shared the perspective that neutrality issues should be dealt with by regular editing rather than deletion. But a sizable portion of the community believes deletion to be an acceptable option in those cases, see Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over for a good summary of the reasoning. The closing admin's summary at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews is also worth reading, for a similar case (note that I made the same argument at that Afd as you make in your post here). Also, I archived the talk page at User talk:Lihaas/India and state sponsored terrorism. There were several threads at WP:NPOVN and WP:RSN too, I think, but I don't have the links handy. Hope this clears things up. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)

@Geo Swan — Who are you referring to as "the same crew"? I don't particularly like that kind of sweeping statements. I, for one, wasn't there in any of those tfds.

@Mark Arsten — you might want to know that there are currently two (1 & 2) userfied versions of India and state sponsored terrorism are not there for any constructive purpose. They are, at least in my humble opinion, currently equivalent to stale-drafts. AFAIK, none of the users went for a DRV (that would have made some sense), these drafts are just sitting there. I don't think these userfied versions of India and state sponsored terrorism are there for any constructive purpose. While Lihaas's request seemed legitimate, the fact that a self-styled {{semi-retired}} and veteran editor who neither got involved in that AfD nor edited India related articles until fairly recently, who also has a flag of Bahrain on his user page suddenly takes an interest in India and state sponsored terrorism doesn't seem to add up.

Now I know that Mar4d (the creator of the article and a self-described Pakistani citizen), for the most part, was against the deletion of the article along with anything which the consensus agreed upon. And he hasn't even worked on the draft for more than two and a half weeks. Hence, it's not too much of a stretch to think that there is a personal agenda working here.
If I recall correctly, the likes of Mar4d lacked the hearing capability as well as the capability to assume good faith in those discussions.
Beside being offensive, the subject is itself on thin ice. Mrt3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 13:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I gave permission to file a DRV in six months using a userspace draft as the proposed version, so I think it's ok to have a draft for now--but after six months have elapsed from the date of the close feel free to Mfd them as stale drafts. Also, WTF does Bahrain's flag have to do with any of this??? Or Mar4d's passport for that matter? Mark Arsten (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
"WTF does Bahrain's flag have to do with any of this??? Or Mar4d's passport for that matter?" — I wasn't trying to be racist. I am far from that. All I intended to mean was that it's uncanny for an editor like Lihaas to be taking interest in a deleted India-related article and that Mar4d might be doing this because of personal inclinations. I am very sensitive to expletives and inconsiderate language, so please for heaven's sake try not to use 'WTF' again, it's uncivil, I think. You're a responsible admin, you should know better. Politeness is something I value immensely. Again, I was not citing these information in order to imply anything unsavoury, albeit it might have come out in a wrong way. For that, I apologize.

It's apparent, to me at least, that you don't like being dragged into arguments. I will try not to comment here again. Thank you very, very much for your time. Mrt3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 14:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well, I apologize for using potentially offensive language. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
No please don't embarrass me by apologizing. I know it was unintentional. But thanks for the response. Cheers! Mrt3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 14:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

followup on close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U-N-I-T-E-D

United Road (Take Me Home) still has an active AfD tag pointing at a deletion discussion you closed. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U-N-I-T-E-D as delete, and it appears the nominator attempted to bundle the second article into the nomination, but did not use the standard bundling formatting. Monty845 05:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright deleted. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U-N-I-T-E-D

Hi. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U-N-I-T-E-D as delete, but probably didn't notice that United Road (Take Me Home) was nominated as well (and separately commented upon by a few people). Being the nominator, I am not allowed to delete the article, so could you please take a look and do the necessary (if in your opinion the "delete" is valid for both articles of course)? Thanks! Fram (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

See above :) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Malkin Tower

Thanks loads for doing the review Mark, and for picking up quite a few points I'd missed myself. I really never thought the article could get beyond a super-stub, and I'm staggered at what BigDom and Trappedinburnley managed to pull out of the bag. Malleus Fatuorum 13:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to help--it was nice to review a well written article like that. It made me want to write about witches dens in my area, will see if anything comes of that. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Malleus is complimenting an admin? My how times have changed. Oh wait - this is about actual content. Never-mind - carry on. — ChedZILLA 18:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but he only opened one thread to do so. If I forget to delete an article, I get two threads pointing it out :) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Where is your area? I keep meaning to write something about the later (1634) Lancashire witch trials, and witchcraft in Cheshire, but just haven't got around to it yet. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I live in the area near where the Salem witch trials took place. I haven't thought too much about them for a while, but there is a lot of good sourcing I could make use of on the subject. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I knew it! I knew it! (phony image on user page). MathewTownsend (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, well, I don't think you really live in Java :) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Anyways, be glad to review Norman when she's up at FAC. I already decided which article to nominate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, it should be up soon. Solving the issues brought up in the peer review turned out to be tougher than I expected, I think I've more or less done what I can now though. I'll probably go through the whole thing one more time before nominating. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

ping

just an FYI: User talk:Ched/YRC — Ched :  ?  20:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editor on Jennifer Love Hewitt

Hi Mark! I hate to bother you, but User:Tim_Correll has now removed an entire paragraph of sourced content from Jennifer Love Hewitt two times (yesterday and today) with no explanation at all.[18]. I saw on the user's talk page that he was previously warned about disrupting this very article.[19]. It sounds like he is a big fan of Jennifer Love Hewitt's. I understand his passion, but can you send him a warning and tell them it's an encylopedia, not a fan page. :p I don't know how to do it. And it would have a much better impact coming from you. Thanks a lot, Mark. :) --76.189.108.102 (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've left a note for him. To be honest though, I'm not sure those two sentences are really worth fighting over. Alright, well, I'll try to check back and see how things develop. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, you might want to think about registering an account!
Yeah, actually I'm starting to learn that nothing is worth fighting over on Wikipedia. Haha. The reason I added that content is because there was some recent mainstream media coverage about it. I knew about that claim for years regarding her connection to the song, so I was surprised there was no mention of it in the article. Anyway, my concern was that the editor made repeated wholesale reverts without an explanation and he's previously been warned about similar edits. Thank you, Mark. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm still thinking about it! Will I get a special welcome gift if I do it?
Sadly, you only get the company watch after 25 years, or so I hear :) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Normal rules don't apply to Jimbo... Mark Arsten (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow, it was really interesting to read through three weeks of revisions on his page. I get some interesting vandalism on my userpage on occasion though: [20][21][22]. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, his talk page sure does too. Nawlinwiki insisted on semi-protecting my userpage eventually, guess I shouldn't complain... Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow, 25 years? How about after 25 good edits instead? :P And those edits on Jimbo's and Mark's pages are hilarious! I laughed so much that my stomach hurts! --76.189.108.102 (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I've laughed so hard at some of the vandals I've reverted while huggling. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
There are some wacky senses of humor out there. Good thing you have that weapon to keep things in order. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your close in Bruenor Battlehammer (2nd nomination) AfD

Hi, I noticed that you didn't elaborate a closure rationale in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruenor Battlehammer (2nd nomination), and so I don't really know how you reached that conclusion.

I consider that the "keep" participants didn't satisfyingly adress my nomination, I have strong arguments that the coverage in the article doesn't meet the WP:GNG criteria, notably on "significance" and "trivial mention" aspects. The same arguments had already been raised before on the article talk page, no which no one had answered. Per WP:AFDFORMAT, participants are asked to "explain how the article meets/violates policy" rather than merely stating it does. Now, I can't help but notice that participants did not explain how the coverage in article would be significant, but merely stated that it was, for example, BOZ's argument which just says "despite the nominator's arguments, the sources included should be enough to pass WP:GNG". Given the particularly detailed and well-argumented nomination I provided, I find this a little too flimsy. Same thing with the "Per BOZ" argument and "Appears to have appropriate independent, reliable sourcing sufficient to meet WP:GNG", which state the article would meet guideline but don't say how (particularly how coverage would be significant and more than trivial mention), which is again problematic considering the precise issues I pointed to and which were not adressed. The last recommendation by DThomsen8 is more of a concern, since it argues that articles about fiction should not be deleted and thus WP:GNG ignored (but guidelines apply to all articles indiscriminately so I don't see the weight in this argument).

May I suggest a relist, which could allow for my nomination to be better adressed than it was when you closed ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Hi, I think I closed the discussion correctly. Although not all of the keep commenters made idea arguments, opining that one has looked at the sources and finds them to be sufficient to demonstrate notability is an acceptable argument. While they could have been more thorough, I think I would be overstepping my authority to toss their comments out. I don't think relisting would be appropriate either, I think a sufficient number of people turned up to adequately determine consensus. If you feel that this was closed incorrectly, feel free to take it to WP:DRV. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your answer. I think your closing rationale would have benefitted from including what you've just told me. But I'm still not convinced that an AfD could be viable with such arguments (I don't see the difference between "Keep because I say so", and "Keep because I say the article is notable"). I suggested a relist because there are currently other AfD on the same topic (fictional characters from the same franchise) which received more participation, and in this condition, a close seemed premature. In any case I consider at least a no consensus would have been a good way to acknowledge keep !votes were not as ideal as they could have been (per your own admission here) while not just tossing them out. That's what I'll go for in DRV, if I can't convince you to change your close.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I have asked for a deletion review of Bruenor Battlehammer.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I've replied there. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Brent Morel

Please could you userfy this article as suggested by User:RightCowLeftCoast in the discussion. There are extensive accounts in books about the battle in which this person won the Navy Cross and so I might work this up into an article about that battle or some other larger topic. Warden (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I've just done so. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

re TFA

ok, I'll think on it but you know better than me what goes in a blurb. (I'd put the stuff in about the conversations with extraterrestrials via the sleeping man. It's in fashion! See current FAC Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact). MathewTownsend (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I had never actually written a blurb before, so I really don't know too much about it. Yes, I saw that FAC, I haven't read the article though, you'd think I would since I write so much about UFO religions. Speaking of which, have you read the article I'm nominating at FAC next? Ruth Norman--quite a lady! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
no, haven't read it. Didn't even know about it. Will do. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, any feedback would be welcome. I'm probably going to nominate it pretty soon. I had a real thorough peer review, but I'm not sure how well I did solving the issues pointed out there. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
ok, I'll take a look at the peer review and go through the article - in a while or two - before you nominate. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
peer review Wikipedia:Peer review/Ruth Norman/archive1, right? (always have trouble finding those things). Just finished hauling an ugly bunch of branches from my cut-down trees. Kinda wiped out. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep, that's the peer review. I haven't marked all of the ones I did as "done", though, so don't take lack of notation for inaction (although it's true in some cases). The article depends somewhat heavily on the work of one academic, but I don't see that as a major issue really. And yeah, hauling around branches first thing in the morning, that does sound tiring. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
oops! Noticed you've nominated it, so I think I'll wait. Got four GA reviews to finish! MathewTownsend (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
lol, no prob. Maybe you can do one for Meth mouth if I ever get that finished. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Swope Parkway / Blue Parkway

You could have at least combine the articles on the same page. Swope Parkway is named after someone. What were you doing to save those pages. Visionordream — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visionordream (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Ruth Norman

I did a little further copy-editing of the article, and have left some comments at the FAC. Please don't hesitate to revert anything I have messed up, or that you are not happy with. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick, I hadn't even got around to notifying you. At a glance your comments look good, I'll try to get to them soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Replied now. Forgive me if I pick away at this any more in the next day or two; it's a great article and I think you've done a really good job here, as something of this nature is incredibly hard to write about! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Please do, go ahead, thanks. It's tough for me to edit my own writing to this extent, if it were someone else I'd probably notice things right away :) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Is reverting this a violation of 3RR?

I've reverted two unsourced edits on Samajwadi Party by User:Mohd wize because they were unsourced and didn't appear constructive. Is reverting [edit] a violation of WP:3RR? Thanks in advance for your help. Go Phightins! (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like one of those RFA questions people get... But, you're only at 2RR right now, so you can revert again without technically breaking the rules. That being said, it seems like this user is a good faith contributor, who might be unaware of our guidelines or have issues with English proficiency. You might want to try to fix the issues in the version that he's reverted to instead of just undoing his edit. I'll leave him a message, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks...I dropped him a note and left the page alone. Go Phightins! (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Meth mouth -my two cents

Just glancing at it, I'm not clear about the citation to Heng, Christine; Victor Badner, and Luminita Schiop (2008). The link to Meth mouth is to an editorial and therefore not a reliable source for a medical article. The journal citation by Heng, Badner and Schiop (2008) Heng, C. K.; Badner, V. M.; Schiop, L. A. (2008). "Meth mouth". The New York state dental journal. 74 (5): 50–51. PMID 18982966. isn't a review article, the preferred source for a medical article.

  • Better citations are to journal review articles, such as
  • Naidoo, S.; Smit, D. (2011). "Methamphetamine abuse: A review of the literature and case report in a young male". SADJ : journal of the South African Dental Association = tydskrif van die Suid-Afrikaanse Tandheelkundige Vereniging. 66 (3): 124–127. PMID 21874893.
  • Hamamoto, D. T.; Rhodus, N. L. (2009). "Methamphetamine abuse and dentistry". Oral Diseases. 15 (1): 27–37. doi:10.1111/j.1601-0825.2008.01459.x. PMID 18992021.
  • Curtis, E. K. (2006). "Meth mouth: A review of methamphetamine abuse and its oral manifestations". General dentistry. 54 (2): 125–129, quiz 129. PMID 16689071.

I'll help if you want, but still exhausted by Dissociative identity disorder ruckus, which was disrupted by a POV editor unbelievably. Meth mouth should be a walk in the park by comparison! So I will if you want.

MathewTownsend (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for taking a look. Too bad about that New York article, but I can probably replace those cites without much trouble. I haven't used the South African one, I asked a couple people, but neither of them could access it.
  • Goodchild, J. H.; Donaldson, M. (2007). "Methamphetamine abuse and dentistry: A review of the literature and presentation of a clinical case". Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985). 38 (7): 583–590. PMID 17694215. This one is Ok, right? I wasn't certain that the Weisheit & White or Karch sources would pass MEDRS, those cites would easy to trim out though. If you're up for helping, you'd certainly be welcome too. Not a lot of meth addicts POV pushing on these articles, thankfully :) Mark Arsten (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • " Local anesthetics with vasoconstrictors should be used with care in patients taking methamphetamine because they may result in cardiac dysrhythmias, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accidents." (Hamamoto DT, Rhodus NL.) - think I'll give it up! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I rewrote the first paragraph of Meth mouth. Do you like? Revert if not! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

another point. People in prison presumably aren't currently abusing, but I guess once you have meth mouth, then you have it even if you quit abusing. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Schleyer

I did not add original or unsourced information to the Hanns-Martin Schleyer article. In fact, I didn't add anything new at all, the part I added to the introduction was already there, further down in the article.

You know, you are correct, my apologies for reverting you. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
No problem. 37.191.220.171 (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Question

How do you feel about FACs with 6k of prose? TBrandley suggested Andjar Asmara may have a fighting chance at FAC, but it's quite short. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

As long as you've scraped the bottom of the barrel for sources, you should have a chance. I like short FACs, and U.S. Route 41 Business (Marquette, Michigan) just got promoted at about the same length as your guy. I'd suggest you get a few people to go over the prose first, because in an FAC for such a short article reviewers will put the magnifying glass to each sentence. I could probably help a bit with that, and you might want to ask Sarastro1, he did a heck of a job on Ruth Norman. I've had a lot of success asking Accedie, Noleander, and Acdixon for help in the past too. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, I've stripped the sources as best I can and came out with 8k of prose. I've also pinged Accedie, perhaps I can bug Sarastro too; you said he's a fungi, after all. If Terang Boelan actually had feedback I'd probably try PR too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Appearance

of the extraterrestrial coming soon ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Aha, I'll watch the skies... Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

honorable cnote

hi i put up a wiki page about two weeks ago and it was deleted due to copy and pasting from my clipboard or my sandbox why was my sandbox also deleted i would have been more than happy to use the move function please get back to me in regards to this....thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakeupboy1 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I think I've fixed the issue for you. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Sister Sarah Bendan

I think we shall need a talk page block on this user you recently blocked. MadGuy7023 (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Too late, already done by User:Ponyo. MadGuy7023 (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mark - I did indeed extend to indef. Although not necessarily obvious at first blush, this edit summary gave me a pretty good idea who we were dealing with and it's a long term troll. Best to just block and deny. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Ahh, yes, that does make sense, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Gil Dezer

Hey, you deleted an article I created on Gil Dezer. I believe he meets the notability guidelines, it's just that the main newspaper in Miami is the Miami Herald who has a private archive, which makes lots of Miami related people difficult to source. At Miami Herald Archives, a search brings up 81 articles relating to him. http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_multi=MH%7C&p_product=MH&p_theme=realcities2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_site=miami&s_trackval=MH&s_search_type=keyword&p_text_search-0=gil%20AND%20dezer&s_dispstring=%22gil%20dezer%22%20AND%20date(all)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no In addition there is a google suggested search of "gil dezer wiki" when you search his name, proving that people are seeking information and affirming his notability.

Please advise, thank you.


EricJason(talk)

Yeah, this was briefly brought up at the Afd, but it isn't enough to have a lot of mentions of an individual, there needs to be "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. You might try making a draft of the article in a user sandbox if you are confident you can get it well sourced, then apply at WP:DRV to have the deletion overturned. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

GA review

Hi Mark, thanks for your GA review of divine command theory, I really appreciate it. I've answered all the issues you had - is there anything you have to say? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note. I'll review the changes (and possibly comment on them) and then see if the last 4 or 5 more points I hadn't put down yet are still valid. Probably won't get to it until tomorrow though. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
No problem, that's fine. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


Agile Toolkit page (deletion)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Agile_Toolkit

I am the main contributor to the framework and I'd like to take a moment to bring some of the references which were missing from the original page. The small amount of references is due to the novelty of Agile Toolkit. It's a very different and unique framework. It's not influenced by any other frameworks and many users who managed to discover it are really satisfied and excited about it. Please find some of the references below:

Please review your decision of page removal.

For Web Developers it's essential to discover just the right PHP framework through one of comparison tables, such as un-biased comparison, ajaxpatterns.org or vscharts.com. Unfortunately Agile Toolkit was also removed from [23].

I am a web developer. I chose to share my 10-year work and experience through open-source. Developers who use Agile Toolkit - love it. It takes me a lot of effort to support and grow community, publish documentation, tend to issues, record screencasts, write blog articles. I can't pay anyone to do a good job, so I can only rely on contributions and on my own effort. I will appreciate your help to restore Agile Toolkit wiki page and make it meet Wikipedia standards by placing some of the references which I listed here as appropriate on the page. Thank you very much for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romaninsh (talk • contribs) 00:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There was a solid consensus to delete the article, so I'm afraid that I can't reverse my decision. If you like, I can put a copy of the article in a user sandbox (Help:Userspace draft) for you so you can add some of the reliable sources that you've found. If your sources meet our guidelines (WP:RS), you can apply in six months at WP:DRV to have the deletion overturned and your draft reinstated. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I would appreciate that. Thanks! What about references I have presented, would they be sufficient? Can a TempUndelete tag be used to restore it sooner as per WP:DRV? The WP:RS is very unclear about self-published on-line resources and what is considered a RS Romaninsh (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I moved it to User:Romaninsh/Agile Toolkit. I haven't looked at all the references, but self-published material usually doesn't qualify as an RS. Good luck, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Kagapujandar

Hi, recreated the above article with references at Talk:Kagapujandar/Temp, please review. And move it under the article name Kagapujandar. Arulraja (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Arulraja

Protection request on an article you just protected

Hi Mark, there is a request at WP:RFPP asking for a longer term semi-protection than you applied. If you get a chance could you please have a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note, I've extended the protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

German V-weapon sites articles

Hi Mark, thanks for picking up the GA review of Fortress of Mimoyecques‎ - the third of my German V-weapon site articles after Blockhaus d'Éperlecques and La Coupole. I thought I'd let you in on what I'm planning to do with them. Next March is the 70th anniversary of the sites' construction and I'm planning to nominate the three articles for FA status once you're finished with the GA review of Mimoyecques. The idea is to have the three articles on the Main Page as a simultaneous Today's Featured Article - see the draft blurb at User:Prioryman/Heavy Crossbow FA blurb. Prioryman (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that is interesting, that's quite a plan. I'll start my review of Mimoyecques tomorrow. Hope the rest goes well. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! I'm away from my computer at the moment, but I'll sort out the issues you raised at the weekend. Prioryman (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome, I have a few more small points to add, but nothing major. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help! If you're interested, the first of the FA reviews is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/La Coupole/archive1‎. Prioryman (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Andjar Asmara

Could I ask you to give it a fairly good copyedit? Oerip's on the brink of passing, and this will follow. Terang Boelan is ready, but I want to wait for GA for that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, I'll try to get to it soon. It's short, so it won't be that hard. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Iqbal

I've just noticed you've deleted Iqbal terms. Do you plan to move the deleted content to Wikiquote? Mar4d (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No, but if you like, I'll provide you with the page's content if you'd like to do so. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
That would be a good idea. Mar4d (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, it's at User:Mar4d/Iqbal terms now. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Mar4d (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sadler & Urantia

Hi Mark, looking at the blurb for the Sadler article I have a few comments. There is nothing substantially wrong, with any of it, just some things you might consider changing or clarifying. The definition currently describes the Urantia Book as " a compilation of conversations Sadler believed he had with extraterrestrials speaking to him through a sleeping man". The "believed he had" part is kind of clunky - and I am thinking of how to rephrase it to something lighter. Perhaps "a compilation of conversations that he had with a sleeping man whom he believed to be channeling extraterrestrials" - that appends the relative claus instead of inserting it into the main clause, making it perhaps less complicated. Also the article on the Urantia book says that the authorship of the book is not established - and the lead of the article doesn't mention Sadler. Is it controversial that the book is based on his conversations with a sleeping man? I am assuming that the decision to write "published" instead of "wrote", goes to this question, but I still think the lead of the urantia article should at least describe Sadler's possible involvement since readers are likely to click that link and get information that seems to contradict the main page blurb. Just some thoughts. Otherwise a very interesting article! ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at that, I took your suggestion for the wording in the blurb. As to the Urantia Book article, yes, there are some real issues with that--it's been the subject of organized POV pushing in the past. I haven't gotten involved with that article since I have little appetite for dealing with POV battles. A few IPs have showed up on Sadler to argue that he was in contact with "celestial beings" not "extraterrestrials" but that's the only conflict I've ran into there. To your specific point, it's accepted by both the believers and skeptics that Sadler talked with a sleeping man, a study group emerged from those conversations, and then an enormous book was published by Sadler and the group with all kinds of esoteric content in it. I think the true believers think the book just materialized like Joseph Smith's golden plates, or possibly was copied down verbatim from the sleeping man. Skeptics tend to think Sadler and his friends wrote the book. So there are problems with the Urantia Book article, but I don't think it's too controversial that the conversations with the sleeping man played a role in the book's publication. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Sadler: awesome again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I've managed to enjoy the main page exposure thus far hopefully the rest goes well! Mark Arsten (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm watching with interest ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Eric B. Hughes

Again, why delete this article. Wiki encourages people to contribute, yet when they do- all of a sudden it gets deleted. Hughes is an award-winning filmmaker, he has 2 films do out this year, he's a produced screenwriter. There are so many over articles that should be looked at before this one.....just doesn't make sense. People were contributing links and all kinds of info to the page....so why delete? Please give me an answer. Bellatarr (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, we have very specific notability guidelines (WP:NOTABILITY) so it's possible for a good filmmaker to be non-notable in the Wikipedia sense. If he has films due out soon, it's possible he will become notable, at which time you can file for its restoration at WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Meth mouth

Pretty sure you should close the PR if you go for GA or FA. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I know that peer reviews have to be closed if an article is nominated for FA, but I don't think there's a rule about that for GAs--I know I've seen several articles with GA and peer reviews open at the same time. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the article needs rearranging. For example, under "Characteristics" it covers what could be considered "Background" - e.g. like the prevalence of meth abuse. I wish I had some access to sources. Does every abuser/user get meth mouth? How long does it take to develop? Since inmates are in jails only for short periods, probably treatment there is not too much of an issue like it would be in prisons where people are sentenced for long terms. The discussion on the article talk page is interesting. Like so much medical, not all that much is known it seems. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Feel free to do some re-arranging if you like. I pinged a couple people about the peer review, but haven't heard back. Also, I can e-mail you some of the sources if that would be helpful. To answer your questions 1. No, not every meth abuser gets meth mouth (much like high-functioning alcoholics are able to keep their lives in order). I had a mention in the article that it isn't known what percentage of users develop it, but had to comment it out over MEDRS concerns. 2. Not sure, but I think one source said it can show up within a few months at minimum; another source said it moves fairly slowly. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Taj

Thanks for editing Syed Taj! I just dropped something into the Talk section and asked for PR, you may want to look at that too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadnibal (talk • contribs) 21:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Undeleting Eric B. Hughes for incubation

Just a courtesy note, since you closed the AfD for Eric B. Hughes, that I'm going to undelete the article and move it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eric B. Hughes. Bellatarr (talk · contribs) would like to work on the article and see if it can be brought up to par. —C.Fred (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, glad to hear it. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

some quick help?

what do you do with suspicious images? The only place I could find was Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files and their instructions don't work for me on the file pages. eg {{puf|date=7 September 2012}} doesn't work on the image file page. See File:SahurePyramid.jpg Then add If the file is in use, also add {{pufc|File_name.ext|date=7 September 2012}} to the caption(s). But look: Pyramid of Sahure. What am I doing wrong?

These images have no clear statement that the author has given permission for his images to be freely used - just a green warning message.

What's the right procedure? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm afraid that I don't know much about images. My normal advice would be to ask Crisco, but I guess he's probably not around now. Nikkimaria might be able to give good advice too. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Cadillac V-16

Thanks, I have added the main source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amer Shyml (talk • contribs) 22:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, great, thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I had also added a detail about the mechanical features on the V-16 engine as follows:

The V-16 has a vacuum assist on the cable brakes which works on the vacuum from the engine intake manifold, this vacuum is shared with the wind shield wiper motor.The vacuum is taken from both the left and right intake manifold. The engine has two vacuum tanks to draw fuel from the tank through separate fuel lines. This system gets vacuum from an engine driven vacuum pump located between the cylinder banks at the end. There is also an electric fuel gauge. The ignition key has a mechanical transmission lock so if you did not have the key you could hot wire the car but not put it in gear to drive away. The foot starter lever first engages the drive pinion with the flywheel ring and then a further press to the end of its travel, energizes the starter motor for a silent engagement. It has an enclosed drive shaft (torque tube) to the rear differential. if you cut one side fuel supply, you cannot tell that half the cylinders are not firing unless you went to the exhaust tail pipes and felt the hot and cold exhaust. It is the smoothest engine ever and surprisingly quick throttle response showing a light flywheel.

This is my own contribution, as i have worked on the 1930 V-16 engine and this is detail not available except to people who do similar work. Please advice how it can be placed in the article. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amer Shyml (talk • contribs) 21:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, per our WP:V policy, to add it you'd have to find a verifiable source stating it. That sometimes takes quite a bit of research, and some things unfortunately have to be left out. Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles might be able to help you a bit, as well. Good luck, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amsterdam Magazine (2nd nomination)

Hello, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amsterdam Magazine (2nd nomination) with "The arguments in support of keeping the article were fairly weak, " and now two of the "keeps" have been shown to be sock puppets [25] and [26] . does that allow you to reconsider your close or would the next step be going to deletion review? -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I closed it as a no consensus, more or less, so it can be speedily renominated, which is all DRV would probably do if it were filed there. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • You know, I missed my chance to vandalize the main page and have a semi-plausible excuse that I wasn't behind it... Oh well, that would sure have been a lot of drama.
  • @Red Pen of Doom I've renominated the article and semi'd it for the duration. Mark Arsten (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, you wouldn't have gotten away with it. If your password isn't up to snuff or you don't practice account security you'll be desysoped. Apparently they try to crack our passwords every once in a while to see if they're up to snuff or not. If they make it through we can be in trouble. Very trusting of admins, indeed... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • If it weren't against some obscure policy I'd guess which Wikipedian that was. Alright, good night. I have a long afternoon ahead of me: installing programs on a new laptop. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Howdy

Hey Mark, Could you help me get a copy of the page you deleted - Direct Congress?

Thanks- Settdigger (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it's at User:Settdigger/Direct Congress now. Mark Arsten (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Settdigger (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Go to Sleep block?

I've got half a mind to give you a "go to sleep" block. Up at 3 o'clock my time answering talk page pings, and 9 o'clock my time you're at ANI? Oh my. (BTW, thank Drmies and Kelapstick for the wonderful article) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

lol, I got some sleep somewhere in there, but it was unusual for me to have that much trouble sleeping. It was all the dog's fault, to be honest. And yes, I do recall that article, pretty funny. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It's the voice of experience, I've ruined more than one computer before (spilling wine/vomiting on the keyboard back in my drinking days, punching the computer back in my gaming days, etc.) Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Redirect

Mark, right now the page Emperor of Brazil redirects to List of monarchs of Brazil. Could you erase it and make "Emperor of Brazil" a redlinked article? I'm asking you this because I want to start writing about the office of Brazilian Emperor. Thus it would be like the similar articles about Japan, where we have Emperor of Japan and List of Emperors of Japan. Thank you, --Lecen (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You could just expand the article from a redirect without deletion, I think. I've done that on a couple articles before. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
You got it wrong. I don't want the deletion of any article. What I want is one article solely focused on a list of Brazilian monarchs and another one focused on the office of emperor (it´s powers, characteristics, etc...). I want to bring both to FA level. --Lecen (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, sounds like a good project. I've deleted the page so you can move the article about the office there. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much! --Lecen (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Downstream OS

Thanks for revisiting the AfD and giving it a bit of an early close. Sorry if my comments appeared snippy; they weren't intended as such, but rereading them they sound almost nasty, and recognizing that AfD is a low-participation war zone of pain these days I hate to give any admin brave enough to wade in there grief! I felt the article itself was pretty amusing and let that carry over into my opinion. Credit to the author for their audacity -- in hindsight, the creation of the article was probably an attempt to drive funding at their Indiegogo page! Anyway, cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

lol, no problem, I had forgotten about it and had to look up the Afd to figure it out. I've been following Afds for long enough that I'm seldom surprised when tensions flare up--probably the most upset I've ever gotten on Wikipedia has been during Afds in the past. Oddly enough, I've gotten grief for relisting and not relisting in about equal measures over the past month. My rule is usually that I'll delete if there are three solid delete opinions in one week, two in two weeks, or one in three weeks (if there are no "Keepers"). Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Hi Mark, Thanks for improving our page. 2pics (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome, my pleasure. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The edit I made

The edit I made regarding Mr. Dan Howell was simply correcting his first name. You see, his full name is Daniel James Howell (I am very knowledgeable on the subject) so I was just changing the information to his real first name as opposed to a nick name.

Also, the information was already there and it appears you removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.134.67.201 (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

~Thank you, Cindy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.134.67.201 (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Dan is not WP:NOTABLE so you can't add him to articles. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Additional IPs/accounts

Regarding the recent spat of vandalism (you'll know what I'm talking about when you see it), these IPs and accounts were involved and remain unblocked:

Shadowjams (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, yes, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Auto-comfirmed

Am I an auto-confirmed user.--Lucky102 (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes you are. You should be able to edit semiprotected pages now. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi, Mark. Please excuse my injecting myself here earlier. I have no doubt that you are perfectly capable of maintaining your user talk, but sometimes I see things that I cannot overlook. My actions were intended to help, but please let me me know anytime my good intentions really aren't helping. See ya 'round Tiderolls 22:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize, your help was definitely appreciated. I tend to get a bit silly on talk pages sometimes, so it helps to have someone to keep me in line :) Mark Arsten (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Meh, I have a broad silliness-spectrum regarding user talk pages as well. (Feel free to check mine if you need the evidence.) The IP's trolling was a bit more than I could tolerate, though. Tiderolls 23:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, you were right to give him the red card. I'll have to check out that talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


Leeds Castle

Hi, Mark! I'm rather chuffed to see my pic of Leeds Castle at the top of your page! Is there a connection, or do you just like that pic? That was such a glorious day! There was a Civil War reenactment going on, which was very exciting for my junior-teen boy. I might put up some of my pics of that as well, if I haven't done so.Amandajm (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, glad to hear from you. Great job with that picture, I've grown quite attached to it. There is no connection really, I was looking for a peaceful picture to put up on my userpage and settled on that one. I figured that tempers get so hot around here sometimes it would be nice to have a relaxing picture like that. That does sound like a wonderful day, I'd love to see more images from it. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

System Shock 2

Hey, I just saw you made some copyedits on the article. Could you help me polishing it to be promoted at its FAC? :) I'd like some comments from you :) Thanks beforehand. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I made a few more and left some comments at the FAC. You might want to check my edits to make sure I didn't introduce any errors accidentally. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In Mint Condition: 2013

Hello. I looked for a private message button somewhere on your page but came up empty. I'm a little new to editing/creating pages on Wikipedia, so I wanted to come to you first. My wife and I started a publishing company (Ambannon Books) and our first publication (In Mint Condition: 2013) is being published early 2013. There were talks of creating Wiki pages for both, and being the guy that I am, I created them, only to have them deleted four hours later, lol. I read the discussions and understand some of the reasons they were deleted. Not notable, looks like self promotion, etc. Are there any tips/tricks you can give me in order to be able to have both of those pages up on Wikipedia without them being deleted? The book will have some "notable" (I assume this means "They have Wikipedia pages") people contributing to it, as well as an official ISBN, etc. Our publishing company will soon have a business license and a website. Even with all this, am I still missing something? Thank you in advance. :) — [[User:Sgaisserindiego| 01:45, 10 September 2012 (PST)

Hi, the closest we have to a private message button is the "e-mail this user" button on the menu on the top left of the page. No problem though. As far as the heart of the question goes, the best advice I can give you is to read Wikipedia:Notability (books). If you can get a few newspapers to publish reviews of the book you should be in the clear. Having notable contributors makes it more likely to be kept, but what you really need is for people unaffiliated with the book to write about it. Getting it into a number of libraries helps too, I'm not sure how many though. If your book does become notable, you shouldn't write about it yourself per our WP:COI guidelines, think about asking Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation for help. Our in-house expert on book notability is User:DGG, so he might be able to help you too. Good luck, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Space opera in Scientology scripture, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pasadena and Star seeds (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

La La La Love Song

Thank you so much for the clean up. I was writing the page so quickly, I did notice all the errors during my double-check. Thanks again! Sysmithfan (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
:) [My smiley face] Hahaha. Thanks again. Sysmithfan (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Smile

Hello Mark Arsten, Lucky102 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for helping me! Also what would you think of me nominating Windsor Castle?--Lucky102 (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, and Windsor Castle sounds good, off the top of my head. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Somebody else said to wait till November though. Harry McNish?--Lucky102 (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that might be a good one. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
No one's edited the page in a while though.--Lucky102 (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, that could be a good thing or a bad thing. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
But who should I ask that I could possibly nominate it?--Lucky102 (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It looks like this guy is the one to ask. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It says on hhis user page he is T I R E D.--Lucky102 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, he has edited in the past week, so he'll probably respond if you ask him on his talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I want to nominate English Language for a good article, but 2 things, 1 I don't want people giving out to me and 2, I never even edited the article.--Lucky102 (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "giving out to me". Also, you should probably add some more citations before nominating it--some of it is uncited. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I mean people giving out to me, like they did earlier.--Lucky102 (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you mean, what did people give you? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wehwalt --Lucky102 (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
What areas need citing?--Lucky102 (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
A general rule of thumb is one citation per paragraph, sometimes more. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Yomangani said I should take it to FAR. I will have a new one soon(by new, I mean new suggestion)--Lucky102 (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Smile, I don't ask before nominating, author's don't own articles, and quality articles should appear even if their authors retired, no limit to amazing grace ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Could you help me with DYK'S please also? Thanks!--Lucky102 (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Who, me? Depends on the article. To understand the process, yes, I just did the 79th review this year ;) Can we talk your talk or do you want attention here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
You can do it on my talk.--Lucky102 (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
(ec) ps: shortcut to find out who feels responsible for a FA: go to the talk, look for "identified", click.
You ask on your talk, I will watch. Before: look at "nominate an article" on the Main page, that should answer most questions --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I think Pope Pius XXI is a bit better.--Lucky102 (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, John de Gray.--Lucky102 (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
You can do it on my talk page now.--Lucky102 (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Edited article instead of talk, my bad.

Not a problem, we all make that mistake eventually. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

About a source on the Condor article

New to Wikipedia - no clue about the HTML code to add the citation, so could you do it for me? http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/hockey/vancouver-canucks/Justin+Bieber+offered+hockey+tryout/7226016/story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.81.67 (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I added it in, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Might want to keep an eye on Lynching of Jesse Washington; an inferior version of the lead is being railroaded through with the kind of "this is a BAD THING that happened" emotive language I'd expect from tabloid journalists. I've reverted twice and trimmed once; given that you're aiming for a main page appearance you'll probably want it as detached and NPOV as you originally had it during its promotion. In other news, I finally farted out the last first-season episode of Twin Peaks; going to rewrite "Pilot" soon. Thought you might want to have a flick if you're bored. GRAPPLE X 05:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree with the editor that a description of what a lynching entailed may be necessary, but disagree with their rhetoric. I've trimmed a bit as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I rolled it all back and told them to propose improvements on the talk page. Hopefully they'll decide to work collaboratively in the future instead of edit warring. But yes, more Twin Peaks sounds like a good plan, it will be nice to work on some of those again. The featured articles are just rolling in! Mark Arsten (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Underwolf Records

Dear Mark, I'm not sure why this article is included in the articles for deletion discussion, as Underwolf Records is a notable record label. I am familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and this company has the press to fulfill that requirement. Please reconsider the proposed deletion of this article. Ant Harness (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ant Harness, I didn't proposed the article for deletion, someone else did. Only you and he have weighed in thus far, so the article is not in urgent danger of deletion. If you'd like help from interested editors, you might list your article on the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ant lion

I just wanted to ask you about your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons). While it's clear that there were a lot of people recommending to delete (I counted them at 9), I do have to mention the fact that several people – including some of the ones !voting delete – thought that merging was at least an option (I counted them at 9 as well). While this could easily be ignored in favor of what seems to be the majority opinion, most of the content from the article was already merged into the list [27] [28] towards the end of the AFD, so I'm not clear on why it wasn't closed as merge. BOZ (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I felt that there was a stronger consensus to delete rather than merge, but if you'd like to merge some of the content, I can assist you in doing so. Let me know what you think, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, it's redirect with the page history intact, so if you'd like to merge some content, you can. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I also noted that some of the steps in Help:Merging were not followed when it was merged, so I will try to correct those as well. BOZ (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Mark, would you be so kind as to amend the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons) to note the outcome as merge? Not only is that what actually happened, but multiple delete !voters--including Masem and Folken de Fanel--specifically call out merging, and Andrew Lenahan suggests deleting and redirecting. Per WP:Merge and Delete leaving the article merged is the easiest way to handle our licensing appropriately, yet someone might argue that the merged content should be G4'ed on the basis of the close as currently recorded. Finally, per WP:ATD, a delete is only really a policy-based option when merging is not, and only two editors (Br'er Rabbit and Shooterwalker) opined specifically that they believed a merge was inappropriate. Thus, I believe that if you amended your close to be "merge" rather than delete, you would be better reflecting the actual consensus, Wikipedia policy, and our licensing expectations. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I've amended the close, sorry about that, that was my mistake. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Mark, thank you very much for doing that, but no need to apologize. There are plenty of editors who don't understand the nuances of WP:ATD or our licensing requirements, and cast !votes not consistent with one or both. The measure of a good admin isn't his or her flawlessness, but rather his or her ability to amend things when appropriate to do so. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I'll endeavor to do so in the future! Mark Arsten (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Due to this merge done during the AfD, merge is an appropriate outcome. (I have contacted Rorshacma and given him a link to WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion.) However, it is possible to implement a delete if you believe that to be the consensus outcome worth some extra work. The relevant template is WP:Merge and delete#Record authorship and delete history. The description paragraph was originally contributed by one author, 129.33.19.254, who can be attributed in an edit summary (WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution, List of authors). The rest of the merged text is factual publication information and refs with little creative content (WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed), and the few contributors can be attributed if extra safety is desired.

I recommend that you review the wording of WP:ATD and WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect (January–February 2011). Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

English Language

Please review this for me, thanks!--Lucky102 (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not much of a linguist, you should probably ask User:Maunus, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, or User:Angr--I think they're experts. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: William S. Sadler

This is a note to let the main editors of William S. Sadler know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on September 12, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 12, 2012. 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 delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might 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:

William S. Sadler

William S. Sadler (1875–1969) was an American surgeon, psychiatrist and author who helped publish The Urantia Book, a document that resulted from his relationship with a man whom he believed to be channeling extraterrestrials and celestial beings. Mentored by John Harvey Kellogg, he became a doctor and practiced medicine in Chicago. Sadler and his wife were speakers on the Chautauqua adult education circuit in 1907. He became a highly paid, popular orator and wrote over 40 books on medical and spiritual topics, advocating a holistic approach to health. Sometime between 1906 and 1911, Sadler attempted to treat a patient who spoke to him in unusual voices while sleeping. Sadler spent years observing the sleeping man and eventually decided the man had no mental illness and that his words were genuine. The man's communications were eventually published in The Urantia Book, and the Urantia Foundation was created to assist Sadler in spreading the book's message. Although it never became the basis of an organized religion, the book attracted followers who devoted themselves to its study, and the Urantia movement continued after Sadler's death. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Didn't this already appear? Or is my memory really really off? MathewTownsend (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It got 32,841 page views on that day! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

F1GP

Hi, I kindly ask you to reinstate my additions to the F1GP article. Short of scanning pages from the manual to prove the command options I have included in the article there is no way I can reference them. I ask you to trust me that these keyboard commands actually perform the actions I mention in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.62.254 (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually, you can cite the manual without scanning it. Just write <ref>F1GP manual, p. 7</ref>. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I remembered

It was Dudeism. GRAPPLE X 00:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That does sound pretty interesting, actually. Reminds me of the Church of the SubGenius. Maybe I'll work on Dudeism after CotSG. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

suggestion

Think Church of the SubGenius has more potential than meth mouth. Though no one's mentioned it, is it ok in an encyclopedia article to refer to methamphetamine as "meth" through out the article (aside from when "meth month" is being discussed)? Just a thought from thoughtful me. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, CoSG is my next project, I'll try hard to get that up to FA. I hadn't touched it for a couple weeks, so I'll probably get back at it this weekend. It will be very long and very hard to organize though. Meth mouth looks like it will make GA, but I'm not sure if it will get further than that. Actually, I only had the full "methamphetamine" in the article until the peer reviewer suggested shortening it it "meth" throughout. I could go either way on that. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Tree

I rewrote the article Tree as part of the Core Contest which ran through August. The previous version was unsatisfactory and I thought no-body was much interested in the article as it had remained virtually unchanged for several years. I made the mistake of replacing it completely instead of discussing it on the talk page or working on it gradually. Mark Marathon objected to the new version and I made some alterations. One or two other editors then removed some disputed material and things remained quiescent for a month so I imagined that people were happy with the current version. I therefore nominated it for GA, an action that sparked the flurry of citation needed tags that now disfigure it. It is a pity that the editor concerned does not improve the article rather than spoiling it in this way. I don't intend taking any further action in the matter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You know, I saw all the mess on it and quick failed it right away, then I recalled the history of if later. In fact, I actually blocked Mark Marathon for edit warring on that article a couple months ago. I wouldn't have opened the review if I had realized that (I would have just hoped that things would stabilize by the time someone got to it). I can only image how irritating this is for you. The CORE contest was a good idea, but the disruptive users who have tried to thwart the improvements underscore why Wikipedia will never reach the level of quality that it could. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

e-cat needs a protected hatnote

there's no hatnote saying that E-Cat is protected. I think the bot that is supposed to do this is broken Bhny (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, usually the bot does that for me, oh well, added now. Thanks for the note, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

AFD second opinion

Hi Mark,

I'm looking for someone who seems to be active at AFD, who seems to have been online recently, and who's opinion I respect, and you're the first person I ran across that fits all 3 (which is sort of a compliment, and sort of blind luck).

I am not active at AFD, but recently closed an AFD that seemed to me to obviously belong elsewhere. My close is being challenged, and while I *think* I'm right, I'm not confident enough to just dismiss their point. I'd like a second opinion before I answer them. If I'm wrong, I'd be happy to reopen the AFD.

If no one believes that a page should actually be deleted, but some think it should be a redirect (and disagree what the target should be), and at least one thinks it should be a full fledged article, is AFD an appropriate place for that discussion? I've always thought that if actual deletion was not one of the possible outcomes, that this should be handled on the article talk page. If it is decided to redirect, but the target isn't settled on, then that decision could be made at RFD. But I can't find any policy/guideline page that comes out and says this, and I'm wondering if that's how it actually works.

What do you think? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliments! Technically speaking, if no one support full deletion then Afd is not the place for it. In practice, the nominator and delete !voters often do express a preference for a redirection or merge, and typically we let the discussion play out and just take the consensus that we have there. Does this answer your question at all? What was the specific case that prompted this question? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Mark. If this is not uncommon in practice, and since there actually is a question of whether it should be an article, or redirect #1, or redirect #2, I've reopened the AFD discussion as the least bureaucratic way forward. Thanks for your advice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome, glad to have been of help. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Little Face Mitt

So now that you've deleted the Little Face Mitt page and made a joke of it, we've all seen it wasn't a flash in the pan and hasn't gone anywhere. It's reach was then and is now more ample than ever, and there's a video that's breaking records on Youtube now. Again, maybe do your job instead of stand-up comedy and restore the page. --Funkychunkybeans (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Chunkybeans, if you believe that more coverage of the topic has emerged since the deletion occurred and would like to see the page restored, I suggest that you write a WP:USERSPACE draft of the proposed version of the article, and then petition at WP:DRV to have that restore. You could, however, apply directly to [[WP:DRV]

Derek Woodgate

Mark, Please explain why the Derek Woodgate page was deleted. Derek Woodgate is one of the few futurists in the list of futurists and also in the futures author's section that does not have a page. Maybe rather than delete the page, you can rewrite the page in an acceptable manner or alternatively go to the thousands of mentions of Derek Woodgate on Google or elsewhere on teh web and write a suitable article yourself, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.118.153 (talk • contribs)

Hi, I'm not going to search google for mentions of Derek Woodgate and then write an article about him. There was a consensus {WP:CONSENSUS) at the Afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Woodgate) that he did not meet our notability guidelines (WP:GNG). If you feel that I have erred in my close, feel free to open a deletion review (WP:DRV). Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Improving articles

I got a review for the english article, but it confuses me a bit. Wwhat are you suppoused to do?--Lucky102 (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're confused, try looking up the terms that are used and reading the articles on them. That will help you get a bit of a better idea of things. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a link for it?--Lucky102 (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, know anything about other featured, such as lists, photos etc?--Lucky102 (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Crisco 1492 is the one to ask about featured pictures, for featured lists, I think User:GreatOrangePumpkin knows a lot about lists. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Nah, User:The Rambling Man and User:Giants2008 are better choices. BTW I am working on a weird but cool article =/. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 18:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, they both are really smart guys (I assume they're guys). Your article sounds interesting, I'll have to take a look. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a link for the terms?--Lucky102 (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Possibly, which terms do you mean? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The terms you mention above, for nominations(list, articles, picture).--Lucky102 (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, you said you were confused by the review, so I thought you should try looking up the words used in the review to help your confusion. I don't know which things specifically confused you. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Everything, really.--Lucky102 (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for helping me! Lucky102 (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Scope

What do you make of this as a stand-alone article? It's edging towards 3000 words already and I haven't been able to make much use of the Lynch on Lynch book so there should be some solid room for expansion beyond that as well. It's part of a pretty ambitious plan I have for overhauling the man's bio, and just covers the years from birth to the release of Eraserhead, which seemed to make sense to me. If it seems too narrow I can just continue working on his career from then on to make it a draft of the bio as a whole, but I think there's plenty of room here to give it the same series-of-articles treatment as L. Ron Hubbard. GRAPPLE X 20:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, Early life of David Lynch would definitely be doable. David Lynch's main article is already pretty big, and I think there's enough out there to justify multiple articles about the guy, go ahead. Consider it a standing offer on my part to copyedit any Lynch articles (can't always guarantee timeliness, but I'll try.) Mark Arsten (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Cool. I'll move it to main space tonight; working on a format for a list though I probably won't actually full do it for a while. Really learnt some cool stuff writing that, especially about the pipe bombs, Vietnam draft and the trip to Europe. I have a bit of a task ahead of me though... GRAPPLE X 21:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good, I look forward to reading it. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Olympia Brewing Company edit removal

> User talk:24.9.109.173 > September 2012 Hello, I'm Mark Arsten. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Olympia Brewing Company, > but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable > source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave > me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The movie I referenced is the source. That is, Olympia Beer is featured prominently in several scenes, which I felt was an appropriate cultural reference to that beer in modern film. I no longer have my original comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.109.173 (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, are you sure you can't find a citation for that? If it is featured prominently in the film you could likely find a source online stating that. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Saving Mr Banks Incubation

Looks like production has begun: http://screenrant.com/disney-saving-mr-banks-mary-poppins/ Can this move out of incubation? Thanks! patchallel 9/19/12

You might want to ask User:MichaelQSchmidt about that, he knows the rules for film articles better than I do. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Grammar

Hello,

I have a question regarding a DYK blurb:

... that in response to Heil Hitler, Karl Schneider regreted not to cure (heilen) Adolf Hitler, as first was not a neurologist but an ophthalmologist?

Can I say "as he was not a ..." or should I state who is who? In German you can write "as he was not a". I am not sure about this, so that is why I am asking. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you should state who he is, also, "not curing" instead of "not to cure". Looks interesting. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, several of those were great to see on the main page (I still love ... ? for the sheer simplicity). Can't wait what kind of shit storm we stir up with that Elvis hook. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Poedjangga Baroe

Well, the PR nomination went two weeks with no comments. Interested in giving a non-formal peer review? GOP, when reviewing it, said he thought it might have a fighting chance at FAC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If it was archived due to no comments, you can keep it open, just revert the closing bot. Not sure if I'll have time to read it or not, but at a glance it looks to be in pretty good shape. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, use your best judgment, I guess. Hopefully my energy will recover even if my spare time doesn't, it's been an odd week. Anyway, you're using your time well, hope things are working out for you. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Microsoft Security Essentials is now a featured article

We did it!
Microsoft Security Essentials is now a featured article. Thanks for your assistance and support in making it possible. Codename Lisa (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that it was promoted, that was a tough candidacy. Good job sticking with it. I don't recall helping at all though, so I'm not sure how much credit I deserve for support and assistance. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Tony Samara

I saw that you deleted and salted the Tony Samara article. Thanks for that. Not sure what the rules and procedures are for user space versions of articles, but maybe it would be a good idea to delete User:Sud Ram/Tony Samara as well as it has been the source for the last two resurrections of the article. Mr. Ram has the same COI as Mr. Bestler (inner circle of Mr. Samara). W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 13:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I've just deleted them both. I wasn't sure if they should go to Mfd or if I could just delete them, so I figured it would be better to seek forgiveness than ask permission. Hopefully this will be the last we hear of the subject. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Trading reviews

Glad you found my comments on meth mouth helpful. If you have time, I have three different articles in workflow right now. I just listed Joseph Desha at FAC this morning, John Adair is at MILHIST A-class review, and John W. Stevenson is at PR. I don't think you've commented on any of them before. All three are Kentucky governors; I think I'm only 6 FAs from my goal of having a Governors of Kentucky featured topic. Been working on that on-and-off for almost six years, so I'm excited to be so close. Thanks as always for any reviews you are able to do. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, a six year project is almost done! I will definitely help with a review then. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Like I said, I think I need 6 more FAs to go from good topic to featured topic. The topic has 60 articles! I'm thinking Desha, Adair, and Stevenson should be pretty close to FA quality now. From there, I plan to work on Bert T. Combs, which is close, but there was at least one major source I failed to consult, so I'm going to work on that in the next few weeks. After that, I'm not sure, but I will probably go on to two of the following – Wallace G. Wilkinson, Brereton Jones, and Steve Beshear. Those three were/are all governors in my lifetime, so there should be sufficient information in Newsbank and/or Highbeam to bring them up to snuff. I've been working on this for so long, I don't know where I'll divert my energies when it's done! Something else Kentucky-related, I'm sure. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Announcing my retirement and a Barnstar for you! :)

I have decided to retire from Wikipedia, I have tried my utmost to rectify Islamic articles on Wikipedia and I believe I have done as much as I possibly can however I find that editing on wikipedia is giving me a lot of stress and I am constantly checking my watchlist and receiving emails with notifications from other users and having pontless drawn out conversations on the global encyclopedia around the clock. It's a stress factor and distraction I can do without during my studies at University - I guess this is expected. May Allah guide me and you all to the straight path and keep us firm upon it. May Allah forgive me for any of my mistakes and I apologise for any rudeness or misunderstanding, all goodness is from Allah and anything bad is from either me or shaytan. Jazakum Allahu khair.


The Special Barnstar
The above is more of a generic message summing my reasons for leaving but I have to say you as well as CambridgeBayWeather were pretty much the closest thing I had to friends on here lol although we only corresponding once or twice, I'm still grateful for all of your help in combating sock puppeteers and vandals. Oh and I kind of borrowed your fancy talk page header, shame it wasn't put to much use! :) Sakimonk talk 03:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the note, your comments are meaningful to me. Sorry to see you go. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That is so fucking pissy

"No administrative action required, although the oppose in question will be judged by the FAC director or his delegates, who are admins, at the closing of the candidacy". What the fuck are you trying to say? Malleus Fatuorum 03:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, all I'm trying to say is that ANI admins aren't the ones who judge the strength of opposes at FAC and there's no need for them to do anything about this--the delegates will handle it. My apologies for any pissyness, it was unintentional. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

(As a minor correction Mark, Ian isn't an admin - though I've had a few attempts at trying to convince him to become one) Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh really, wow, I was sure that he was for some reason. Funny how some people just aren't interested and others are desperate for it. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at this?

Mark, would you mind looking at the thread regarding the behavior of User:Johncheverly on ANI? He seems to have made a threat toward User:Sjones23. Thanks--Go Phightins! (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, DB got it. Go Phightins! (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Arevan

Hi,
regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arevan which you closed, I think it is likely that the account who posted the latest comment there, RPGMakerMan, is actually a sock of the nominator -- see SPI. I have no opinion on whether this should change the result in any way, I have neither read AfD nor article.
Cheers, Amalthea 15:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, those socks. Thanks for the note. I've changed the close to soft deletion since only one person may have actually weighed in. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Envizions AFD

I'm a little confused by your end decision at the AFD of Envizions at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Envizions. I see 2 delete !votes plus the nominator, all three of them saying they were for deletion, and against a redirect. Then you closed it as "redirect". How did you come to this conclusion? Seems like it would have been better to relist before closing at that, a stance no one suggested. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that is odd, not sure why I did that. Must have been thinking about something else at the time, I've deleted it now. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for hearing me out. Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Just because

Could I bug you into looking at List of film directors of the Dutch East Indies and perhaps leaving a few comments? Don't worry, it's really short. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh sure, I will look at that, no problem. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Your relisting of Daniel Castelao's AFD

Mark, I understand that only two people participated, but given the blatant unnotability of the subject, was relisting it a second time really necessary? If honestly you think it was, I respect that and will wait another week to see if it is ever deleted. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ehh, well, maybe... I don't know. There was a part about winning a national championship as a teenager pushed me over the edge, although that's usually not a guarantee of notability. I guess I will delete it early, actually, since it's an unsourced BLP. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry to put you on the spot. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


Wikipedia Article for deletion: Propane Studio

EricaHugh (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC) Hi, regarding the article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Propane_StudioI was hoping you could clarify your decision and help us restore the necessary information needed to keep it in existence. Please let me know the reasons for deletion, and what I would need to provide to reinstate the page if there is an opportunity to do so. Your help is greatly appreciated and I hope we can come to an agreement. Thank you, EricaHugh (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Erica, I'll move the text of the article to a page in your userspace (WP:USERSPACEDRAFT). It's at User:EricaHugh/Propane Studio now. To have the page restored, please add citations to reliable sources for each statement that the article makes. WP:RS, WP:V, & WP:CITE are good starting places. WT:ARS is a good place to ask for help, too. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Romney tax returns redirect

Hi Mark, sorry to bother you. I see that about a month ago you protected Mitt Romney's tax returns, which redirects to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. I could be wrong but it seems it should redirect instead to Tax returns of Mitt Romney. Thanks, Nstrauss (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. It was actually a candidate for G4 speedy deletion, and I've redirected it to the same location as the previous version. This page has some of the details of the situation... a user didn't get his way at Afd and kept recreating a page that had been deleted. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the explanation. I'll stay out of that mess, thank you very much. --Nstrauss (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, American political articles are going to be a mess for the next 6 weeks or so... Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead

Given that you've been actively involved in the article's promotion and reviews; your opinion at Talk:Eraserhead#Character naming would be a huge boon. Thanks for any time you take on it. GRAPPLE X 22:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll check things out. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine

We can do this the hard way. -- Kendrick7talk 03:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If you insist. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

AfD closing

Can you please explain how you decided that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Balkanic Europe is a clear keep? I see three people saying delete, two people saying keep, two people saying weak keep, and my questions to elaborate those keep !votes all went unanswered. I see no strength of argument in the keep !votes there, and even if I'm biased, how strong can their arguments be if they couldn't even be bothered to answer questions about them? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the keep !voters were that weak, they were arguably in line with policy. Two of the delete !voters did make pretty weak arguments, it's hard for me to count them for much. 5/3 is usually a split that allows for consensus, given near-comparable strength of arguments. Sorry for the brevity, but I've been pretty busy. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but how is a contested 5:3 (i.e. 62.5% in favor) WP:Consensus? It's not even a supermajority by most definitions. Would you please amend the decision to weak keep (those people's own words, not mine) or no consensus? The end-result will remain the same, but it would make actual sense to readers. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, while 5/3 is a narrow split to judge consensus, Afd is more than a vote count and strength of argument matters. Two of the delete !votes gave pretty weak arguments for deletion, so in terms of the merits of the arguments the discussion was not as close as the numbers seemed. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

re Main page Lynching of Jesse Washington

Hi,

The blurb is really awful. Who writes those? I didn't see it anywhere. The real article is so much better. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm the one to blame for the blurb. If you want, I can edit it some if you make suggestions. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm at least somewhat innocent, since the lead sentence was revised by someone else after I wrote the blurb. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
(ec) @Matthew: the blurbs of TFAs to come are in the link "archive" under every TFA right on the Main page, discussed at TFAR. Some think the blurb is final at suggestion time (and write that in the rulz), I rather think it's where open discussion should start. Visit again!
@Mark: you were bold, precious, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, the BBC helpfully screened Mississippi Burning at just after midnight today. Either a coincidence, or they integrate their schedules with TFA plans, or there's an anniversary that I'm not aware of being marked? (The Little Rock Central High School desegregation?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that is interesting. I hadn't realized the Little Rock date, either. I wonder if Dabomb was aware of that when he scheduled the article? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
With and without knowing, he did well, - I wanted to give him Precious for it, but found out that - naturally - I gave it to him before, on 30 June ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

editing the blurb

Hi,

TFA blurbs can be edited on that page, right? But what about the blurbs for articles not on that page? Where are those? I tried to edit the one for tomorrow but I can't.

Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The links for those is on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2012 (or on whichever month). They are full protected as the date draws near, let me know if you want to make an edit to them though and I'll implement it. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
ok, thanks. Seems like I prefer more concise wording than most. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I think they're just protected a day in advance, so there should usually be a few days available for work. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
there's a discussion going on at TFA. Since it's unclear to me how all this is decided. Now it's just scheduled to the end of the month. So then suddenly a bunch of new one's will be scheduled? Is that how it works? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, basically. The two people who are allowed to schedule them both have demanding schedules and can't spend much time on Wikipedia, so the community basically has to take whatever it can get from them. My thinking is that they should give the FAC and FAR delegates permission to do TFA delegation work. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

architect Steve Chilton

Hi Mark,

Please can you let me know why the above article was deleted?

The individual in question has been the author of numerous competition and award winning buildings and structures and has been recognised as such by institutions such as the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Royal Academy of Arts.

Architecture is a multidisciplinary activity, but never the less, the underlying concept of any particular building or structure can be the product of a single individual. In the case of the above architect, he has been solely responsible for the design of many notable buildings and proposals.

To discount his achievements on the strength that a number of his designs have not been built is absurd, there are numerous examples of notable architects who have never built yet have been recognised for their work by their peers and critics in their field of work.

I hope you will look closely at the reasons this article has been nominated and look at the individuals recorded achievements and reassess your decision to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.134.40 (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the article wasn't deleted because I decided to, it was deleted because there was a consensus to do so (Wikipedia:Consensus). At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Chilton, the wikipedians who weighed in cited a lack of significant coverage by outside sources (WP:SIGCOV). Hope this explains things, let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Tomorrow's FTA - Toothcomb

Has "A toothcomb is a dental structure most commonly known in lemuriform primates (which includes lemurs and lorisoids). Similar dental structures can be found in other mammals, including colugos, treeshrews, and some African antelopes" - too many "includes/including" in that first two sentences. Terrible, terrible! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, four instances of a form of "include" in the blurb, that's some repetitiousness right there. I just took out a couple, hope that helps. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thanks! I feel that it's important for the blurb to be enticing, not a boring put-off! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I just looked at a couple more blurbs... not encouraging: "Rhyolite, Nevada, is a ghost town ... in the U.S. state of Nevada." Who would have guessed that Rhyolite, Nevada is in Nevada? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Ziptask page deletion

Mark,

I'd like to retrieve the content of the deleted Ziptask page. I, unfortunately was made aware of the deletion too late and do not have a backup copy for personal use. I dont agree with the deletion, but what are you gonna do.... just want to save the work. Is there a link where I can still get to it?

Regards, SethZiptask (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I've userfied it to User:Ziptask/Ziptask for your reference. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Turban Tide and Hindoo Invasion Page Deletion

Hi Mark,

I'm like Seth, the user above. I'd like to retrieve the contents of this deleted page for personal use in a historiographical novel which will not quote Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Turban_Tide_and_Hindoo_Invasion

I too don't agree with the deletion - even though Melanie N suggested they could not find any references to Turban Tide, I found this:

[29]

Scheffauer's article refers to an episode in this article from the Overland Monthly by Buchanan (Scheffauer 618; Buchanan 312):

[30]

Both articles are mentioned in this paper to Oral Roberts University:

[31]

And cross referenced with other similar articles from 1910 (which is the year of the original, contentious SF Chronicle article) in this book, which mentions Strangers from a Different Shore by Ronald Takaki:

[32]

I also found a reference to Scheffauer and anti-Indian sentiment in this PhD thesis from 2008:

[33]

The page Hindoo Invasion - and the alleged SF Chronicle article – are also referred to in these notes for Indophobia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indophobia#cite_note-2

Also, Joyce Westrip and Peggy Holroyde's excellent book Colonial Cousins: A Surprising History of Connections Between India and Australia (Wakefield Press, Kent Town, 2010) mentions the Anti-Asiatic League in Australia, similar to the American and Canadian Asiatic Exclusion Leagues, which discussed the "Hindoo Invasion" in the context of The Immigration Restriction Act (1901) (better known as the White Australia Policy) - similar to the US Supreme Court decision of 1923, US v Bhagat Singh Thund (261 1923 204) - and based on similar legislation from South Africa.

What if the title of the page was amended to Tide of Turbans?

PS - Sorry if I haven't added the refs correctly, it's my first time writing to Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunbad (talk • contribs) 04:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, this is the last version of the page, for your reference. To have the page restored, you should create a draft version in a sandbox (WP:USERSPACEDRAFT) and then apply to have it reinstated via WP:DRV. Sorry if this is too complicated, let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Dude.........................

Wow — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Impressive! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
👍 ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
For example, The Ku Klux Klan in American Politics states that Evans claimed to be surprised by his sudden ascension to leadership. It has numerous mentions of him which may prove useful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, in any case, she hasn't been very active lately so she probably wouldn't be around to help. RE: Evans, part of the problem was that I found several sources I hadn't used yet--so it would be a lot of reading to get through them. Rjensen might help if I asked him though. Thanks for the tip on that source, I think there are a few on highbeam too. There's one fairly substantial recent book about the Klan that has some good info, I'd have to take a trip to a library an hour away to get it though. Not impossible, but not terribly easy either. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Article you requested per fair use

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TV1htN0ZCTkdiVm8

That is the book chapter one. Please let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Revert

Umm, hi, mark. you sent me a message telling me that you deleted something that i edited. and please dont erase my stuff any more, because i obviously put it there for a reason. thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpaj (talk • contribs) 20:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I've replied at your talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

unreliable sources tag

Hi Mark,

I noticed you closed the deletion discussion session on this article. I have been working a lot on the improvements, I hope I made some progress. Please let me know if you have any suggestions, maybe I can improve it better. Also, according to discussion there are enough relible sources in that article; do you think this tag

should be still there? Many thanks for your contributions and advice! -- Helen-Heller (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the tags for now since it's been changed a lot since they were added. (I don't read Georgian, so it's hard for me to verify a number of the sources.) There's no guarantee that everyone will agree with me though, but hopefully WP:BRD will be followed in any case. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable company

Hi Mark,

My name is Sam and I am the head of Communications for Affiliate Window, the UK's leading performance (affiliate) marketing network.

You recently deleted our page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affiliate_Window) citing the reason we were a non-notable company. Given that we work with over 1,600 advertisers across the UK and US and talk to a network of over 80,000 online publishers, from cashback sites to bloggers, I would argue this is simply not the case.

Is there any way to revert your deletion? If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a line.

Kind Regards,

Sam e: sam.surry@affiliatewindow.com w: www.affiliatewindow.com f: www.facebook.com/affiliatewindow t: www.twitter.com/affwin b: http://blog.affiliatewindow.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Surry (talk • contribs) 08:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sam, yes, there is an easy way to revert my deletion. Just post to WP:REFUND and ask for your article to be restored, and someone probably will reinstate it, although that doesn't preclude future attempts at deletion. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Inquiry

Hi, your name was mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:RFA#Statistics_.28and_lies.3F.29, so I decided to stop by and see if you might be willing to answer a couple questions?

1. What motivates you to do a lot of deletions? Is it your primary manner of participation on Wikipedia or a smaller part of your overall work?

2. What sorts of things or interactions make your deletion work less pleasant? What sorts of changes or occurrences would make you less likely to perform the number of deletions you presently perform?

3. Do you have any suggestions on how the deletion process or conduct policies surrounding deletions could be improved to encourage greater admin participation?

Feel free to respond here or at WT:RFA, if you decide to respond. Thanks. MBisanz talk 15:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

donation

This is to inform you that a donation has been made in your name to the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mathew, that was kind of you... I guess. It reminds me a little of when I used to send $1 donations to my alma mater--it didn't accomplish anything, but it felt pretty good to do. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Snow Keep

What's a snow keep? I'm new, just curious. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:SNOW. Although "snowball" was originally a term implying the certain failure of something ("a snowball's chance in hell"); it has evolved that "snowball X" or "snow X" now means "guaranteed X". "Snow keep" is basically "this is an obvious case of a unanimously-supported 'keep' decision". Half the battle, red and blue lasers. GRAPPLE X 01:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Ahh, yes, exactly. Knowing is half the battle, the lasers are the other half. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks very much. Feel free to delete if you choose, it's all good.AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I came here to ask the same question and see that Abstract is going one step ahead of me. (Indeed I was going to ask this late last night but couldn't as my wife said to me: "Is it again WP this late, it is not a blond encyclopedia right?" So I had to go to sleep... :-) All the best. --E4024 (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"snow keep" - a fortified tower made of snow. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, that sounds like a great setting for a fantasy novel. Almost as good as a "sunny pleasure dome, with caves of ice". Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Could you please apply the same "snow keep" practice in a discussion on which I am at the "keep" side now and it looks really more than clear that the current name of the concerned article has no problem at all. (So we can delete one unnecessary discussion from our watchlists and continue developing the encyclopedia.) Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
It depends, to which discussion are you referring? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Forget it, I have no doubt you would not do anything if you are not convinced about it, but they will all the same "snow stones" on my head for alleged canvassing. Take my previous request words as a joke please... --E4024 (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road

From a votecount point of view, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road is quite clear cut. However, repeated requests from e.g. Sudoghost have not yielded any response as to what would make this a notable street and which sources people are basing their votes on. As I indicated repeatedly, the article consists mainly of unrelated or wrongly interpreted information, which was not corrected by anyone (I didn't feel that, as the AfD proposer, it would be wise for me to remove half the article). It looks as if the vast majority of keeps just was a GibraltarpediA-based keep, and was totally indifferent to which article was actually being kept and whether the article was correct or not.

I have the impression, from your close and the lack of elaboration, that you mainly did a votecount and didn't take these points into account. I would urge you to elaborate on your reasoning and on why the points raised by the peopel proposing to delete the article were not considered as being strong enough. Fram (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, you're wrong--I did more than a vote count. My close was basically "Keep or Merge", in that I judged there to be consensus not to exclude most of the article's information from the encyclopedia. To be honest, none of the delete !voters effectively countered the Keep or Merge proponents' case for the inclusion of this information in the project, and one "deletion" proponent explicitly endorsed a merge. So I find it hard to conclude that a consensus for total exclusion has been reached. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with the information that is not about the road at all being included in the encyclopedia if they are about notable subjects (note that we have articles for the notable Flat Bastion and the barely notable school already). So there was hardly any need to counter that. This information, not about the road, was only added after the AfD started and was hardly a reason to keep an article on the street. SudoGhost's reply from 04:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC) seems to be a quite conclusive counter to the case for inclusion: none of it is notable in the slightest. The keepers ignored the repeated requests to give examples of the sources they believed esablished notability (e.g. my request "Which article discusses the history of this road?" in reply to LauraHale. Colonel Warden's claims were incorrect as well, as I pointed out. SudoGhost also asked again "Which sources?" and "Can you point out a single reference that contributes towards the notability of the article? " Ryan Vesey, which is hardly a deletionist or anti-Gibraltar editor, concluded " I hope that it is kept even though I disagree with any argument offered so far for keeping the article. My comment earlier and now isn't based on my desire for this to be an article, but is based on my interpretation of policy which I feel doesn't allow this article."
Basically, everybody wanting to keep the article made empty statements, and none of them presented any sources that could back up their claims, while pointedly ignoring all counter-evidence and the fact that more than half of the article had nothing to do with the road. Fram (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Fram, I believe you do have a valid point about how notable the road actually is (I had confused it with Europa Road when I started it) and a point that some of the sources don't discuss the road in detail and are only indirectly connected, but you can't complain at Mark for closing it as a keep. There is a clear consensus to keep, no doubts, and it would be counter-productive to keep the AFD open. I think generally you'll find that there is enough mention of the road in numerous sources as Ipigott says to make the content accepted on wikipedia even if it isn't exactly the Champs Elysees. At the start of the AFD I was actually considering moving it into a general article as I did have doubts, I'm sure with the benefit of hindsight you'd at least have preferred a merge than for the whole article to have been kept but I did suggest it...♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

(multiple EC's) Why would it be counterproductive? I just posted a version of the article that should have been the true basis of the discussion, not the puff piece that was created during the AfD. The discussion was largely based on incorrect information. Creating a list of non notable roads isn't the way to go either, lists are way too often used as dumping grounds for information on non notable subjects to "preserve" it somewhere anyway, as if the information suddenly becomes worthwhile and thee sources become better when bundled with other non notable subjects. Fram (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Why would it be counterproductive? Chiefly because the article had become a vehicle of angst and seen as part of the anti-Gibraltarpedia movement which are lot of editors resent who've put in a lot of work to Gibraltarpedia articles with no hidden agenda. They likely see it as representative of an attack on the project. You have a point as I say, and I think Ryan Vesey too can see through some of the sources and is also not sure if it should really have its own article. But more productive would be to open a discussion on the talk page of the article proposing a merger and a possible Roads in Gibraltar article which would provide an outlet to cover such roads on wikipedia briefly without having their own articles. The argument that such roads should only have a brief paragraph specifically about the road in a general article is a much stronger one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good points, that's excellent advice, Dr. Blofeld. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Well Fram, I'm of the opinion that if a subject is mentioned in multiple reliable sources then it is probably worth a mention even not a full article. There are many such cases where it would be more productive to have a general article covering such subjects briefly without the "puffery" needed to sustain it as a separate article. Me personally I have no problems with having a well sourced article on such a road, there are far worse things to worry about on wikipedia, but I do think probably the most productive solution would be to strip to bare facts and mention those roads covered in multiple reliable sources in a general article. Then if the road is truly notable it can be started in its own right. Europa Road 100% without a doubt in my opinion is notable as is Main Street, Gibraltar and Queensway Street probably too, most of the others are questionable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Not to me though. I'll wait and see how this discussion evolves, but for the moment I an thinking about starting a DRV with the desired outcome of "overturn, close and restart from scratch", because the AfD (and most of the comments) were not based on reality, but on a puff piece full of sources which had absolutely nothing to do with the subject, full of completely incorrect information as well. I don't know whether the editors of the article who added all this were incompetent or simply dishonest, but it is not the kind of article a fair AfD can be based on. A minor error here or there is no problem, but this was such a blatant case that it shouldn't be accepted, since it opens the way for group-created fabrications surviving simply by the power of numbers, not by meeting our basic policies. Fram (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Where you and I differ Fram, I am open to changing my mind about something if I find the evidence compelling. You'd never change your mind on anything even if you were proved wrong about something. You still think the article on bristol Hotel is non notable when its bleeding obvious it is but you wouldn't admit you were wrong about it. Flat Bastion Road even if the "puffery" was whittled down would still have enough mention to validate at least a brief mention on wikipedia in a general article. I watched a film called 12 Angry Men (1957 film) last night and #3 reminded me of Fram, would not change his mind and change to "not guilty" through the entire film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, a road which had a) a minor, local dispute about its parking places, b) resurfacing, and c) one listed building has to be included somewhere in Wikipedia, where would people otherwise find this information? This is knowledge that just has to be preserved for posterity! Wuoldn't it be better if you first removed all blatantly incorrect information from that article you created? What is worse, losing such a tiny bit of correct but utterly trivial information, of keeping the rather large amoubnt of totally incorrect information that is included in the article now? Better no information than wrong information. But of course it's easier to attack an editor than to make the necessary edits. You started doing that in the AfD, and you continue here, all in defense of an article you created as the result of an error on your part. Fram (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Fram, I'm neither defending Flat Bastion Road nor wikipedia containing false information! If the information is 100% known to be false, remove it. I haven't looked into it as intensively as you have.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll pass. I don't want the other editors of the article to go mad. It has been noted at the talk page of the article and in the AfD for quite a while, it somewhat amuses me (in a despairing way) to note that all the people rushing to defend and expand the article can apparently not be bothered to check whether concerns raised are actually valid, and to do something about them (or to reply why they aren't valid concerns). It gives a very string impression that a number of people are more busy with keeping gibraltarpediA articles at all costs, than with having a correct, reliable article and encyclopedia. As if removing an incorrect sentence or paragraph from an article is an unacceptable attack on their project, and as if their project is somehow separate from (and more important than) Wikipedia.
I have presented an improved version of the article, they can use it or not, I still want the article deleted anyway but it would at least give a better impression if they tried to get it right instead of inventing stuff to make the road look much more important than it ever was. Fram (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I really am not the sort of guy who dwells on things and I hope not to come into conflict with you over it or anything else further. Take care.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I will not go looking for articles you created which can be challenged; but I'll not refrain from nominating an article for deletion or otherwise tagging it only because you were the creator either. Luckily most of your articles don't need to be deleted at all of course. Fram (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Flat Bastion Road

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Flat Bastion Road. 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. Fram (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Rihanna's seventh studio album

Someone reverted what you did when closed the AFD. Should I leave a message to this user? Or you take care of it? Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I've reverted and warned him. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Reach

Thanks! I'll let you know when I've read through and addressed them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, could you take another look? :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

blurb talk

What bothers you about the blurb for Fertilisation of Orchids, one of my very favorite articles on all of wikipedia? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Overall, the blurb was very good. It was that one long sentence that bothered me, so I was curious what Tony would say. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thinking back ...

I should have seen it coming. :) — ChedZILLA 22:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, the idea occurred to me around then, I never got around to doing it. This way though, if I reply to you you'll know you're not a fool. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Woooo hoooo ... Chedzilla runs in circles .. thumps tail ... I'm not a fool ... w00t w00t .. I'm not a fool I'm not a fool ... if I say it enough then it makes it so!!! — ChedZILLA 13:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, David had an interesting perspective on the definition of a fool, but his daughter's definition is probably more widely agreed upon. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey mark

hey mark ....who are you bro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.94.207.38 (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't tell anyone, but I'm one of these. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Evans

I pumped it up by 1,500 characters. A couple thoughts

  • His brother Cecil appears to have been a democrat (worth adding a new book just for this?)
  • A bit of information about the downfall of the Klan after Evans left may be just what the doctor ordered, as Evans himself seems to have just disappeared into obscurity.
Wadya think? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for helping with that, I appreciate it. I'll try to get around to adding some more sources too. I bet Wehwalt will peer review it if I ask him. Maybe Noleander will too. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I pinged him about an NYT source that looks interesting (nice to have contemporary criticism and praise, methinks). Noleander avoids religious-related articles, widely construed, so I dunno how far he'd be willing to go. I'll have a go at Meth mouth tomorrow, methinks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think you might just get co-nom credit with that one :) That's a good point, but the restriction isn't "widely construed", it's "broadly but reasonably construed". Reminds me about the joke I once made about "reasonable, but broad, Wikipedians". I think I was the only one who found that one funny though. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I can sympathize, I had a looong walk or two during my stint in grad school. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

A belated thank you

Hi Mark. Thanks so much for the barnstar. You're very kind! I was about to archive my talk page today and realized I had completely missed it. I was happy to help with the Caputo bibliography, and if you see any more issues like this languishing at copyright problems, don't hesitate to get in touch. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I recall that you helped me with an image way back when, almost two years ago, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

RPP

Would you mind looking at RPP, in particular Kai Greene. There's a slight backlog and the vandalism on this page is particularly out of hand. You're the only anti-vandal I know working atm. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I got it. Not sure why there was so much today on Greene. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I am putting it on my watchlist. Churn and change (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, the Mr. Olympia competition is this weekend, that explains it. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for protecting UFC on Fuel TV: Struve vs. Miocic.
LlamaAl (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, anytime. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you..

..for creating fine essay Ignore all fools. Have added good shortcut. darwinbish BITE 21:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC).

You're welcome, that was my pleasure--thanks for the shortcut. The idea just popped into my mind on the way to work for some reason one day this week. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ignore all tools

Could you also develop a "something" with the above title, for users like me who do not know the difference between a template and a tag and to be able to use anything underlined (printed in blue) should go to the page where s/he saw one, press the "edit" button, copy that acronym or "thing with some strange brackets around", than go to the other page -hopefully waiting in another window, without accidentally logging out- where s/he needs to place it etc. (In case in between s/he does not touch the "Destroy WP" button everything will be allright... :-) Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh hey, that is a good idea, I should work on that. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Do be aware that in some circles, the use of the word "tool" to describe someone, is recognised as a slang insult. (e.g., "that guy is such a tool"). I think it might be a reference to part of the male anatomy. This could make an ignore all tools link confusing if ignore all fools already exists. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes, that is a good point, I guess I'll avoid that one. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Mark, I am afraid you could be a good politician... Everybody is right for you; how come? :-) All the best. --E4024 (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
lol, I guess so. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
For your extensive working in fixing minor errors and typos etc. Excellent knoming! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Stress free, indeed. Very important...♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit

Hello, Mr. Arsten! I'm Redyka, a friend of Chris. I want to you to help me copyediting this, since Chris is busy right now. Could you help me? Thanks in advance. Sorry for bad English, either on this request or the article I've developed. Redyka94 (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I can help, I should be able to get to it over the next few days. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Mark, and sorry for bothering you. Redyka94 (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Professionalism and civility and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll check it out after I finish my coffee. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Here, have some baklava with your coffee please. :-) --E4024 (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Oooh, thanks, that sounds good. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Church of the SubGenius

Your edits/rewrites to the Church of the SubGenius page seem rather radical. Perhaps you can discuss them on the talk page? Centerone (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Really? The four paragraphs that I replaced were completely unsourced, so I didn't expect that anyone would mind my replacement of them with sourced content. Do you have any concerns about the information that I added? Let me know, and I'll do my best to work it out. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

{{multiple issues}}

Just curious as to why in this edit you changed {{multiple issues}} from the new syntax to the old, deprecated syntax. Anomie⚔ 02:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I was using AWB to fix typos and didn't know that there was a new and an old version of the multiple issues tags. I wonder why it does that. Ok, so {{multiple issues|{{coi|date=August 2012}}{{copy edit|date=September 2012}}}} is good and {{multiple issues|COI = August 2012|copy edit = September 2012}} is deprecated? I very seldom do anything with maintenance templates. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Is your copy of AWB up-to-date? If so (or if upgrading to the current version doesn't fix this), it should be reported to the AWB devs.
Yes, {{multiple issues|COI = August 2012|copy edit = September 2012}} is deprecated. See Template:Multiple issues#Old syntax. The output of {{multiple issues|COI = August 2012}} kept getting out of sync with {{COI|date=August 2012}} for all the different maintanence templates, and there kept being new templates created that didn't get support in {{multiple issues}} in a timely manner if at all, and all the various synonyms for all the maintenance templates weren't supported as parameters to {{multiple issues}} either (e.g. {{multiple issues|selfpromotion = August 2012}} or {{multiple issues|conflict of interest = August 2012}} wouldn't work, even though {{Selfpromotion}} and {{Conflict of interest}} will work as well as {{COI}}). So someone asked if we could do something like {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} does: just automagically reformat {{COI|date=August 2012}} and every other maintenance template when used inside {{multiple issues}}. And it turned out we could, so we did. In fact, now {{multiple issues|COI = August 2012}} actually does the same thing as {{multiple issues|{{COI|date=August 2012}}}}. Anomie⚔ 03:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the detailed explanation, I'll check that I'm up to date and then keep an eye on the template/talk to someone about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page.

Kevlar (talk) 04:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

your closing of Windows 9 AfD

The term redirect is a word of ambiguity at AfD, as some people use it in the sense "delete and redirect" and others use it in the sense of "redirect with edit history intact".  But this is not a reason to freely mix the two.  Why did you close against the majority at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 9?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, for one, it's a viable search term so a flat deletion would be out of the question. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Let me see if I understand, you're not complaining that I redirected the article, but that I left the edit history intact when I did so? If you feel strongly about this, I suppose I could delete the edit history, I'm not sure why this matters at all though? (Deleting before redirecting is important in some BLP situations, but I can't see the reason for doing so here). Mark Arsten (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liana_Werner-Gray on 16:08, 27 August 2012

Greetings Mark,

I am writing in regards to your deletion of the Liana Werner-Gray(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liana_Werner-Gray) Wikipedia page. I went to visit the page last week and noticed this message "concern was: spam lacking a solid claim to notability. awards shown are not major. packed with deceptive and misleading sourcing, verging on a hoax article. full of sources that verify associated aspects but not anything to do..." I'm not sure what led you to this conclusion, but I assure you, the information shown on the page is 100% legitimate, and I am requesting you to put it back up. The awards listed, while not major according to your opinion, are real awards so there was nothing deceptive about mentioning them. I'm aware that as a wikipedia administrator you probably don't get your kicks by arbitrarily deleting pages so I'm sure you had your reasons for coming to this conclusion. However, I must respectfully say that I disagree with you and will back up my opinion with proof if need be. I just hope we can come to an agreement about this.

Thanks,

Sal SFiteni (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sal, that was actually not my conclusion, but a statement that another editor added. (I see why you would think that was my comment though.) As this was a WP:PROD deletion, you can have it restored by filing a request at WP:REFUND--although it's restoration does not preclude a future deletion discussion. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I will do that. SFiteni (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Die Young

Hi! There are a few of us interested in editing Die Young (Kesha song), but it was deleted and protected. Would it be possible to have this page undeleted or, at the very least, unlocked so we can recreated? The topic has definitely achieved notability since it's deletion and has already charted in Belgium. Here is a list of reliable sources we would like to use to fix up this article: source list. We would also like to redirect Die Young (Ke$ha song) (also sysop-locked) to Die Young (Kesha song), as per the discussion on Talk:Kesha and various deleted talk pages linked to Die Young (Kesha song). Please get back to ASAP. Thanks. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, your best bet would be to create a sandbox version of the article and then get it sourced and cleaned up first (WP:USERSPACEDRAFT), then ask to have it reinstated at WP:DRV. I'm not terribly familiar with the song guidelines, so I'm hesitant to act unilaterally here. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


The Meaning of Roses

Dear Mr. Mark: This is opal2star. I sincerely apologize about the post that I placed up about you today. Yes, it was deleted, and it was wrong of me to do so. So I apologize. Sir, I am on Wikipedia as a user is because my professor wanted us to post up a Wikipedia post as an assignment, so when my post was deleted my assignment was deleted. And I was very upset because I do not like to fail. But I was wrong for what I did and I am sorry. Oh, and by the way I actually love Wikipedia. I use it all the time for just reading. I read about all kinds of things on this website. So I am glad that you do what you do. And thank you.

You're welcome, don't worry about it. I hope you stick around. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Church of the SubGenius, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sherman, New York and Eris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lance Easley

Hi Mark. Should the outcome instead be a redirect to List of 2012 NFL replacement officials? 2012 NFL referee lockout makes no mention of Lance Easley, and probably never will unless you are anticipating a merge from WP:Articles for deletion/List of 2012 NFL replacement officials.—Bagumba (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a tricky situation, since the most logical merge target is up for deletion itself. I think what I'll do is wait to see if the list survives the Afd, and then change the redirect if it does. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
My only problem with waiting is that the 100s of viewers each day of this article will get redirected to page that makes no mention of his name.—Bagumba (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, that article's Afd is due to be closed in 12 hours, so I don't think waiting is too bad of an idea. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
If we redirected to the AfD article now, I would assume the admin of the AfD article would properly handle any incoming links if the article was ultimately deleted. I'll leave it to your discretion. Thanks for discussing.—Bagumba (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The AfD was closed as no consensus. I boldly changed the redirect, but someone boldly enforced per your closing remarks. Care to update the closure?—Bagumba (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I've also informed the editor of this discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Oops, oh well, I made the two fixes. Hopefully this is the end of it. Thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response. Enjoy your weekend.—Bagumba (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome, you too. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Grumpy change-averse Wikipedians' opinions wanted ;)

Your input would be most appreciated here. Talk page stalkers also welcome :) Cheers, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'll check it out! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Resilient Barnstar
To Mark Arsten, for accepting criticism graciously. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


It is unfortunate that "Meth mouth" doesn't have enough suitable sources. In any case, thank you for improving the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! Mark Arsten (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Christian Storm Page

Hi Mark,

My page on the UK Choreographer, Christian Storm has been deleted. It was flagged previously and I talked with the moderator who gave me suggestions on how to improve it. Would it be possible for you to at least temporarily restore it so I can get the content back to improve on it?

I requested that it be undeleted over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Christian_Storm. Could you take a look and consider this please?

Thanks Kurt K Hahn (talk) 08:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I've moved it to User:Kurt K Hahn/Christian Storm for you to work on further. To have it reinstated, though, you'll have to apply at WP:DRV. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much! If it was you that deleted it, could you please give me some feedback as to why? I have emulated other chreography pages as much as possible to minimise the chances of this happening. Upon the suggestions of another mod, I tracked down a number of secondary sources to support some of the work this individual has been invovled in. This is not easy, and the pages that I did use as references were not primary sources and did have mention of both his name and the work. What else can I do to get this article to stay? I also removed any promotional-type and peacock language to make the article as neutral as possible.

Thanks for your patience and feedback Kurt K Hahn (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think the big thing it's missing is reliable sourcing. Blogspot, prweb, and youtube generally aren't considered reliable sources. Try to look for newspapers and well known magazines. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Broadleaf Commerce Page

Hi Mark,

Our page on Broadleaf Commerce has been deleted. We attempted to put our content inline with other similar products (e.g. Magento) and are not sure for the reason for removal.

Thanks -- Bcpolster (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you can find the reasons for deletion on this page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadleaf Commerce. Let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Two out of the four you asked for ...

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TcXdsX19kTWJ1MVE https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TcTFycVdadEk4Z00

Please lemme know when done. Churn and change (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, was that ever quick, thanks for the help on these. I have downloaded them both. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

AfD Closure

Excuse me. Regarding the AfD closure of Thulasi Nair, I added three references from a national newspaper to the article just before voting in the AfD (Mine was the last vote). It is highly possible that the other three voters in AfD who voted before me were not aware of the sources that I added. In that case, relisting would have been appropriate. You have deleted an article which has three reliable references from a national newspaper. --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you ping the delete voters and ask them if those three pages would change their minds at all? If any of them give that impression I'd be willing to relist. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
Mark Arsten, I award you the Writer's Barnstar. Thank you for your many varied and wonderful contributions to Wikipedia. The community appreciates your fantastic efforts. :) — Cirt (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey, thanks a lot for the barnstar. I've enjoyed reading your work too :) Mark Arsten (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, thanks very much, it wasn't easy at times to get to high levels of quality ... ;) — Cirt (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

blurb words in Appaloosa

"The Appaloosa is a horse breed best known for its colorful leopard-spotted coat pattern. There is a wide range of body types within the breed, stemming from the influence of multiple breeds of horses throughout its history." - problem: "breed" used three times in first two sentences.

What do you think? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. I'm thinking that the second "breed" would be the best to remove, what do you think about "It contains a wide range of body types"? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
agree.
"The Appaloosa is a horse breed best known for its colorful leopard-spotted coat pattern. It includes a wide range of body types due to the introduction of multiple horse breeds throughout its history." ?? (don't know much about horse breeds!) MathewTownsend (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, that does sound better. I'll go tweak the blurb. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Took a shot at it. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lugain_Dahdal

Greetings Mark,

I am writing in regards to your deletion of Lugain Dahdal http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lugain_Dahdal&action=history Wikipedia page. Please check the Fide profile of the player ( the correct spelling of the player's name is Lougain Dahdal )

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=8102880 Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_at_the_2011_Pan_Arab_Games

Can you please take a look and consider restoring the page

Thank you Lougaindahdal (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the subject area, but I feel there was a consensus to delete it in part because of a lack of reliable sources that discussed the subject of the article (WP:RS & WP:V). If you like, I can give you a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT of the article for you to prepare as a proposed new version (You'll have to file at WP:DRV to get it reinstated though.) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


Okay Please give it to me so I can propose a new version . thank you Lougaindahdal (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I moved it to User:Lougaindahdal/Lugain Dahdal for you to work on. Just be mindful of username and coi issues in the future. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Mistake

I made a mistake on today's featured article/requests. I revered it but it's still the same. I don't want people to get angry, please help!

Well, if anyone gets mad at you, I'll block them for a year ;) Mark Arsten (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Flat Bastion Road

Some of the remarks at Talk:Flat Bastion Road#Notability concerns have referenced your close. Can you clarify your position? Ryan Vesey 23:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I responded, hope that cleared things up. Let me know if you need me to say any more. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Came here to say thanks

Good news in town. Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre is now a FA. You helped me yet again and I'm glad you did it. I'm in debt with you (another one!), Mark. Thanks a lot for everything. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Paul McGinnis

Hey Mark, You deleted the page I created for myself. I'd like to redo it to adhere to Wikipedia rules. Could you please let me know what to do to make sure everything will fall in line?

Thank you, Paul McGinnis

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabletop1 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually, you're really not supposed to write articles about yourself. See WP:AUTO for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Tribal44

Mark, can you please handle a problem with User:Tribal44. As he openly admits on his user page, he goes into the articles of singers - MANY articles - and inserts their vocal range (soprano, alto, etc.). For instance, he will go into an article that starts out "(Name) is a rock singer with the band (name)" and change it to "(Name) is a mezzo-soprano singer." Or he'll just insert the singer's vocal range (soprano, alto, etc.) into the lead somewhere. And we're talking about "regular" singers (pop, rock, R&B, anything), not opera singers. An actual example of an article he edited is Vibeke Stene... it used to start out "Vibeke Stene is a Norwegian vocalist who was in the gothic metal band Tristania". Tribal44 changed it to "Vibeke Stene is a Norwegian spinto soprano singer." I explained to him that this is inappropriate. I've also told him it's not even encylopedic. We don't go into Lady Gaga's page and insert that she's an alto into the lead (or anywhere else). Also, many of the sources he uses are not reliable; he uses non-independent sources, fan blogs and other sources that simply do not qualify as reliable. In any case, sticking in someone's vocal range in to dozens of articles is unnecessary (even if it is reliably sourced). I looked at his editing history and dozens of editors have removed the vocal range content from many articles, but Tribal just reverts and puts it back into the article, even if other indisputably "bad" content goes back with it. As I said, please read his explanation on his user page to see why he does this. Someone needs to stop him from continuing to disrupt all these articles. I'm sure he means well because he's very passionate abouting singing and vocal ranges, but his personal "obsession" should not be carried out on Wikipedia. Can you please deal with him on this? Thanks a lot. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see the ANI notice until right after I posted this to Mark. It took me about 15 minutes to write this. Haha. Anyway, someone needs to stop Tribal44 from going into every singer's article and putting there vocal range, especially into the lead. Btw, I just noticed it's a she, not a he. Sorry about that. Anyway, Tribal essentially admits on her user page that she knows what she's doing annoys other editors. It doesn't really annoy ME, but it's just totally inappropriate. And many editors have reverted her for doing it. But she doesn't care and just reverts every revert. Thanks. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Dennis Brown, I tried being nice to you, but you've continued to be nothing but rude and condescending towards me. I did nothing wrong in writing to Mark for his help. You now claim on other talk pages that you didn't imply that I knew about the ANI before I posted to Mark, yet your comments here clearly show that that's exactly what you were doing. Otherwise, why did you go out of your way to make your "16 minutes" comment and talk about "forum shopping"? Why didn't you just say hey, there's an ANI discussion going on, you should go there and discuss it. Well, I didn't know about it. I had already come here to discuss the matter with Mark, a very friendly, helpful and knowledgeable administrator, who goes out of his way to treat editors in a respectful and professional manner. You should take a lesson from him and stop trying to bully people. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi 76, you were blocked by the time I saw this and then read through the ANI, sorry to see how things turned out. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mark. No problem. A couple editors spoke on my behalf in the ANI and I was just unblocked. The whole thing was just sort of a whirlwind. I came to you at the very beginning because you're such a great guy and great admin, so I wanted to hear what guidance you would give, instead of just filing some official complaint somewhere. I was going to listen to whatever you recommended. Then I found out the other editor reported me and all the fireworks began. Haha. I felt ganged up on and let my frustrations get to me because these exaggerated accusations were being made about me - that I was making threats and being a bully. My only "threat" was saying that the matter would reported for admin intervention if those edits continued; I said that instead of using a template that says it, because I didn't know how to find the right template. And based on that, I was being called threatening and being a bully. Then a few really nice editors came in and looked into the issues and some of the edits, and edit comments, to see what was really going on. They saw that I gave clear, detailed edit comments and that the other editor called me a troll a few times because of my edits. It's such a weird issue because it affects soooo many articles. I know about discussing issues on article talk pages, but I knew this matter involved hundreds of articles. Well, potentially thousands if this process of adding vocal ranges continues in all the singer articles. So that's why I wrote you. One of the nice editors started this discussion to try to resolve the matter.[35] Anyway, thanks for being sorry about my block. But I'm out of jail now. :p --76.189.121.57 (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Glad to see that you're out of jail... hope the discussion goes well. The admin noticeboards are often a mess, best to try to stay off of them! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Haha, thanks. It's nice to be free. OK, I'll take your advice and stay off of them. ;) But I thought I had to go there because someone reported me there and that admin Dennis told me on your page to go there. And then when I got there and posted, then he said it's not the place to discuss the issue about the vocal ranges. Now you see why I was sooo confused. And why I went to you first. I knew you would guide me in the right direction. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Kafka would be impressed ;) Mark Arsten (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
I hereby award the Working Man's Barnstar to Mark Arsten for his tireless work at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Keeping those backlogs at bay can be a thankless task, so this is to let you know that your work is well appreciated. Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar, I appreciate it! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for opinion on Thulasi Nair at WP:ANI

FYI,

I have requested for an opinion on the AFD closure of Thulasi Nair at WP:ANI. This is not an appeal against your action. I respect your closure and thank you for your reply to me. I just wanted to have opinion of an uninvolved admin on the notability of the article. --Anbu121 (talk me) 10:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you ping the delete voters like I suggested a few sections above? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I did. --Anbu121 (talk me) 22:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Thulasi Nair

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Thulasi Nair. 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. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 19:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article for deletion: Ray Stoney

Hi Mark,

I am new to editing and I am wondering why the Actor, Ray Stoney's page was deleted. How can I edit the text so that I can put the page back up properly? Ray Stoney is a creditable actor with several legitimate credits http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0832326/ and over 3 million articles about him on Google.

Please let me know either on here or via email at Felicia.Scalone(at)Yahoo(dot)(com)

Thank you! Cnkids (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Felicia

Three million articles about him? Really? That sounds hard to believe. Well, in any case, if you'd like to have the article restored, draw up a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT that includes citations to significant discussions of him in reliable sources (WP:GNG)and then apply to have it reinstated at WP:DRV. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Church of the SubGenius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Klaatu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Our collaboration

Please tweak that new paragraph as you see fit. Haven't found much positive on him (gasp) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Paying my debts to other reviewers at the moment :) Mark Arsten (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Everything except what our man did for his last twenty years. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Touche... but if he's anything like my grandparents were at that age, he spent most of it walking around at a shopping mall. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll take another look in the morning. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Health effects of chewing Paan

Chewing paan (according to the article) causes too much saliva! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

lol, thanks for the warning :) I wonder if paan mouth is a thing? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Feel like copyediting? The Church of the SubGenius is at the Gates of Vienna... Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
It's kinda hard to understand. I've attention span problems lately on wiki. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I can sympathize! It's not the easiest topic to explain clearly, either. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Kafka FAC

Mark A and Crisco: I really appreciate your great input on this, but I can barely follow the pile of spaghetti comments anymore. Can you guys go through and move resolved things to the talk page or something? PumpkinSky talk 23:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

lol, you don't have it quite as bad at the Mitt Romney FAC though :) I think this happened to me once and I almost ignored one reviewer. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Closure

Hi mate, thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Finasteride Syndrome. Given the single-issue nature of many of the contributors during that discussion, hopefully most of the hostility will disappear quietly into the ether. In the same vein, wondering if you might have a look at closing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brainbug666 which was started as a direct result of the goings-on at AFD. Now that it's over there's probably no point flogging that horse which will likely just result in further uncivil back-and-forth. I remain of the view that there was lots of socking going on, but reprimanding single-edit socks who will likely never be back will probably not produce meaningful results anyway. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC).

You're welcome, hopefully things will calm down soon. To be honest, I've never participated in or closed an SPI before, so I'm reluctant to do anything there. Maybe ping Dennis Brown? He's pretty active there, I think. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, hopefully they will - without a battleground, hopefully the warriors will just go home... I will ping Dennis as you suggest - thanks for the advice! Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC).
Yeah, this Afd made for very interesting reading! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the user in question has now re-created the article in their sandbox and is now linking other talk pages to it in an effort to "raise awareness" without having a "home article" to back their campaign up. The editor in question struggles with English and I'm 50/50 about raising it at ANI. But he is also making making tendentious edits at the article for the drug's manufacturer. I don't think we can let that go on for too long before doing something about it. It is clearly disruptive. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I deleted his sandbox. Perhaps he's just frustrated at the moment and will calm down, but if he continues making tendentious edits you have my blessing to take him to ANI. I'm logging off at the moment, so I'll have to see how it turns out later. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

When you return; he has now started a very pointy SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DangerGrouse aimed at one of the editors who opposed him at AFD who might not have the same level of experience as the others. The SPI doesn't even suggest or attempt to substantiate sock-puppetry - just a strange WP:SLEEPER claim. Given I started the original SPI investigation and contributed at the AFD, my taking him to ANI probably wouldn't be appropriate (or productive). Your advice would be appreciated. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, his behavior is definitely tendentious at this point. Thanks for the update. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your intervention. Unfortunate end result but entirely justified. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Rihanna's seventh studio album

Rihanna is about to release the title and cover of the album. It's gonna be needed to be moved into the mainspace now. Zac (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let me know when the details have been released and I'll move it back. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Side Effects. Zac (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Side Effects (Rihanna album) would be the URL. Zac (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, done. There might be some tidying up to do though with the moves and all. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I expect the IP edits / vandalism to come in pretty soon, so be a look out for that. xD Zac (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Anon block. Range block?

Hi Mark, re your block of 108.25.110.188 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): it looks like they switched to another address 108.25.118.202 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and they're soliciting for a range block. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I've never done a range block before, I'm afraid I won't be able to help with that. Maybe ask Acroterion? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
It looks like a big range anyway. Let's see what happens next — I have to go now. Thx. - DVdm (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Things seem to have cooled down considerably (for) now :-) - DVdm (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Happened to see this: I'm not a confident judge of rangeblocks. I've only done /24 or /22 blocks, and once or twice some very short /16 blocks on lightly-used ranges. In cases like this it seems better to block them as they show up to get a better sample of their IP ranges and to maybe put together a series of smaller rangeblocks, or just to get them to give up. Much depends on the ISP: British Telecom's allocations are (to me) impossible to understand. Most US ISPs like Verizon allocate smaller blocks to specific geographic locations and there's a better chance of selectively rangeblocking, but it's still easy to block thousands of people. Acroterion (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks for the note. I'll have to get educated about these things sooner or later. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

AFD Patriotic Nigras

Hello, thanks a lot for helping me find a nomination discussion page and in fact creating one for me. I really appreciate the help! Just after I created it I noted you had made one but mine is located here if you wish to merge or do whatever you like to the one you made. Once again much thanks. --Olowe2011 (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think I have fixed it all, I replace my comment with yours on the template listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 12. All we have to do now is wait... Mark Arsten (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


Query over AFD QBEX

I have been contacted by two contributors to the Qbex site that you deleted. I would also like to point out that of the 3 votes for deletion, two were from the same user ((Delete votes: 3 (Alan_Liefting, Alan Liefting, Goodvac)). While I recognise that the article was in need of editing the only simple way for this to be undertaken was to make it live and them for those responsible for each section to make the necessary editiions, and citation additions. I think all of those who will make initial contributions to the page are new users to wikipedia and we are all inexpert at this. Please can you therefore reinstate the page so that the necessary alterations can be made. Regards.

Well, some issues can be fixed by regular editing, but there may be issues that cannot be. The most important thing is to have sufficient reliable sources that discuss the subject of the article. (See WP:GNG for details) The page can't be reinstated unless detailed sources are discovered. I will move the article back to your userspace though, so you can work on it (and hopefully add sources) there. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, it's at User:Gurnard/QBEX sandbox again now. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mark. Wow, that was quick and has restored my faith in wikipedia. I should probably try to discover the answer to my next question through the wikipedia help facilities, but I couldn't find it earlier. How can the 'owners' of other sections (modules in my case) edit these bits if the article is in my sandbox? I'm happy for the page to remain where it is for the moment, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurnard (talk • contribs) 21:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help :) Although usually sandboxes are only edited by one editor, others are technically able to edit it and as long as you don't mind, there's no problem with that. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mark. Do others need to log in as me or can they edit my sandbox as me? Should I just provide them with the link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurnard (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No, they don't need to log in as you to edit your sandbox (and sharing accounts is actually against the rules!). Just send them the link to the sandbox and they should be able to edit it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response, Mark. I thought it was not allowed to allow others to log in as you and I have not done this. I was waiting to hear back from you and I'll share the link to the page. Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurnard (talk • contribs) 18:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Celebration Day

Hi Mark, what just happened with Celebration Day (album) (formerly (video))? The talk page history seems to have been lost, with what I believe was an ongoing RM. How does an email request override an RM? --BDD (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Damn, I hadn't seen that. He told me it was an uncontroversial move he needed help with. I didn't think to check the talk page to be sure--which was totally my mistake, sorry about that. Had I known there was an RM open I wouldn't have touched it. I've moved it back, hope it's fixed now. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for sorting it out. Careful with those email requests—it sounds like someone was trying to game the system. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll be careful! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Dharmendra

Hi Mark, I saw in WP:RPP that you have semi-protected the article for three days but unfortunately you haven't semi-protected that article yet. Could you please do that? Torreslfchero (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh, that is very strange... not sure how that happened. Oh well, it's done now though. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thank you for all the help you've been giving to me this days. Enjoy them! — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Bubble Guppies

Can you restore its move-protection. There is a bug at TW (I haven't reporteded it as I don't know how). Thank you. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the tip. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Pink Truth About Love Tour editing.....

Why have you reverted the information I changed on there? Pink is playing New York Madison Square Garden, along with the extra date at Munich... all of which can be found on the official truth about love tour site. So, when I add something please could you not change it? I didn't spend my time doing it for fun.

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.215.71 (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I believe that you're mistaken, I did not revert any of your edits. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Page protection

Hello Mark. Are you sure you protected Malala Yousafzai? because I can't see it in the protection log and it continues to be vandalized. Can you please have a look at it again. Thanks --SMS Talk 19:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Damn, this is the second time that happened. I think I clicked on the wrong edit window or something. Fixed now though, let me know if you need it reprotected when this expires. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure and Thanks! --SMS Talk 20:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Omar Al Soma

Hi, why was my article about Omar Al Soma deleted ? - I put sources like Soccerway.com, Transfermarkt.de etc. - He does play in a professional league - He has represented his country at senior level (made his debut a few days ago)

how can I re-open the article (if its possible) ?

Your article was deleted because the people who came to the discussion felt that it fails the WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL guidelines. Can you provide citations that demonstrate that he meets the WP:NFOOTBALL guidelines? If so, I can probably restore the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

-He made his debut for the Syrian senior NT in a friendly against Kuwait on 11 October 2012: http://psyrianp.com/ar/news.php?readmore=3555 (sorry is in Arabic) -He has played in a fully professional league, from 2008 to 2011 in the Syria for Al Futowa SC where he scored 12 goals in the 2008/2009 season: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9309_Syrian_Premier_League -He has represented Syria in the 2012 Olympic Qualification: http://www.jfa.or.jp/eng/topics/2012/20.html -He has represented his current club Qadsia SC at the AFC Cup:http://www.the-afc.com/en/tournaments/clubs/afc-cup/936-afc-cup-2012/39200-al-qadsia-1-1-aet-1-3-pso-kuwait-sc

note: his surname is often spellend wrong in English and Arabic as well.

Ok, I'll look into it. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Soccerway profile confirms appearances in AFC - enough to meet NFOOTBALL. We should perhaps restore, as long as the article creator makes a determined effort to bring up to GNG, which is more important. GiantSnowman 20:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, good point. I'll restore and let him know about that. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks !

please look more into this issue

I have commented there. Please look more into the issue. Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Alicia_Silverstone_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 Dream Focus 15:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, full protection is used in this case to prevent time being wasted by constant reverting or to head off the possibility of 3RR blocks. As far as sanctions for longer-term disruption or a topic ban, your best bet would be to propose it on WP:ANI or WP:AN (I can never remember which one handles topic bans... you'll get a quicker response on ANI though). Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Wikipedia page about me?

Why did you delete the page about me? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila_Juhasz Over the last 20 years, my work has contributed culturally to society from my publishing, internet pioneering, creating the world's first DEP and now producer of my latest video game, Zombie Squash starring icon director George A. Romero. Other writers and game producers are listed in Wikipedia and so are the many celebrities and public figures that I work with. Can you please reinstate the page or explain what violations were made so that may be corrected. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.198.129 (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue at the Afd that led to its deletion was a lack of reliable, 3rd part sources (see WP:V & WP:RS). Simply being a successful producer isn't a guarantee of notability for Wikipedia (WP:GNG). Do you know of newspapers, magazines, or books that have provided coverage of you? Are there any well known awards that you've won? These are things that could help get your page restored. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I could use some coffee about now. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
My I share it? Great design on top of your talk now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes you may :) The banner is a good reminder to me--my admin tools are capable of doing great harm if misused. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
did you put the banner at the head of your talk page? seems like it aligns you with a particular view point beyond the message in the banner; frankly I thought you were free of such alliances. Are you thusly aligned? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
(watching) a look at the history would tell that Mark replaced a design by Br'er Rabbit by one by Alarbus, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
(watching) My mistake. Should have known I'd be dogged. Comment withdrawn. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The banner isn't meant to express solidarity with any one user or endorse a particular point of view, I put it there to remind myself of the harm that administrative mistakes can do to the project. Once a user receives one block, that block will follow them forever--even if it was a poorly thought-out action by the admin who placed it. And thus we lose the valuable contributions they could have provided. Br'er's banning did bring the template back to my mind though. I enjoyed working with Br'er, and I feel the community has overreacted by banning him. But, I don't think that the admin who closed the discussion is abusive for closing the discussion as he did. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Please userify Sidi Bel Abbas sanctuary arson

Greetings, can you please userify your recently-deleted Sidi Bel Abbas sanctuary arson to my sandbox for possible eventual merging into a larger-scoped article? Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, sure. It's at User:MatthewVanitas/Sidi Bel Abbas sanctuary arson now. Let me know if you need anything else. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, it was indeed too one-time-event-y, but I think I can expand it out to be more general. Take care! MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted page in english but page is up in french

Hi Mark, the page you deleted after AfD on september 7th at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Condé has an exact copy in french at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Condé with the same contents posted by the same user etc.... I can't seem to find wiki-direction on similar situation. can u help? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollinsGen12 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's not too much we can do here. Different language Wikipedias often have different guidelines about notability and deletion, so it may not be an issue. The best thing to do would be to leave a note for a French speaking Wikipedian asking them to look into the issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

STALEDRAFT

This article [User:Yfever/Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability]] has not been edited since you moved it to user space ~ 2 months ago. Does it qualify for deletion or is its history needed for content that was going to be merged to some other article? the creator and sole* editor does not appear to have been active since the Afd. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC) (*Well there is one series of edits from an IP address but that appears to simply be the creator who forgot to log in)

To be honest, I can't recall the length of time we're supposed to wait before nominating sandboxes under WP:STALEDRAFT. Your best bet would be to ask someone who's active at WP:MFD about this. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

wondering

I was thinking of nomination The Story of Miss Moppet as a noncontroversial TFA (not about war, executing people etc.), but then I discovered the nominatior User:Susanne2009NYC was/is a sockpuppet of a banned user. I read the sockpuppet report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime/Archive which really doesn't clarify anything about User:Susanne2009NYC (that I could see). In any case, according to Talk:The_Story_of_Miss_Moppet#Rev_.2F_Del, Susanne's edits have apparently been removed. Still, it's an FA. Does this mean it never can be on the main page? MathewTownsend (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, from the looks of it, a few users seem to have went through the article pretty thoroughly afterwards and cleared up the issues. I'd say it's probably safe to nominate it at TFA. Oddly enough, I once stumbled upon a stub created by that same sockmaster and rewrote it and brought it to DYK. Then someone deleted it on my because a banned user had started it... it was restored after an hour or so though. For entertainment, check out this Afd of theirs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pig slaughter. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
talk about craziness. Some editors seem to operate purely on emotion and spew forth their personal life on the basis that they "know better" than anyone. We're supposed to take it on faith? Tempted to use on expletive here. What gives? I'm sick of this editor's personal life interjected into TFA. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I find the situation mystifying, as well, but, let's try to stay calm and civil here. Throwing around words like "crazy" tends to cause trouble. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
ok, you're right. But I'm really tired of hearing about editors' personal life at TFA. Can't people just follow the rules? There's no rule that an article is verboten if anyone suspected of being a sockpuppet ever edited the article. I don't think personal vendettas should play a role in the selection of TFA. Either an article is an FA or it isn't. Should hidden agendas play a role? MathewTownsend (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think our #1 concern should be serving our readers... personal lives and grudges should not be our top concerns. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Mathew, I take it that 'talk about craziness. Some editors seem to operate purely on emotion and spew forth their personal life on the basis that they "know better" than anyone' is aimed at me? For someone who spends so much time complaining about being the victim of incivility, you seem a lot keener to dish it out than to take it. – iridescent 20:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mark_Arsten/Archive_the_second&oldid=1254594504"