User talk:Mark Arsten/Archive the sixth

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

Berkeley Hall School

Dear Mark, I am writing to you with regards to deletion and redirection of the Berkeley Hall School wikipedia article. Berkeley Hall School is the oldest coeducational school in Los Angeles which was founded 102 years ago (in 1911). The fact that it was the first and oldest co-ed school in Los Angeles with it's history makes it a notable school and I believe that an article should be dedicated to it. --Azakeri (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you offer evidence that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, I hope something close to "university" is meant by "school", here, otherwise the claims seems somewhat implausible too! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mark, I have gathered a list of the evidence required:
  • Oldest coed private school in Los Angeles – Founded 1911
  • Centennial celebration covered by Patch.com (links on deleted article)
  • Centennial celebration attended by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
  • Proclamation awarded by the City of Los Angeles on the 100th Anniversary of BHS (Link to document)
  • Accredited by the California Association of Independent Schools (Link to BHS page on California Association of Independent Schools)
  • Accredited by the National Association of Independent Schools
  • Accredited by the Western Association of Schools & Colleges
  • Accredited by the Western Association of Schools & Colleges
  • Notably high diversity for a Los Angeles independent school – 41% by NAIS (National Association of Independent Schools) standards
  • Notable alumni: Val Kilmer
  • BHS Art teacher Tracy Cheney just named Outstanding Elementary Visual Art Educator for 2013 by the California Art Education Association.

--Azakeri (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but can you offer evidence that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources? Think newspapers, books, magazines etc. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Appy Pie Deletion

Hi Mark. I see you're the one responsible for deleting the above mentioned article. I was the author of this page and if you see following references are from highly reputable news sources where journalists have featured mentions about the Company http://technorati.com/technology/cloud-computing/article/appy-pie-makes-making-an-app/ http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/04/16/appy-pie-launches-its-cloud-based-mobile-app-creation-tool-with-opentable-and-soundcloud-support/ http://www.veterinaryteambrief.com/article/it-time-app http://blog.mobpartner.com/2013/04/05/top-5-app-builders/ http://techcircle.vccircle.com/2013/08/29/diy-mobile-app-developing-platform-appy-pie-secures-10000-on-kickstarter/ http://yourstory.com/2013/04/mobile-app-building-platform-appy-pie-is-now-open-to-public-use-initial-thoughts/ Please advise me steps to recover this page? • Cxs107 (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I suggest you create a well sourced draft in your userspace and then we can work from there. See WP:USERSPACEDRAFT for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mark, As Suggested I created a well sourced draft in my userspace and here is the link for your kind review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cxs107/sandbox/Appy_Pie. Now please advise me on next steps.• Cxs107 (talk) 2:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I guess the next step is to file a request for undeletion at deletion review: WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, As suggested I filed a request for undeletion at deletion review and following is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Appy_Pie , Do we just wait Now? • Cxs107 (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.63.144.42 (talk)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but the request has to be filed at WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Time for a block

Can you look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#‎User:212.9.8.161 reported by User:Moxy (Result: ) - Thank you -Moxy (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like someone just beat me to it! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hi, can you please protect Alice (Avril Lavigne song) with expires two years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.178.130 (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't like to protect pages long term like that usually. I tend to prefer short protections, at first, anyway. I've protected this page for one week. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A cookie!

Blakegripling ph has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thanks for helping out on the Jade Pettyjohn article, that's much appreciated.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Blake Gripling (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Another Request

Hi, I have a request, and I'm not sure how else to place my requests in these regards. I see that you are busy on Wikipedia, so I thought I might get lucky if I ask you... I am trying to make my own User page. I haven't done much on it, just gave a few basics. But I don't know how to go further. Could you please help? I'm sure you will be able to see Freddie de Lange... 

11:49, 14 November 2013 (South Africa)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddie2012a (talk • contribs)
Generally, the best way is to find a userpage of someone else that looks good, and try to copy how they made it. But changing the specifics of course. Are there any users whose pages look good to you? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for all of the work you do at the perennially backlogged (before you get to it) WP:RFPP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome, it feels good to clear out a backlog like that! Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sock at work

Hi Mark: You blocked Moshiach101. It looks like he continues as Himynameismoshiach plastering the same slogan/s on the Hanukkah page. Thanks again for all your help, IZAK (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, looks like the same user. I've blocked him. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

DO MORE THAN THAT!!! KILL HIM!!! I HATE SOCK PUPPETS!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adeptzare3 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar

Not only for having a sharp eye at the SPI, but also for all your work in general all over the place, all the time. Widr (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thank you too for all the work you do around the wiki. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A sockpuppet

Hey, do not mean to bother, I just know your online frequently, but yesterday IP address User:187.109.228.3 was blocked for disruptive editing and today the same person returned under IP address User:187.109.228.4. Notice the similarity in their edits and IP address. Notice both accouts immediatly remove warnings/notices on their talk pages [1], [2], they both WP:OVERLINK frequently and remove content from articles without giving a reason. Also making many edits in great succession to the exact same topics. Not sure if we need to do a range block yet, but if they return it might be necessary.STATic message me! 22:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I tried some rangeblock magic on 187.109.228.0/24. Let me know what else turns up. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what happened, but 187.109.228.4 is back and recking havoc, adding factuly inccorect content, overlinking and removing references and content without giving a reason. STATic message me! 15:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverted my edit

Hi, you just reverted [3]. I'm not sure why. Please un-revert it or explain what I did wrong. Cheers. 80.195.244.108 (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: Never mind, you've explained on my talk page. Thanks! 80.195.244.108 (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Mega Dereio

I'm from Mega Dereio . I just do some updates the page but you didn't accept it. They're all true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.174.52.235 (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as this is the English Wikipedia, we only allow text to be added in the English language. I'm sure there is a version of Wikipedia in your native language that you could contribute to though. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The annoying IP from ANI

Hi Mark, here's another article they've vandalised Historicity of Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, good catch, I've semi'd it for a few days. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tichester

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Tichester, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 04:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Note that I merely redirected the title, someone came along later and turned the redirect into an article. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, it was an IP that recreated it; the content was from the previous version, so I have re-deleted. Risker (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Alright, works for me. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this Hounding?

Recently, I was involved in a sock-puppet dispute. I was wrong and you blocked my account for a week. I did paid editing and caused a lot of problem on Wikipedia, but I wasn't aware with the guidelines then. After my block has expired, I came back to edit Wikipedia, but an editor is hounding me.

I voted keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Q Mobile because I have a QMobile cell phone and because the company is very notable. Everybody else is voting keep, but as I voted keep, this user came and posted Comment the above editor is a sockpuppeteer and paid editor. [4] It is unclear whether he has WP:COI on this article.

I created The Future Project and he marked it as COI and tagged the article with multiple issues. I didn't take money to write this article. I read all the guidelines and read a lot of articles about non-profit organizations to make sure that I write what is accepted at Wikipedia and what I get is a COI tag. He put the sock-puppet investigation link on the talk page of the article. I'm sure that he didn't even bother reading the article before tagging it.

I agree that I was wrong for making multiple accounts and doing paid editing. I did actually apologize to another user who had to do a lot of work to fix things from my horrible editing. But now this is unwarranted. I am feeling humiliated, specially because of the comment made by this user on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Q Mobile. Am I not allowed to edit Wikipedia any more? I just came to you because you blocked my account and I didn't know anyone else to go to.Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I left a message on the Afd. If he keeps it up you can report him to WP:ANI. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Can I remove the COI tag on The Future Project now?Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk)
I wouldn't recommend doing that yourself, maybe go to WP:3O with the issue? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

What Harrasment ? I demand a understandable answer.

I want a specific answer to why I was blocked for harrasment.--MRivera25 (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)MRivera25

You were blocked for this edit. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems some one is angry on you

Don't what was the intention of this User:75.171.195.138. Has removed contents that belongs to you. --    L o g  X   18:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

About 1800 people are angry with me :) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
That's really great Mark! :) --    L o g  X   18:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

2013 Owner

Dude, you blocked the account of the brand new owner of Wikipedia! He said he was going to upgrade my account "for brand new amazing features" and put money on my credit card because I'm so great on Wikipedia! You owe me, Mark Arsten, you owe me... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

lol, sorry about that! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
WT* --    L o g  X   20:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

AfD comments

Thanks for your comments here. I respect your contributions to WP and I thought your comments were nuanced and basically right on. I will keep these points in mind. With that said, if no one had been "following him around," you would have never blocked him. He would still be sockpuppeting, writing spammy articles, and lying to fellow editors to cover up his COI. As for what he will do in the future, your guess is as good as mine. Cheers. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, all I meant was that you didn't have to leave a disclaimer after ever edit he makes. It's fine to observe him to make sure he's adhering to community standards. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

You may see that I rolled back one of your edits a few minutes ago. That was a completely inadvertent misclick and I've reverted your edit back in. Sorry for any inconvenience. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't notice, but thanks for the note! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of reliably sourced content

User:Haldraper has three times removed reliably sourced content.

He also misrpresents the consensus on the talk page. which was to remove it from the first sentence, not from the entire introduction. I left a message on his talk page but he did not reply. Whats the best way forward? Pass a Method talk 11:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like WP:AN3 might be a viable option if he keeps reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Perri Reid

Hello. You locked Perri Reid. You said IP edit warring which I think refers to me. If you look at the talk page I am trying to discuss the edits. summerphd feels she owns the page and wont accept any one else contributions. summerreverts to its version. I feel until there is consensus it is best that you clear the page and just have on it that Perri Reid was an 80s pop/RB singer. To save her version--which is disputed-- over mine and others I feel is bias. Thank You. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you try to get more input from other editors on the talk page. You could ask for help at WP:BLPN, WP:3O, or on the talk page of a relevant wikiproject. Or you could hold a talk page WP:RFC about the disputed content. Let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of page GoldCoin - Discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goldcoin

Result you found was against general consensus...

In your reason you state "The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)"

When in fact the general consensus was to keep the page.

Please explain yourself and why you purposefully and unilaterally closed a discussion in minority favor despite Wikipedia criteria.

And if you will argue something about notability please look at the following list of cryptocurrencies and note that several currencies have pages that have lower marketcaps than the one in question.. Not to mention that there are currencies on that list that are simple litecoin and bitcoin clones with virtually no improvement over them whereas GoldCoin is the first proof of work currency to have virtual immunity to majority hashpower style attacks. This alone makes it more notable than the previous currencies.

Also I believe there is some bias on your part as towards what is and what isn't notable,

For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_warp_(science_fiction)

Has only one reference, but this is deemed enough to keep the page with a citation needed notice...

It's important to understand that in the portal of cryptocurrency GoldCoin is extremely notable even though this may not be the case in the general public, it is notable within the context that it applies to.

Similarly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protostar is notable to astronomers.. but not necessarily the general public.. It also has few references and yet is not marked for deletion nor is there a citation notice.

Unless you have substantial proof that the article reads like an advertisement or promotion I recommend the article be restored.

[1]

Well, consensus in deletion discussions is not determined by how many people vote for keeping vs how many people vote for deletion. Consensus is determined by the strength of the arguments made by the participants in the discussion. In this case, the supporters of deletion argued convincingly that the subject had not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Although many people supported keeping the article, they did not provide evidence of significant coverage, thus limiting the strength of their argument. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what arguments where made, I still don't see how the article warrants deletion... would not vague citations tags along with a notability tag be sufficient until the article was cleaned up?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Notability

From what I can gather no where near enough time was provided for the participants who helped write the article to establish proper notability. I suggest we give them more time.

Will you consider restoring the page provided a notability tag be attached? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefifthlord (talk • contribs) 19:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

When there is a consensus in an Afd that an article is not notable, we delete the article. It doesn't matter how much time we give it, if there is not significant coverage in reliable sources it should be deleted. If you can offer evidence of significant coverage, I may be able to undelete the article though. Or you can apply to have the deletion overturned at WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark Arsten, I see you keep stating that“…the supporters of deletion argued convincingly that the subject had not received significant coverage in reliable sources.” U repeated yourself when u said, “…if there is not significant coverage in reliable sources it should be deleted.” However, there are plenty of extremely reliable sources that were provided. In other words the real question is who is deciding what is “significant coverage in reliable sources” and what isn’t. Here is a link to the GoldCoin Official Repository https://github.com/goldcoin/gldcoin where you will find detailed information about what the program is and what it is actually doing. Here is a quick explanation “GoldCoin (GLD) - an improved version of Litecoin using scrypt as a proof of work scheme. • 2.5 minute block targets up till block 45000 • 2 minute block targets there after • 504 blocks per difficulty re GoldCoin (GLD) - an improved version of Litecoin using scrypt as a proof of work scheme. • 2.5 minute block targets up till block 45000 • 2 minute block targets there after • 504 blocks per difficulty retarget up to block 45000 • 60 blocks per difficulty retarget thereafter • target up to block 45000 • 60 blocks per difficulty retarget thereafter“ You can also contact the developers of this program at http://gldcoin.com/contact-us/ who would be more than happy to explain their work to you ;) Nihondino (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)nihondino

I'm sure it's a great program, but that's kind of a red herring here. Whether something is ingenious or junk doesn't affect its notability. What we look for is coverage by established sources that are independent of the subject, i.e. newspapers, magazines, etc. If you can point some of those out to me, there's a chance the article could be undeleted. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/reuvencohen/2013/11/27/the-top-30-crypto-currency-market-capitalizations-in-one-place/

Notable enough yet to restore the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefifthlord (talk • contribs) 18:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That is certainly a reliable source, but I think it's only trivial coverage, not significant coverage. Seems like it would be best mentioned on a list of currencies or something. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I see, would you humor me then and remove any/all of the pages for coins that are on that list but don't fit the "extensive coverage" requirement? Seems a bit biased to remove just goldcoin and not ,for example, anoncoin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.175.227.84 (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated a couple similar pages for deletion, so I wasn't just picking on one article. I haven't looked at the page on anoncoin, but it is possible that it should be deleted. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Challenge Deletion of Article: Peter Pakeman

Hi Mark, I’ve revisited the criteria for an athlete in Wikipedia:Notability (sports) and would like to challenge to the decision and have the it reversed, because I'm confident that the subject of the article meets one or more of Wiki’s notability requirements: (1) Association football (soccer); and (2) Amateur sports person/ College athlete. Clearly, the subject of the article is not a super-star. He is not famous or popular. His professional career was brief, similar to the subjects of other Wikipedia articles, where their notability was as brief and where, in some cases, a single link or reference is provided. However, unlike the subjects of other articles, the article about my subject provides references about his success over a period of approximately 10-15 years. In your deliberations I would ask that you keep in mind the saying that “the sum of the parts is greater than the whole.” Below are the relevant criteria and explanations about how the subject of my article meets the criteria.

Association football (soccer) - Players who have appeared in a fully professional league (list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football), will generally be regarded as notable. EXPLANATION- The subject of the article was a call-up, and played three games with the North York Rockets in the Canadian Soccer League (CSL). Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above. EXPLANATION- As an amateur (youth), the subject of the article played with the Toronto Falcons and Toronto Italia in the National Soccer League (NSL), a professional soccer league in Canada that existed from 1926 to 1997. In 1977 and 1978, he played with the Toronto Jets, a farm team to the Toronto Falcons and Toronto Italia. During those years he was called-up to play on the parent teams. Amateur sports persons- College athletes are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other coverage. EXPLANATION- In his senior year (1983), the subject of the article he received an individual award at the national level, by being selected to play at the ISAA Senior Soccer Bowl Classic, a forum where top college soccer players could compete in an all-star game and where professional soccer scouts could come to see America's best players. Both the NCCA and the ISAA also have longstanding roots in sports. However, unlike the NCAA, which has its roots in rowing and football, the ISSA, which was founded in 1926, was created for and supported soccer, only. The first NCCA, All-American award/selection occurred in 1973, a year after the first ISAA the Senior Soccer Bowl Classic game was played. While the NCAA All-American award may be more widely recognized, individuals selected to play in the ISAA the Senior Soccer Bowl Classic were also being recognized at the national level. Notwithstanding the fact that the some of the article's references came under scrutiny, they were credible/ non-trivial sources related to the subject: playing with the North York Rockets in the Canadian Soccer League (CSL); and being recognized at the national-level by playing in the ISAA the Senior Soccer Bowl Classic.

Note #1: The subject of the article assures me that he is confident he can obtain the appropriate permission for the recently deleted reference that confirms he played with the North York Rockets.

Note #2: The subject of the article also assures me that another reference can be provided to confirm his selection to playing in the ISAA the Senior Soccer Bowl Classic.)Xave2000 (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, first of all, you have to provide sources to back up your claims. Can you do so? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Most of these references were already present in the article. The reference to him playing with the North York Rockets was called in question, and removed (see Note #1).Xave2000 (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mark (and Xave) - Pakeman never played in a fully professional league so he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. He also appears to fail WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 09:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The Canadian Soccer League (CSL) is a fully professional soccer league, and it is listed under Canada (incl. North York Rockets). I just checked it and the CSL exists, so I'm not sure why this is being raised as an issue. You can check for yourself.Xave2000 (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
One of the criteria for NFOOTBALL (soccer) is: "2. Players who have played... in a fully professional league". As previously mentioned, the reference to him playing with the North York Rockets was called in question, and removed (see Note #1).Xave2000 (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
It would be helpful to know why a CSL publication would not be viewed as a reliable and independent source. I would also ask for some feedback on his notability as an Amateur (College Athlete)-- here, again, it would be helpful to know why one or more of the many references provided would not be viewed as reliable and independent. Please note that I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm simply trying to understand. Thank you.Xave2000 (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
So where is the source that he played in the CSL? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The reference was contained in the article. If you are able to access the article and the reference, you might want to search and find North York Rockets in Wikipedia, scroll to "References". As I understand it, Ref #1 was the main (static) publication for the team, and Ref #2 was an insert that served the purpose of providing soccer fans with up-to-date information about the team. Ref. #2 is the August 1987 insert, where you will find reference to the subject. As previously noted (see above for Note #1), this reference was called into question re: permissions and was deleted. Further, the subject of the article assures me that he is confident he can obtain the appropriate permission for the recently deleted reference that confirms he played with the North York Rockets. I am not in possession of Ref #2, so if you are able to access it, then great. Otherwise, I will have to ask the subject to get a copy to you.Xave2000 (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I checked the deleted revisions of article but couldn't find a full text of the reference. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I will contact the subject and have him help you find it.Xave2000 (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The location of the text where I am named is in the third paragraph under the section, ROCKET UPDATE.InPerpetuity (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The third paragraph of which document? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The North York Rockets Program Insert, August 1987 that was recently deleted. InPerpetuity (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I haven't made myself clear here, but I need you to link me to a document that clearly confirms this. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I understand your request. Above, Xave2000 is trying to tell you that the reference document (i.e., the North York Rockets Program Insert, August 1987) originally uploaded to Wiki was recently deleted from Wiki. It is within this same deleted documented (i.e., the North York Rockets Program Insert, August 1987) where I am named. The broken link for the reference document still exists and can be found if you search for the Wikipedia article on the North York Rockets. If you are unable to access the deleted/archived document then I could email a version to you.InPerpetuity (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Mark. I'm checking back to see if you were successful with obtaining the archived version of the the North York Rockets Program Insert, August 1987 recently deleted from Wiki. If not, then please let me know how I can get a copy to you. Thanks for your efforts.InPerpetuity (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Why make Mark's life hard. The deleted pdf seems to be File:North York Rockets Program Insert (August 1987).pdf and it was less hard to find than to wade through the clues. If you want help please make the person you ask's life easy. Fiddle Faddle 17:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I see where it says he was called on a three-game trial for the Rockets, but I don't see where it confirms that he actually saw playing time. You might want to contact an admin from the soccer wikiproject to check as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
My apologies for not being more specific. I am not trying to make anyone's life difficult. You are correct in what you read; however, it is unlikely that extensive statistics on players (e.g., games played) were ever prepared-- none that I've come across. That being said, if Wiki's position is that confirmation of a player actually seeing playing time is required, then none of the players identified in the Official Program (File:North York Rockets Official Program (1987).pdf, for example, or any other CSL team for that matter would be considered notable, unless of course they happened to score a goal, for example, where basic statistics such as this might be more readily available).InPerpetuity (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Europium

You recently reverted some vandalism to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europium, but missed some in the Europium as a nuclear fission product section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.80.25 (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that might actually be on a template or something, I'm not seeing it in the article itself. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, it seems to be gone now... how strange. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway Talk/FAR

On the FAR you said "I've reviewed the article and the comments here and have concluded that this FAR is completely meritless" and also "Animosity ... also seems to be motivating some of the above comments". I had quoted the main editor on the page: "(redacted quote, Overagainst)"

He decided to leave that on the talk archive, and stood by it as representative of his sense of humour. You may have had thought it poor form of me to bring that up. Yet when Anthonyhcole (who had a lot of hard work ahead of him) was a bit mocking and disrespectful about another editor you slapped him down hard on the Talk page, then judged him very harshly: "In my experience, few good-faith editors begin their involvement with a dispute by announcing their intent to mock the other participants."

Etiquette is a means, not an end in itself. Keeping everything serene on talk pages is desirable to produce better articles, sure. (It's also good tactics, I regret some of my remarks.) But most important is keeping the article encyclopedic about real people in the real world who are not hiding behind pseudonyms. The lack of drama at the 'Death of Gareth Williams' may be because there is nothing there about his parent's private lives (though newspaper coverage critical of them of them has appeared). While an editor's etiquette on talk pages is indeed relevant to the quality of his edits, BLP issues ought not to be judged simply by determining who is being most disrespectful about another editor .Overagainst (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, your concerns have been noted. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
There is some concern over that quote so I have taken the liberty of redacting my first comment, if that is OK. There is a discussion of the matter at BLP Noticeboard here.Overagainst (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
This seems to be getting further and further from a discussion of the content of the actual article... Mark Arsten (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

List of aircraft carriers in service

I have another editor opposing Enok edit, so I shouldn't need your assistance. Thanks anyway, Rob (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

afd closings

On the log for Nov 10, I'd guess you started at the top, not the bottom, and ignored the time stamps, as of course you know that except for explicit SNOW or speedy, 7 days = 7 times 24 hours, not the beginning of the 7th day. (I do not have any objection to any of the actual closings). DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't agree. If the outcome is clear, I don't think it matters if it has not been exactly 168 hours since the discussion was opened. If it has only been 165 hours but the outcome is clear, what is the harm of closing it then? I'll make sure I work from the bottom of the list in the future though. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, if you can point me to a discussion where there was a solid consensus behind an exact 168 hour rule, I will certainly abide by that. But looking at the WT:AFD archives here and here I don't see a solid support for that. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

?

Adeptzare3 (talk): Why were my edits to 91730738691298 considered vandalism?

The text of the article was "In base 36, 91730738691298 is WIKIPEDIA." That is not a helpful contribution. Articles in Wikipedia should be about notable subjects, not just random facts one has learned. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Adeptzare3 (talk): All right, but you shouldn't have considered it vandalism. —Preceding undated comment added 00:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

My apologies if you were offended by my remark. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you please look at this archival

I suspect you left a line or two off when you archived Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PrincessKannapolis. I could probably have made a decent fist of adding it, but I think this is an area of Wikipedia where the well meaning editor is best speaking to the archiving admin instead. It seems to me that the link does not link to the archived case. Fiddle Faddle 09:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, good catch, I'll blame that on a script error. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems to be showing up now, oddly enough. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Let's go with "I blame MediaWiki software" then! :) Fiddle Faddle 10:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Request page unprotection

I wanted to suggest you that this page Singh Saab the Great should be unprotected because it is a very small stub , and chances should be given to the users who are not autoconfirmed to provide content for this page. If it is possible then please unprotect it so that more content can be added on this page. --Param Mudgal (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The protection should expire shortly, I believe. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Really good work against vandalism! Keep it up! :D Vapenhandelkosovo (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome, glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Jenna von Oÿ

This has been vandalized for a long time. Is longer protection necessary? --George Ho (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll take another look through the history later. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

KITTEH

I gives yuh kitteh!

Vapenhandelkosovo (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Review: Carol Kicinski

Hi Mark, I wrote to you last week about the Carol Kicinski article. I read your reply about needing additional sources and I'd like to request that you open the article back up so I may go in and add some more sources. During the time that I was first writing the article I had a few other projects I was working on and I wasn't able to pay as much attention to the sources and other information in the article but I recently found about 8 more sources and I'd like a chance to add them to the article to see if that improves it. Also, I'd like to combine the Carol Kicinski article with two others that I've been working on and that should also help add additional sources and notoriety as well. I would greatly appreciate the chance to improve this article, as I mentioned before this is my first article and I'd like to get it right.

Thank you, --M.Renae (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

So what are the sources that you'd like to use? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Here are some of the links I'd like to add:
http://www.celiaccentral.org/NFCA-s-10th-Anniversary/10-Years-of-NFCA-Personal-Stories/10-Years-of-NFCA-Personal-Stories/925/vobid--10025/ (shows she is in with the NFCA, a major organization in the gluten free & celiac world)
http://wholesomesweeteners.com/Recipes/FeaturedChefs/featuredchefrecipes/tabid/178/UserId/68/Carol-Kicinski.aspx (shows that she does recipe development for them)
http://www.americanpistachios.org/users/carol-kicinski(shows recipe development)
http://www.san-j.com/carolkicinski.asp(shows recipe development)
http://www.oregonlive.com/foodday/index.ssf/2011/07/with_a_nut_crust_mascarpone_be.html (book review written by Oregonian)
http://tbo.com/dining/dunedin-author-offers-recipes-for-gluten-free-goodies-243413 (book review written by Tampa Tribune)
http://www.tonawanda-news.com/feature/x1909739832/SIMPLY-GLUTEN-FREE-Get-ready-for-football-season-with-a-delicious-dip (shows that she has been published in newspapers, this is one of her published articles in the Tonawanda News in New York, I have at least 5 more links for different articles that she's had published)
http://gfafwellnesspresentations.blogspot.com/ (shows her as a presenter for the Gluten & Allergen Free Wellness Event)
http://www.youtube.com/user/simplyglutenfree (Shows her Daytime TV show segments. I know this is content posted by her company, but the videos are from Daytime TV. This is an important source in establishing her notability because one of the main ways she is known is from this syndicated show. I would use Daytime's website for this instead but they update their site so often with new clips so if I put a link to one of Carol's clips it might not show up later when someone goes to visit the site)

Let me know what you think. I'm still looking for more in the meantime. Thanks, --M.Renae (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, the only sources there that look good for notability purposes are the two book reviews. Can you find more like them? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I also found this one: http://www.northjersey.com/food_dining/051811_In_Your_Kitchen_Salted_Peanut_Caramel_Brownies.html
What about the different food company websites like Wholesome Sweeteners? Those show that she does recipe development. And the Daytime shows can't be used either? It's sometimes difficult to find tons of sources out there because gluten-free is still a pretty new niche market and there are only so many sources out there. She has been published in newspapers and magazines, is on TV and she is also the editor-in-chief of a national magazine, I can prove all those things with the sources I provided on the article and that I just listed above, but I understand they might not be considered independent of her but again that's sort of difficult as it's still a growing market. I could show you a physical copy of the magazine or the online edition to show she is the editor-in-chief, but that is from her company's site so that might not be approved either. I also have some physical sources (books, magazines, etc.) that might not be available online, is there a way to show those? --M.Renae (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few more I have:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/dining/gluten-free-dishes-become-a-lot-more-tempting.html?_r=0
http://eastvillage.thelocal.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/a-guide-to-gluten-free-eating/
http://dunedin.patch.com/groups/around-town/p/dunedin-womans-cookbook-features-gluten-free-desserts
— Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Renae (talk • contribs) 19:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I suggest you file a request for undeletion at WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent socking

Hey, Mark. Thanks for cleaning up the dirty sock drawer. I am pretty certain that Mrwallace05 is indef blocked User:Plant's Strider. Will the old CUs on PS confirm this, or will I need to open another SPI? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, you could try filing a new SPI, but the data on him may be stale at this point since he hasn't edited in a while. How certain are you about the behavioral similarities? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I was under the impression that because PS had been CUed before, that the IP info stays on file. Is that not correct? As far as behavior, well Mrwallace05 has been careful not to say too much in talk or in edit summaries, but they have 20 pages in common with PS and Y45ed has 24 pages in common. I am pretty certain that either this is yet another PS sock, or the sock master wants it to look like it is. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like it may be worth filing an SPI then. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
If PS has an IP on file from his last CU, can that be compared to the recent CU on Mrwallace05? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
We're getting "above my pay grade" at this point... I don't know too many technical details about how the checkuser software works. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Right on, I've asked the Check User clerk the same question. Thanks again for your help. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
No prob. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Join WikiProject Microsoft!

Why don't you join WikiProject Microsoft?

It seems that you have been editing Microsoft-related articles, so why don't you consider joining WikiProject Microsoft, not to be confused with WikiProject Microsoft Windows. WikiProject Microsoft is a group of editors who are willing to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Microsoft, its technologies, Web-based sites and applications, its important people, and share interests regarding Microsoft. This WikiProject is in the process of being revived and is welcoming any and all editors who are willing to help out with the process. Add your name to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft/Participants and/or add the userbox {{User WikiProject Microsoft}}. Thanks! User:Mark Arsten (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bob3jh Inquiry

Hey, we haven't got a chance to meet but I was wondering what happened to the SPI since it got closed and archived rather quickly. Thanks! Baseball Watcher 23:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I closed it because it did not appear likely that one person was controlling both accounts. Since they separately wrote articles about different students at the same school almost simultaneously, it seems much more likely to me that they're friends rather than one person controlling both accounts. If they keep editing and get involved on the same subject, we should reevaluate though. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I just wish I had a chance to put forth more of an explanation before it was closed Baseball Watcher 03:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, feel free to explain more if you like. Or let me know if anything else turns up. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Aaliyah promo.jpg

Hey Mark, This file has not been deleted yet and it has been more than seven days. 63.92.231.105 (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Might want to ask someone else, I don't do much disputed non-free work. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry!

I was using huggle app to warn to revert the ips unconstructive edits and it said your warning was less issued then seconds agof. so I decided to manually warn the Ip not knowing I accidently warned you. Dont worry I undid it. Dreth 00:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I figured that's what it was :) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Puloma

My friend Nvvchar wanted to move User:Nvvchar/sandbox/Puloma to Puloma, but inadvertently created Wikipedia:Puloma and User:Puloma. Can you please delete the latter two and merge the history for Puloma. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I got it... let me know if something's not right. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC
Thanks for the prompt response.--Redtigerxyz Talk 04:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Miss_Universe_2014*

You salted Miss Universe 2014*, I think because a page was being repeatedly recreated at that title. Could you unsalt it so I can redirect it to Miss Universe 2014 (or redirect it yourself if you'd prefer), it got 3,810 views on Sunday. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I misread the statistics, it got 3,810 views last week, not on Sunday. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

User ip 111.243.34.140

Hi, please notice , this User ip 111.243.34.140 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/111.243.34.140 , Vandalism a lot of article, please stop it , thank you Buglerazedg21dnlole (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, in most cases accounts should be given a warning before they're blocked. Is there a good reason to block without warning here? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The IP isn't vandalizing, by the way. Just very, very strong POV-pushing on the Republic of China/Taiwan issue amongst a fair few pages. Might be an IP-sock of someone, as all they seem to do is reverting other people's edits. Which, in combination with a highly sensitive subject and the strong POV pushing, raises some flags for me. Could be wrong, of course, as I haven't dug deep enough to say whether they likely are or not, though, just enough to see it's a possibility. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Johnstown

Mark, explain how my edits on Johnstown, Navan were nonconstructive. I don't see what was wrong with them. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.228.18 (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you referred to a team as "GAAY", so I thought you were insulting them. Is this actually a gay team? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for all of the work you do on Wikipedia! Clarkcj12 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Crossdressing

Hi mark can you please explain how my crossdressing edit was disruptive I was. Just making a statement saying that was a fetish and used for fun by males ? Nikigoyal (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't revert that edit, actually. It was automatically reverted by a bot here. The bot occasionally makes mistakes, so you can restore your text if you like. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

DANCING IN THE MOON LIGHT EVERYBODY'S FEELING WARM AND BRIGHT IT'S SUCH A FINE AN NATURAL SIGHT EVERYBODY'S DANCING IN THE MOONLIGHT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.228.18 (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Request to Check Article

I would like to request you look at this articles history page College of Engineering and Management, Kolaghat. If you look at it there are two accounts there. User:Jecob8888 and User:Jecob88888 I am not sure but would that be counted as edit warring, or what because they have similar usernames and by doing that they prevent other people from editing the article. As what there auto undoing is that it keeps blanking a section and back. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Odd... I've protected it for now, could you leave a note on their talk pages explaining the situation to them? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I will do that. But what kind of message should it be? Edit warring? --Clarkcj12 (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, Edit warring/BRD/Talk page, and maybe ask why the usernames are almost the same. If you don't mind. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that User:Jecob8888 just made an edit to User:Jecob88888 userpage which you may want to take a look at? --Clarkcj12 (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks You --Clarkcj12 and Mark Arsten. I am User:Jecob8888 and was the main contributor to write College of Engineering and Management, Kolaghat. But User:Jecob88888 user is a false user to try to put some content that is not true. Every time the user try put notable alumni section with couple of alumni's name (Abir Chattopadhyay , Debartha Banerjee,Reema Mukherjee ,Sawon Pratiher ,Sabyasachi Mukhopadhyay ,Parichay Das , Rohit Samanta) . I think the college is very new and after doing some research I don't found anything notable for the mentioned alumnus. I think the User:Jecob88888 try self proclaim or glorify himself/herself. And I think he/she is one of the 7 person mentioned in notable alumni section. Every time I try to delete the section, next day he will revert back the section. So I request the admin to protect the page. —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've blocked him for impersonating your username. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Your RfPP pings

Hi there. I've just logged back in and seen that you pinged me yesterday. My view would be that we shouldn't be changing semi to TPE/full en masse, but that individual cases is fine if it fits whatever that admin's view of WP:HRT is. I think that's the consensus on the talk page as well. Personally, I look for at least 1000 transclusions, so I'd personally protect those two templates as they're both well over that. The templates were Template:Wikiproject Punk music/class and Template:IMDb episode, to save you having to look them up, if you're planning on changing them. :) GedUK  12:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Miss.Dina Rae. But the question of overlap is still open: just before you closed it, User:Miss.Dina Rae marked her user page "Account disabled" [8], whatever that means. User:H.Mandem has been blocked as a sock of Miss.Dina Rae, but User:MariaHickment13 was blocked by another admin as a sock of User:MariaJaydHicky. User:Miss.Dina Rae, the subject of the SPI, hasn't been blocked yet. Are they all socks of MariaJaydHicky? Should the two SPIs be merged? Ruby Murray 20:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I dropped the ball there... I thought MDR was already indeffed. Fixed now. As to whether they're all socks of another named user, I can't answer. You'd have to ask the checkuser about that, all I'm going off of is what she posted on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Miss.Dina Rae. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Clash of Clans

This article has so many reverts, including counting "accepted" revisions that reverted bad edits. --George Ho (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you bring this up with the admin who applied pending changes to the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Is the snow fall heavy enough?

Please check out this AFD[9]....William 23:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little hesitant since someone was giving me a hard time over the weekend about early closures. This does look like it's heading for a clear SNOW though. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Vince is a Nice_guy

It's important for everyone to know that Vince Ness is a nice guy. The picture helps show that he is nice, because he's on the entry for "Nice guy." How else will everybody know he's nice? Well, I guess they could follow him on Twitter and learn how nice he is, but that seems unnecessary. We should just make sure to show everyone that he's nice right on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skibum8713 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this is Vince. I am nice. I am a nice guy. I do not understand why I wouldn't be the photo for this page. I am very nice. Please correct this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.37.58 (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Very funny :) Mark Arsten (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to think this is all a joke, Mark. It's not. Vince is a nice guy and the world needs to know that. Laugh it up wherever you want to do so but Vince's niceness is no laughing matter. Please try to be more respectful with regards to the Nice Guy picture in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.174.242 (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Vince again. I am not laughing. I am nice and it is mean to laugh. What is funny here? Who is the joke on? You are confusing me, Mr. Arsten. Please, let's get back to the topic at hand- returning my picture to its rightful place on the Nice Guy Entry. I have had enough jokes for one day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.37.58 (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but per our verifiability policy we need a reliable source to confirm that Vince is, in fact, a nice guy. He could be trying to trick us, no? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Good reads on Sockpuppets

In case you missed it, here are some articles on mass sockpuppets on Wikipedia that you could use in the future:

Just wanted to share this with you since you contribute a lot on WP:SPI! ///EuroCarGT 03:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I'll give them a read/listen. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Unclear clarifications

About closing this (which I appreciate), would you mind actually posting this allegedly clarified definition? Even though I know (from seeing this problem over and over) what Bbb23 is thinking, I think that the definition is just about as clear as mud. Ideally, I'd like to have this clarification posted directly in WP:EW.

If the clarified definition is the expansive one, then we need to give fair warning to people who engage in collaborative editing that this can get them blocked. If it's the narrower one, in which an actual revert (as in going back to a pre-existing version of a sentence) is is required, then the clarified definition will help rein in admins who have an unusually expansive concept. But if we don't post the clarification, then we're just going to have more grievances from people who didn't happen to have guessed what this bit of jargon means.

And, having said all that, if, after this conversation, you find yourself unable to write out an accurate definition and get people to agree to it, then I guess we didn't actually clarify it at all. I'm really hoping that won't prove to be the case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's the technical definition of a revert ("undoing the effects of one or more edits") and then there's the commonly accepted definition of edit warring ("repeatedly overrid[ing] each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion"). I believe (and I think this is in line with how most of my fellow admins see things) that a number of technical reverts can take place without violating the spirit of the prohibition on edit warring. For example, it could happen while updating a page on a current event or copyediting a confusingly written article. If someone were to block an editor in one of these situations, I'd expect to see the block overturned. Edit warring blocks are only likely to gain consensus if the parties have chosen to pursue their disagreements by repeated reverting instead of discussion. I think this is how most admins go about deciding whether to block users. Does this clarify things? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
And then there's the one put forward by Bbb23 in that discussion, which is "Technically, any change, no matter how small to the text of an article, is a revert." I think that a reasonable person looking over that section is going to assume from your closing statement that you endorse his definition.
Which means that, if your user talk page were an article, I'd be "reverting" you by posting this comment. So perhaps you would like to join me at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Definition of "Revert" and "Undo", and we'll see if we can come up with a definition of "reverting" that is not a synonym for "editing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, adding new content to an article is not a revert, unless that content has previously been removed. Changing the existing text could be seen as a revert, but, like I said, unless it's part of a pattern of repeated changes in the face of some opposition it will likely not be seen as problematic. These things often involve judgment calls, and admins have to consider both the letter and the spirit of the rules. I'll take a look at that discussion you linked to when I have some spare time. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
"Well, adding new content to an article is not a revert, unless that content has previously been removed." -- It was pointed out in the AN thread that if, for example, someone adds the word "not" to a controversial statement to negate the factual sense of the sentence that was just inserted, that could be construed as a technical revert even though it's the adding of new content that had never before been removed. "Prof. X is a scientist" to "Prof. X is not a scientist." is considered a revert for the purposes of WP:3RR. jps (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. I was thinking in terms of expansions to the article when I said "new content". Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Cite doi/doc/format

You [Special:Log&type=protect&page=Template:Cite_doi/doc/format here] protected a /doc text. Was that intentional? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It might have been an instance of getting tabs confused, actually. I don't recall exactly. I've unprotected it though now. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Christ article vandal

Hi Mark,

I saw that you reverted some of their edits (and I got the rest) but there are a few pages they've vandalised again. So another semi may be required:

And these are the IPs this time:

Do you think it's worth filing an SPI so we have them on a central record somewhere? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs)

Hmm, I would agree with semi-protection and maybe a range block here. Do you think I'm WP:INVOLVED? I reverted him a bunch of times tonight. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
No not at all involved, reverting something which has previously been decided is disruptive/vandalism on ANI (something which you only contributed to by adding another block at the end) and for which the user has previously been blocked, rangeblocked and pages protected. Same as reverting edits from an account/IP, blocking it for 31 hours then following up with an indef/longer block if they continue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've protected those pages. I guess this qualifies as the block evasion exemption anyway. Do you recall what the previous rangeblock parameters were/who issued it? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Does 75.51.160.0/20 sound right? I've just blocked it for a month. I see now that User:Kww blocked 166.216.226.0/24 a couple weeks ago. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
And it appears that it's Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ararat arev that we're dealing with. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
This is 75.51.160.0/20 and this is 166.216.226.0/24. So that shows that there is a bit of long term blocking going on with those ranges as well. And the blocking admin was User:JodyB.
Well the LTA case makes reverting and blocking much easier.
Out of interest how did you find the LTA link? Feel free to email if you've got BEANS concerns. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, phew, glad to see that I got the right range. I noticed the connection to AA based on edits that the 75.51* range was making to Hayk, actually. Apparently this user has quite the history on Armenian topics! Mark Arsten (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Haha, yep sure did. There you go, I dismissed it as a good edit and possibly a different person. Looks like the ruse worked on me. Lucky there was another pair of eyes watching what was going on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Larrypooplinson

Hello. I noticed your indef-block notification at User talk:Larryfuckstylinson regarding a vandalism-only account and username policy violation. May I ask you to also have a look at User talk:Larrypooplinson? It seems to have the same issues and to be a probable sock. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Fucking Machines thanks

Thanks for your copy editing help at Fucking Machines.

I've trimmed the lede a bit more in size, and I think it looks a bit better.

What do you think?

— Cirt (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that does look better. Very interesting article you have there! I'll try to read the rest and make some copyedits as I go. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, thank you! Yes, it's part of my theme of improving articles related to freedom of speech and censorship along the topic. Fuck (film) was recently promoted to WP:FA, and Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties to WP:GA. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Wow, congrats on the promotions! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! The former was not easy to get promoted to FA, but a fun effort. The latter has had a copy edit and may be up for peer review some time soon. And then there's Go the Fuck to Sleep, which would be really neat to get to GA at some point. — Cirt (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


Ali Arshad Mir

well sarcastically, thank you mark for blocking me and my friend's account and blaming us for sock puppeting. i just wanted to ask you , from where the hell i would bring copyright image of a man , who died 5 years ago , if we all have one and only one portrait of that man and that i am posting it on wikipedia from my own facebook page , how the hell i would bring a copyright? and i you people dont have any proof of sock puppeting, google it , the only picture you will find is from my blog and facebook page now why i am supposed to bring copyright?? and if yes then how , please tell the procedure. i tried to pay some tribute to my uncle ,who was a noble renowned man, by making an article on wiki, o that more and more people come to know about his work, but i am really pissed off by the way wiki guys always delete the pic i upload on copyright basis. please help else i am bound to delete my article about Ali Arshad Mir from wiki. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davinci81191 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's deal with one thing at a time: when did I block you? It doesn't look like you've been blocked before. If you were blocked under a different account, please log into that account and post an unblock request. You will have to explain why it looked like you were using more than one account. Were you coordinating your editing with someone else? Also, do you have question about images? If you took a picture of someone you can release it under a free license, but if you did not take the picture you cannot. A picture that you did not take can be used if you have a fair use claim. See Wikipedia:Image use policy. You might also want to talk to User:Diannaa, who deleted one of the images as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

UP Protection

Mark, could you please protect my user page? Since, i won't be here for a while. Thanks. --    L o g  X   22:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

What a coincidence, I was just doing so when you left this message :) Hope to see you around soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Mark! I will miss WP a lot! :( --    L o g  X   22:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverts!

You and I are zeroing in on the same pages in the recent changes page or something. Every time I see vandalism, it was just reverted by you! Keep it up!
BenYes? 01:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's funny. Sorry about any edit conflicts :) Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Haven't had one yet… :)
BenYes? 02:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

International Debutante Ball

Hello Mark Arsten, The same person is trying to add the same unknown family names yet again to the International Debutante Ball page without discussing. It is the same person again making different account and is unwilling to discuss this issue and just consistently reverting edits. It seems they have waited until the temporary protection of the page ran out and are trying to add these names again with multiple fake accounts without discussing. Please could you protect this page to prevent people trying to add unknown names to the lists (presumably their own names or names linked to them) without even discussing this and just repeating the 'undo' option. Please advise further. I personally see this as vandalism and would suggest that the accounts should be blocked.

Thanks --1wikideb1 (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've blocked the most recent account on username grounds. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, although I do fear that they will persist in trying to add these names to the page and they seem unwilling to discuss this issue. The latest account threatened to 'block' me if I did not let them add these names...--1wikideb1 (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let me know if problems persist. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your help.--1wikideb1 (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

IntDebBall

Mark:

Regarding your block of this user, I had posted several comments about their behavior on the user page, which they deleted. Could youtake a look to see if a hard block without talk page access is justified? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Mark Arstern Loser

Wanted to let you know. Sock of User:IntDebBall. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 05:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I edit conflicted trying to post the same thing. User:Caretwind and User:WrappedInBlue are earlier socks. All should be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the note guys, I've blocked the two most recent socks. I'll look into their past accounts later. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I blocked Caretwind, I'm not sure that WrappedInBlue's edits are clear enough to block for the duck test. Feel free to ask a CU though. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Having taken a second look, I agree with you on WrappedInBlue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if it was on the basis of CU data or not, but jpgordon blocked WrappedInBlue, as well as Prettyinkypink, Roysdeb23, BYEHIHIBYE and HIBYEBYEHI as socks of IntDebBall. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

AIV

Hi Mark, I'm guessing you're probably busy but there are a bunch of reports on WP:AIV if you have some time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I just did a few, but I'm about out of energy for the night. Try asking an admin listed here if anything else comes up. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Flow92, German vandal

This guy caused you to place a block on Nissan Vanette - well, it has expired and the vandalism is back in full force through countless ips (89.204.139.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 82.113.121.248 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 89.204.137.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 89.204.135.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 89.204.138.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 89.204.139.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 89.204.137.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 89.204.130.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 82.113.106.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) . Help, please.  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I think I blocked them all. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what to do

Hello Mark, I am dealing with a situation where one person has seemingly created four accounts, User: Kendra Citizen, User: YoungMontana40, User: Bradley Citizen and User:Lloyd Citizen. If you view any of their contributions it is pretty obvious. In the various account the person constantly creates hoax articles, most of the time copying an entire article such as Young Montana (rapper)/Ace Hood and Young Boy Entertainment/Young Money Entertainment and just changing a few minor things such as names of songs, dates and the subjects name. They are seemingly all SPA to promote Young Montana (rapper). Most of their actions also constitute trolling, see User talk:STATicVapor#Young Montana and User talk:STATicVapor/Archive 5: October 2013-#Bad Boy Records. Not sure what to start a sockpuppet investigation about, as there are no active blocks (as far as I can tell), and they do not necessarily use the accounts to edit war. But what they are doing is definitely not right, or allowed. STATic message me! 19:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind User: Kinu took care of it. STATic message me! 19:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

WUH/CKG as a destination listed under SFO/LAX respectively

They are non-direct flights served by CES air "extended" from the Shanghai PVG hub. Both PVG-WUH, PVG-CKG are domestic flights. The user (HkCaGu) has been constantly trying to block/revert other users edits without giving his own solid references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.236.14 (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I need more context and fewer initialisms here: which page are you talking about?
@HkCaGu: Can you comment here? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This IP is talking about San Francisco International Airport which you protected last week. Last week it was multiple IPs from the University of Southern California constantly reverting me and another experienced WP:AIRPORT editor. This roaming IP (I have to believe it's one person) continues to chase after this matter, which if to be brought up (I have no interest in doing this) should be brought up to WT:AIRPORT. If the two IPs from today are one person, it's already beyond 3RR. HkCaGu (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Well, I have no opinion about the substance of this content dispute, but you both have broken WP:3RR today. I've decided to protect the page instead of issuing blocks though. Please discuss the issue on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Mark, hi. I just stumbled upon and removed this from Deletion log to Airport Talk, and notified 50.242.236.14, with the invitation to put it back if it is really what he/she intended. I then noticed your note to 50.242.236.14 and decided I should also quickly copy this to you. If my removal from the deletion log to project talk was in anyway wrong please undo it or tell me to undo it. Intention was to remove clutter from Deletion log template to a more appropriate venue. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
No, that's fine. Thanks for doing that. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

lunar images

Thanks for transferring some of my uploaded images to the commons. If it makes it easier, they are all on my user page, and I think all of them have been flagged for transfer by Sfan00_IMG. Jstuby (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. There's a lot of images there! I'll try to do some more in my spare time. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A new battleground?

While I don't feel so lonely anymore, I fear Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions itself is becoming another battleground. – S. Rich (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I left a few thoughts of my own after the warnings. I haven't spent as much time watching the Austrian topics lately, what with the election and some other drama I got involved with. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

On the subject of the sanctions, I believe that most of the most frequent recent editors have been notified now, but it might be worth also posting the template at the others' talk pages so that we can get past the templating. Looking through the article edit histories, I found a few more editors who have not received the notice. User:The Four Deuces, User:Binksternet, User:A Quest for Knowledge, and User:Arzel. There may be others. These were just from a quick look. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think everyone's notified now. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope everybody understands, per the AN discussion, that the template is meant only to be evidence of notification and not an accusation about misconduct. Onward and upward... SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it seems some people have unfortunately misunderstood the purpose of the notifications. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

BS warnings

Issuing warnings (whatever you want to call them) to uninvolved editors only serves to discourage outside input into disputes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry if you found that discouraging; it wasn't intended as a warning for misconduct. My view was just that it was a good thing for people who get involved in the often-acrimonious dispute to be aware of the sanctions. I decided to err on the side of caution in making sure everyone was aware of them. I apologize if you were offended by my comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark...I'd have to agree a bit with AQFK....especially since the above comment is the first edit he's made in a week.--MONGO 17:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

On the one hand I'd like to have more members in 'my club', but I think the "Notifications" section with vague messages from involved editors has served a negative purpose. As I said above, it was used as another venue for skirmishing. And why provide these specific notifications – the particular articles already have template warnings on the talk pages. I recommend purging the notification section – so on the other hand please leave my name on the list as I will enjoy the exclusivity. – S. Rich (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Not only had I not edited Wikipedia in a week, the edits to which Mark Arsten refers to were me engaging in WikiGnoming.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] I've WikiGnomed everything from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the Troubles to Mass killings under Communist regimes. This is the first time I've ever received a warning/alert for WikiGnoming. Mark might call them "alerts", but Template:Austrian economics sanctions still calls them "warnings".
So, can you please tell me, Mark, which of those WikiGnoming edits you find objectionable, and how can I mend my troubled ways? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't find any of these edits objectionable. I only notified you of the sanctions to make you aware of them. As Template:Austrian economics enforcement states, "This notice does not necessarily mean your current editing has been deemed a problem". I'm not sure why you think I gave you a warning, but I apologize if my wording wasn't clear. Template:Austrian economics sanctions does state that users must be warned before sanctions are imposed, but it does not state that the notifying individuals of the sanctions on the topic area is a warning. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm pissed off. I'm pissed off because - regardless of how you might want to spin it - you issued a warning to me when I did nothing wrong. Again, I do NOT edit Austrian economics topics. I made a small series of WikiGnoming edits and before that, someone brought a BLP issue to WP:RSN. That's it. Did you warn/alert every editor who many any edit - no matter how minor or uncontroversial - to an Australian economics article? I think not. So why am I being singled out?
Tell you what, how about a compromise? How about I'll notify myself?[17] Is this acceptable to you? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
That is an acceptable compromise to me; I think we can leave it at that. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
OK for now in my opinion. If this were to happen with Arbcom notifications I think that the removal of a name from a notification log could be taken to WP:Arbitration enforcement for further review. Since this is a community sanction the place to review such a dispute would be WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind for the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Boeing 777X AFD

Mark, could you give a rationale for why you closed the discussion as Merge, and state the conditions for its restoration? (Deletion review, or a mere split?) Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether to keep a separate article or merge into a parent is an editorial decision about how best to present the content. I felt in the Afd that there was a consensus to merge. Key arguments included "other aircraft variants are listed within their main airframe articles" and "Aircraft have their own page. And variants of that specific type are covered within the specific aircraft's page". As to how to get it back to its own article, you would have to have a discussion on Talk:Boeing 777 in which a consensus to spin out the material emerged. Does this answer your question? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Is there any recommended time limit on waiting for the split discussion, or can that be done at any time? I did a lot of work on the new article after most of the Merged comments were made, and I think it can stand alone at this point. Even so, I did the merge myself. I've done many splits of variant aircraft articles in the past, and worked on several similar articles such as the Boeing 737 MAX variant article. - BilCat (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm assuming that a split discussion is preferable to a Deletion review in this case, but I don't have much experience with the review process. I'm just trying to explore what is the best option at this point. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'd recommend waiting a few months to have a spin-off discussion, but I guess you could start one at any time. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I understand, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Inuit

Thanks so much for semi-protecting Inuit. That was quick! -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Glad to help :) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Would you take a look at Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe. My suggestion – hat the latest round of personal remarks, including those that have a tangential comment about article improvement. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I hatted some of the back and forth. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Mahmoud Fayed sock

Hope this doesn't come across as WP:DEADHORSE, but just to clarify what happened here - we think Fayed is probably switching between two accounts and using them to edit the same COI articles and talk pages, but there's no need for him to confirm or announce this, and he can carry on without acknowledging it, if he wants to? I was under the impression that undeclared socking was always a big deal. --McGeddon (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not Ok. I think we should wait a bit and see if he keeps doing it (since he was just warned about it). If he keeps it up we could take action. That's my thought at least, you could ask Reaper as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Żmien L-Ispanjoli

Could you userfy this for me? It was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Żmien L-Ispanjoli. If I remember correctly it may still have some potential. Thanks. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, have at it. Let me know how it turns out and we can talk about restoration. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Wow, now that's prompt service. If I get anywhere with it I'll get back to you. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Page protection fail. This isn't a bot bug, FYI. The request won't archive if it's not protected as indicated. Thought I'd let you know.—cyberpower ChatOnline 20:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you explain what went wrong here? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The page you claimed you fully protected for 1 week, isn't fully protected. That's what the bot is saying.—cyberpower ChatOnline 20:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, that's odd. I think it is actually fully protected. Could it be because I put one month down at first and then changed it to one week? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The bot is following the redirect since most pages listed end up being redirects. Since you protected the redirect, you might want to add  Requesting immediate archiving... to the request to have it archive.—cyberpower ChatOnline 20:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I think I understand now. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Just so you know, when you mark a request for protection/unprotection as granted, the bot checks to make sure it's protected in the manner stated. If not, it throws a message and won't archive until it is protected. The bot automatically follows redirects. So when you protect a redirect, the bot won't see it.—cyberpower ChatOnline 20:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
That's what was confusing me, I didn't think the bot followed redirects. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Help

Recently seen you edit Cedarbrae Collegiate Institute. The page is vandalized and I can't find the proper revision to restore the page to. Could you help? ///EuroCarGT 00:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure which (if any) was the last good revision. I just took a bunch of text out for now until it can be examined in more detail. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party

I see unconstructive edits discussed already in talk page and WP:DRN. And protection time is almost out, but there have been reverts lately. --George Ho (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mark Arsten. You have new messages at Jasper Deng's talk page.
Message added 06:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You did a good block but didn't cover the other /64. I'd hesitate on blocking a larger range for now. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You deleted my Wikipedia page

Mr. Arsten, I see that as an administrator you deleted my Wikipedia page. This page was not started by me and was up for a number of years. Quite a while ago I did make some corrections to the site and added links, but that was all. Interesting that you would delete my page. Was there any other rationale, other than suspecting that I had written the contents? Did you check for correctness of the information? Is the subject of a wikipedia page forbidden from making changes to their site's information?

Sincerely, Michael D. Fay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.194.202 (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

We do discourage people from writing articles about themselves, but it wasn't deleted for that reason. Rather, it was deleted because people felt that it did not meet the standards suggested by the general notability guideline. If you can offer evidence that you do meet this guideline, it may be possible to have the page restored. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Arsten, thank you for your quick response. I am not quite sure what is meant by "general notability'...however, I will provide you with a list of independent articles that have been researched and written about me, along with those pieces I've written and illustrated, and have been vetted by reliable journalistic sources. 

 While I understand that Wikipedia has a vested interest in stopping and eliminating false information, my site I can assure you had none of these. I have garnered attention as the official combat artist for the Marines directly from my work and exhibitions and do not need to 'self-promote'.

Even today I conducted a major interview with the German Journalist Lea Hampel via Skype.

Mr.Arsten,did you get all the links?

Sincerely,Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.194.202 (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC) I hope you will review the links I am sending you. It will be a rather lengthy list.

Sincerely, Michael D. Fay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.194.202 (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, basically, what we need is articles written about you and published in newspapers, magazines, etc. Preferably well established ones. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
No, I didn't get the links. You should register an account and use the "E-mail user" function. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm On My Account Page...where is the email option? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwo2mdfay (talk • contribs) 21:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) While on Mark's Talk page, look under the Wikipedia logo on the left, under the drop down menu "Tools". There should be an option called "Email this user" which you use to can get in contact with Mark as he requested. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...I'm waiting for my confirmation email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwo2mdfay (talk • contribs) 21:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

No email option under tools...my email is confirmed.Can you email me?I have a word doc with links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwo2mdfay (talk • contribs) 23:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Arsten, in lieu of email with attachment, I can also suggest you google 'Michael D Fay combat artist.' Notable will be articles written about me by New York Times' arts writer Carol Kino and Wall Street Journal writer Michael Phillips. I've also penned and illustrated multiple articles for The New York TImes and Canada's National Post. I have multiple BBC links. If you google 'The Joe Bonham Project' you should find numerous pieces about this ongoing project I created and oversee. If you google 'combat artist' the first link will be the NYTimes investigated by Carol Kino and the first image will be of me. If you google the words 'war artist' will again see the first image is of myself sketching in Babylon in 2003. Three of the other American war artists of the modern era on the Wikipedia "War Artist" page, Victor Juhasz, Rob Bates and Kristopher Battles are all members of The Joe Bonham Project and have been mentored by me.

Sincerely, Mike Fay

Thanks, Mike Fay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwo2mdfay (talk • contribs) 00:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Arsten, out of curiosity I just went by Wikipedia's War Artist site and found that my photograph is the sole one appearing on the page. Additionally, although the link to my deleted site is non-functional, there is a footnote (9), which does provide a path to the New York Times' Carol Kino article. I should also add that Henry Casselli is also a close friend.

Mike Fay

Sorry to be a bother, but I've also just taken the time to look at the discussions and individuals involved in the deletion process. It is clear from the discussion that the individuals did not not do their due diligence in investigated my Wikipedia site. There were many links to reputable sources. I can appreciate that perhaps a couple of them no longer functioned, but I haven't go by my deleted site in quite a long time. I am easy enough to locate via google and the internet. I'm also concerned, after reading the various profiles of the contributors to the deletion, that there might have been a bit of political stereotyping and anti-war sentiment involved in their judgements and assumptions. I will also tell you that I'm a member in good standing of the New York Society of Illustrators and the 'Reportager' of the University of the West of England. I hope we can rectify this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwo2mdfay (talk • contribs) 00:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this article by the UK's newspaper, The Guardian, penned by Jonathan Jones, will be of interest. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/mar/21/michael-fay-war-drawings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwo2mdfay (talk • contribs) 00:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That is a good source. That's the type we want to see. Your article only contained two citations before it was deleted, which is probably why people thought you were non-notable. If you have a number of good sources, you are welcome to construct an article through the WP:AFC project. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's two academic institutions I've been recognized by and a cover article in the US's National Endowment for the Arts Magazine in 2012: http://arts.gov/NEARTS/2012v2-soul-america/seeing-believing and the cover, http://arts.gov/NEARTS/2012v2-soul-america http://www.meltonpriorinstitut.org/pages/textarchive.php5?view=print&ID=140&language=English (Scroll down) http://reportager.uwe.ac.uk/fay.htm

New York Times: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/michael-d-fay/ http://frontlines.blogs.nytimes.com/author/warrant-officer-michael-d-fay/ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/arts/design/joe-bonham-project-illustrates-the-wounds-of-war.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/arts/design/18marines.html?pagewanted=all

Canada's National Post: http://news.nationalpost.com/author/mfaynp/

BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6508423.stm http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13912445

ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/popup?id=3573104 http://abcnews.go.com/WN/PersonOfWeek/story?id=3572902

CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-sketches-of-a-war-artist/7/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sketching-veterans-recovering-from-war-so-their-stories-arent-lost/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwo2mdfay (talk • contribs) 01:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark, If I understand you correctly, you want me to create my own site, rather than re-activating my old site? To be honest, I did not originate the original site, although I was admittedly flattered. I'm concerned that originating my own site, if that is what you are suggesting, still falls within in the scope of objectionable activity. While I am a good artist, I'm very un-tech savy. Could you please make, to a non-technical type, what you are suggesting. I am obviously concerned that the original objectors who raised a hue and cry to delete my site, or similar individuals, will again materialize. I hope you appreciate my concern. Thanks, Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwo2mdfay (talk • contribs) 01:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how this is confusing. You aren't supposed to edit your article directly, but you can draft up a copy and ask a volunteer at WP:AFC to consider adding it to Wikipedia. To have it accepted at AFC, you have to make sure all the facts are cited to reliable sources and it is written in neutral point of view language. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Gentlemen, to avoid Mr Fay being accused of conflict of interest, and provided I don;t need to work with any urgency on this, I am happy for you (Mark) to userfy the article to my userspace, dropping me a note on my talk page to let me know, ideally pasting the swathe of potential references into that note. I will then see if I can work it up in to an acceptable article and Mr Fay can give me input that I may choose to use or not to use depending upon its nature and citation in WP:RS. I may, of course, form a judgment that the article could not survive in the wild. Was it CSD or AfD deleted? Going to DRV would be a pain, if AfD deleted, but I'll do it with pleasure if the gentleman is notable, and verifiably so. Fiddle Faddle 10:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, it's at User:Timtrent/Michael D. Fay right now. Let me know when you're done working on it, depending on how it comes out we might not have to bother with DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Don't expect a lot before close of play tomorrow at the earliest. I'm copying a random swathe of links to a working area at its foot, and then ignoring it for tonight. Fiddle Faddle 23:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, temptation got the better of me. I've ripped though it already and can see for sure that we have sufficient material to have an article on this topic. There are insufficient sources for the pure fighting stuff, but there are quite enough for the artist element. I've flagged some areas where references are required, and I have not attempted to trim the enormous external links section. Even with the deficiencies I would be content to let this article take its chances in the main userspace. I suggest, Mark, that you move it back without leaving a redirect, adding a talk page with BLP stuff on it, the result of the prior AfD and your rationale, should you agree, for re-issuing it to main space. The main winner for me are the citations in RS that were absolutely absent when it was AfD deleted. I think the tone is reasonably neutral, and that there is a lot of fun to be had by a specialist content expert or two in making this a better flowing article.
I won't be hurt if you think there is more work to do here, but I think, truly, that unleashing WP editors on it on main namespace will get the job done better than leaving it to me. Fiddle Faddle 00:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've done a huge pass through the external links. I've incorporated what I can as inline refs, flagged dead links as dead links, and removed those where there is just no trace of Mr Fay. There is scope for copyediting, and there need to be more references for the awards and honours and the military aspects, but this gentleman is most assuredly notable in a Wikipedia sense. I think we can definitely go live. DRV seems inappropriate unless you feel that it is necessary. This is one impressive gentleman. Technically one might argue that the article is similar to that which was deleted, text-wise, but the citations now present negate that argument for me. Perhaps, technically, many of them were there as external links previously, but it was so unwieldy that I can see why there was a deletion consensus. Those opining to delete were probably too quick on the draw, though, because notability was established, it was just hidden. Fiddle Faddle 11:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I will gladly provide whatever information an independent individual requires. There is quite of volume of verifiable information for which I can provide links. These span academia to a virtual who's who of media outlets-from the BBC and Guardian, to Canada's National Post and America's Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Washington Post (along with many regional newpapers and news outlets). I have been interviewed by the BBC several times, Public Radio International, American Public Media's The Story with Dick Gordon to name a few. Most of this material is easily found via Wikipedia. I will make available my official retirement papers (DD214), which will show my periods of service and personal awards. I can also provide quotes from notable arts and editorial writers about the importance of my work. I don't believe my original contained any incorrect or rhetorically overstated material, but I leave it to an independent set of eyeballs to judge. I have just been interviewed for a lengthy article to be written by Lea Hampel for a German newspaper. In addition, I just finished curating an exhibition of The Joe Bonham Project for Drexel University's Medical College in coordination with well-known international journalist Karen Curry. The New York Times arts writer Carol Kino has written about me twice and I've been featured as ABC New's Person of the Week. I'm one of a handful of working war artists and have personally organized the International Society of War Artists and The Joe Bonham Project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwo2mdfay (talk • contribs) 12:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark, I find it interesting that my site was down to a mere handful of citations. That would mean that many were deleted....by whom? As I recall, at least from the screen shot of my page, that there was only basic facts and at least two dozen citations people could click on. I hope those individuals involved in flagging my original site were not involved in any tampering. 

Mike  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwo2mdfay (talk • contribs) 12:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
There were a number of external links, but only two were cited to back up facts in the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I will gladly provide to the gentleman re-writing the article with 'official' sources attesting to my combat experience. The Leatherneck, the magazine of the Marine Corps has several articles. I can also provide my 'decorations' page from the official Marine Corps site 'Marine-on-line' as well as a scanned copy of my official discharge/retirement document, known as the DD-214. I am not, nor will ever be adept at the arcane aspects of Wikipedia, so I leave it to other to set up citations meeting your criteria. I am 90% disabled as result of my combat experiences and somewhat limited with regards to certain cognitive functions (I can provide a scan of my disability finding and rating.) Having said this, I believe my work, art and experiences as a 'war artist' are of note and have garnered the interest of many individuals across media and academia. The current generation of war artists is rather small in relation to previous eras, and in light of digital technologies, ever more of interest...the last analog gentlemen in a digital world one might say. My email is cwo2mdfay@gmail.com, should the individual, I believe Timetrent, be willing to allow me to send him scans of appropriate documents. I can also provide the contact information at The National Museum of the Marine Corps (my last command)of the curator of the art collection and deputy director, who can independently confirm biographical information about my career and combat experiences. I completely appreciate the professionalism and tone of these exchanges, and have little doubt this misunderstanding is being resolved and a satisfactory solution undertaken.

Please don't send me scans of anything. Please just give me chapter and verse, and, where possible, a link to a publicly available document. Fiddle Faddle 16:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Ready to roll, Mark. This is as good as it gets now :) Let's let others have a go. Fiddle Faddle 18:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've moved it back into articlespace. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll let the people from the deletion debate, User:Intothatdarkness, User:John from Idegon, and User:Dainomite, know if its recreation in case they'd like to open a new discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi,
Thanks for your help on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis. It's greatly appreciated. I'm starting some tedious post-sock cleanup work. bobrayner (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help :) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Firm Central

Hi, Mark I tried creating a page regarding Firm Central which is a product management solution from Thomson Reuters and I wasn't able to see any comments on why it was deleted. Could you provide me some some insights or what I need to do in order to get a page about Firm Central posted on Wikipedia. Please let me know when you have the opportunity. Thank you for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kohlj (talk • contribs) 18:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide the exact title of the article that was deleted please? I don't see any record of a deletion at Firm Central. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Firm Central. Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, good catch. @Kohlj: it was deleted as a blank page. You're free to start a new one if you like at any time. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Not hard; I simply checked Kohlj's deleted contributions :-) Nyttend (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/New life88

Please see my question at User talk:DoRD#New life88 and chime in if you have an opinion. Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you can just delete them if you want. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Done; thanks for your opinion. Nyttend (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Move help

If you have a moment, and another admin has not gotten around to it, can you assist in the move of The Avengers: Age of Ultron to Avengers: Age of Ultron? Per discussion on The Avengers: Age of Ultron's talk page, it was determined that the "The" is not a part of the title, as evidenced by sources given by Marvel. Much thanks for the help if you can assist. Have a good holiday as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done. Could you clean up any double redirect and so on? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Planning on it. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

why

why undo :<

You're not supposed to provide your personal opinion about things on Wikipedia, we prefer that you add facts and sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The deletion of Michael D. Fay

Dear Mark,

This concerns the deletion of Michael D. Fay from the category "War Artist" as well as related subjects in Wikipedia. I write for several reasons. One- I, along with Kristopher Battles and Robert Bates are included in that list of current artists. We are all members of the International Society of War Artists which was put together by Michael. We have all had our drawings and writings appear in noteworthy publications. Probably Michael has had the most inclusion, having written for the NEW YORK TIMES, and elsewhere. He has been featured in articles in the NEW YORK TIMES, has been the subject of articles in numerous other publications, as well as TV appearances and a 60 Minutes segment. Apparently he was deleted for not meeting "general notability guidelines". Is that so? And what does that term exactly mean? My guess is that on this particular subject he is much better known than Kris, Robert, or even myself. I'm sure even a casual glance at a Google search will demonstrate that his notability is pretty extension. I just did a Google search before writing this letter to you. Put in Michael D. Fay war artist and there is plenty to see, along with the articles.

Anyway, I am certain this was a misunderstanding of some sorts that can been rectified quickly.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/michael-d-fay/

Thank you for taking the time to read this and make the appropriate corrections.

Victor Juhasz

Victor Juhasz (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It is possible to have the article restored, see my comments in the section on this topic above. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I swear it seems like I see you everywhere. You're not a man, but a machine. Thanks for all your tireless efforts into cleaning up Wikipedia. Antoshi ☏ ★ 01:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar! Mark Arsten (talk) 05:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Editor logging of notifications questions

I noticed at this diff at WP:AEGS you wrote in edit summary: this is a log of notifications given by uninvolved administrators).

As a non-admin I logged two notices because WP:General sanctions recently was changed here as an "Update to detail the actual process". This was per this Admin Noticeboard discussion to allow editors to place notifications on user pages and the log. I just want to do the right thing, so your comment once again got me confused on the matter. Is it still a pending change? Does this info have to be propagated through the various Arbitration and Community sanctions pages and templates? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Carol, you are correct, that was just a poorly phrased comment on my part. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for reply. One less thing to wonder about! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you administrator

Thank you for adding the pending change tag to Tiwa Savage's page. versace1608 (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: that IP account

Is there anything you think I should do about that IP account that keeps making non-NPOV and/or otherwise bad edits to characterization? It's very tedious to deal with for me, and I'm sure you also don't appreciate having to protect all these pages, but it'd be laughed out of ANI or AE. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, do you think it might be a sock? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure. The person behind the account seems to have been editing under IPs for a while (there are various IPs in the history that use the same "cat-fix" and "link-fix" edit summaries), but after being stalked by so many other users, I'm not ready to dismiss the IP's showing up throughout my edit history going back several months (eg. at The Frugal Housewife, a redirect on an obscure historical cookbook) as coincidental. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Tichborne case, May 2012 FAC

In May 2012 you were one of the reviewers who commented on this article at the FAC which led to its promotion. I have recently noticed that an editor has added a substantial amount of text to the article, without talkpage discussion and of course without review. I have outlined some concerns on the article's talk, here. I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at the page and give a brief opinion on this new material. Brianboulton (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

IP nuisance

Thank you for taking care of that IP-hopping disruptor. I think that's the first time I've had one vandal Wikihound me and follow my other vandalism reverts. I'll let you know if it gets bad again. Cheers. --Jprg1966 (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of sockpuppetry :) Let me know if you need your page protected or anything. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

James McGibney

Can you lend a hand and try and help me sort through the madness. There multiple accounts that seem to be connected possibly that are trying to whitewash the article and declining the pending revisions is getting tedious. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I slammed on the breaks by full protecting it for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Here's a link to the SPI [[18]] fairly standard duck test..Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I think a check might be a good idea in addition to the duck blocks. For faster service you can change {{SPI case status|}} to {{SPI case status|request}}. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

List of 20th Century Fox films

I'm going to split this article into two lists. This page is protected; you can protect what I'm going to create soon. --George Ho (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let me know when you need the protection. I know of a user who will be very interested in editing it. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
List of 20th Century Fox films (1915–2000) and List of 20th Century Fox films (2001–2100) are created. Need protection for the other list and the dabpage? --George Ho (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

...for protecting Guy Fawkes. There comes a point where the endless, childish vandalism of an article becomes annoying, rather than merely irritating. Parrot of Doom 10:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Recharge (magazine)

Hi Mark, can you please explain your rationale for deleting the entire Wikipedia page about a respected, well-known publication (within the renewable-energy industry), rather than just editing the bits you didn't like. The article was approved by another Wikipedia editor back in July, with only minor changes instituted since then, all of which were neutral in tone. Are you saying that the publication is no longer notable enough to be included on Wikipedia? There are plenty of other similar, far smaller publications with their own Wikipedia pages. Contrary to what other editors stated (in the debate about proposed deletion), Recharge is not a new publication (it has been going since Jan 2009) and there were no employee bloggers listed as sources (the chairman of the UK's biggest independent solar company is not an employee!). Recharge is a well-established news organisation with a 24-hour website, thousands of paying subscribers and over 10,000 Twitter followers. To say that it does not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia would mean that you would have to delete hundreds of similar entries.LAC75 (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It may be possible to get the article restored. Can you offer evidence that it meets the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals)? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark, thanks for the response. Some quick points: in terms of 'verifiability', a quick search of Google Books reveals that Recharge has been cited as a source in at least 70 books (click here). Recharge is cited as a reliable source in 80 Wikipedia entries (just do a search for 'rechargenews' in Wikipedia). Recharge has 'received a notable award or honor at a national or international level' (the Advocate of the Year award from the UK's Renewable Energy Association may not be 'notable' to Wikipedia editors, but the REA awards are the most notable awards within the British renewable-energy industry).

The 'significant impact in its field' is harder to quantify as publications tend not to write about other publications, but I believe it can be demonstrated by the fact that the magazine is about to host the Holmenkollen summit. As this link explains, the world's largest Classification society DNV GL (recently formed by the merger of Det Norske Veritas and Germanischer Lloyd), which has about 17,000 employees around the world, is to be the event's platinum sponsor. DNV GL would not do that if Recharge did not have a significant impact on the industry. The event will be attended by some of the top executives in the renewable energy, including those listed here. As you can see, this includes top executives from major multinational companies such as General Electric, Siemens, Bechtel, Norton Rose Fulbright, Vestas and Enel, as well as one of the richest men in India, Tulsi Tanti, and Vice-Admiral Dennis McGinn, the US Navy's current Assistant Secretary. They would not waste their time writing articles for Recharge if they did not believe the publication has a significant impact on the industry.

I would also argue that everything on the original Recharge Wikipedia page showed its significant impact in its field.

If you still think Recharge does not warrant a Wikipedia page, then you would surely have to delete entries such as Windpower Monthly, whose only listed source is an expired advert for one of its own jobs. Thanks. LAC75 (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I've asked for a second opinion on this. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Second opinion: In my opinion, there are no accepted notability standards for magazines. There are some classes of things for which the normal GNG is not suitable, and this is one of them. Notability (periodicals) is not a guideline, it is an essay--Some essays serve as de facto guidelines, but not this one--I do not think we would be able to get consensus for it to be used as a guideline. I've just now taken the opportunity to suggest some considerations there , considerations which I think we do often use to guide our subjective decisions. Perhaps renewed discussion there can lead to something that might be accepted.
For this particular periodical I am, frankly, unsure. I had not joined the discussion. I give very considerable credence to my colleague User:Randykitty in respect to academic journals--my views there are formed in large part on his. but I think he is unnecessarily restrictive in some other areas. I am in general unhappy with AfD closings where there is very little participation, but after several relistings, there's no real alternative, except non-consensus. Looking at the article itself, the award is minor,and one not usually given to publications; that a notable person joined the board is not relevant; that is produces daily publications at trade shows is if anything a reason for non-notability, as with most such ephemeral publications. That it is produced by a leading business news publisher is of relevance, but even the best publishers usually produce some minor titles. True circulation of a controlled circulation publication such as this one is hard to access-- its web page, [19] only says it has "some" paid subscribers. What I need to know, and do not know, is whether it is in fact one of the leading trade publications in its subject.
My own view is that this is one of the subject areas where I give the benefit of the doubt. This is partly because of a consideration not strictly related to the ordinary meaning of notability in WP: one of the recognized key virtues of the English WP is that it provides extensive references supporting the articles, unlike most prior encyclopedias , and to some degree more than most of the other WPs. For this to be meaningful to the reader, the reader needs some way of assessing the references used. It has been responsibly proposed we include articles on every publication cited in WP. I would not go that far--if for no other reason that it leads to promotional abuse and astroturfing. But I think the argument that it is used here significantly is a valid argument.
I really regret I missed the AfD, and I suggest to Mark that perhaps the best course would be to reopen. That would be a better place for my arguments, because I'd like other people to be able to comment on them. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

James McGibney

Mark and Anthony. I see both of you recently edited James McGibney. OTRS received a complaint about recent edits; it looks to me like you are monitoring and cleaning it up. I see protection has been added. I didn't read though all of the history, but it looks like you are on top of it. I don't plan to do anything other than add it to my watch list and ensure the subject that it is being watched.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't gotten to look at it in too much details at this point, other than username blocking some COI editors and protecting to stop the edit war. I'll try to keep an eye on it though. I'll unprotect it for now though. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The subject of the article keeps on edit warring under various user accounts (that have since been banned) and is trying to whitewash the article to remove unflattering educational references. Business Week magazine is the source of the references, but that article subject keeps trying to revert and whitewash. Dead Goldfish (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Is the mention of one degree really that important though? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Lock this page.

Swaminarayan should be locked, vandalized by User:Bluespeakers, but with a new account now. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Made two additions and I am a vandal? Please check the edits as well.

Burpedworm (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Bbb23 has taken care of things. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


Mahusha

Can I edit the article India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahusha (talk • contribs) 03:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes you may. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

PPACA

Hi Mark Arsten, thank you for your help fully protecting Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act a week ago. The full protection period has expired, and I was wondering if you could restore the article's indefinite semi-protection, which it had before being fully protected (see diff). Thanks! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've semi'd it. We really need to get the protection settings fixed so full and semi-protection can run at the same time like PC and semi do. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 00:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


Tuerxun Jumabieke

Deleted Tuerxun Jumabieke? Why!? Dumbass! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.197.47.183 (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it appeared that he did not meet the WP:NMMA guideline, sorry. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Dipendra

Hi, Mark! I wonder would you help me to get rid of File:Dipendra.jpg ([20]), which I uploaded almost three years ago. Now, there is a Commons-uploaded file with the same name ([21]), which can't be used until my non-free version is deleted. As an admin, can you please speed it up because "speedy deletion" isn't so speedy after all... Thanks in advance! --Sundostund (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

hi

hi
hi how are you Stuartjw (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine, what's up? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Stockton Beach RFPP

I'm a bit confused over your response at RFPP. There's no actual edit-warring. I reverted the editor twice but gave up and have been tagging the OR as it's added (and there's quite a lot of it). I don't see how this could be reported to WP:AN3. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I thought you had reverted him three times, I guess I miscounted. Anyway, since it's only one user who will be autoconfirmed in a few days, semi-protection won't be of much use here. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protection for 3 days might at least get him to talk since he won't be able to edit the page until then. Otherwise I don't know what to do. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, you could revert him and then ask for a third opinion about the additions. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
If I revert him, he's just going to revert again. He's restored the same content that had previously been reverted, once as a single edit that also added more OR,[22], and then as a series of edits that added even more.[23] It was at that point that I started tagging the OR. he clearly understands what I'm saying, but claims he doesn't know how to reply,[24] even though he clearly knows how to post. I'm trying to avoid an edit war but he clearly thinks he doesn't have to comply with WP:NOR.[25] WP:3O doesn't seem an option. It clearly states "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill." We haven't discussed because he refuse to (I don't believe his claim that he doesn't know how to post a response). --AussieLegend (✉) 21:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hi Mark, I think you are unnecessarily harsh. You could have added "citation needed" as was done to the previous paragraph. I don't immediately have time to look up the appropriate citations, but if you know anything about hygiene, you should also know that I am right. As soon as I've found the citations, I shall add them. Dogo (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across as harsh, but health-related information really needs to be cited. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
You are not only harsh but you also seem to judge texts by different standards. This whole section to which I added my text, does not contain citations. So why had the other text not been removed? I don't say anything more revolutionary than in the previous two paragraphs. A lot of it is basic biology. If every sentence has to carry a citation, more than half of Wikipedia will have to disappear. Keep my text for the time being and I shall look up the references, even the one that is currently being requested. Dogo (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
It is true that much of the encyclopedia is poorly sourced, but we should try to avoid making the problem worse by adding more unsourced or poorly sourced content. Maybe some of the article in question should be removed, I'd have to check to see for sure. But anyway, when adding information about human health you should make sure you include a suitable source with your changes. See WP:MEDRS for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:FAG

You asked to be contacted if this were created. It has been. Fiddle Faddle 08:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Is there a consensus about what to do with the lower-case version? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
It appears that no-one has been brave enough, so far, to close it. It will be an interesting consensus to analyse. Fiddle Faddle 21:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I'll wait to see what they do with that one before acting on the upper-case version. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Makes perfect sense to me. If you have not already, please place that discussion on your watchlist. Fiddle Faddle 21:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, what has happened is an unbelievable mess, now. FAG was added today, very late in the deletion discussion, a discussion which ought to have been closed some substantial time ago. Then it was !voted on by several people, then removed again, and the entire thing has gone to hell in a handbasket, with accusations of pointy and disruptive edits. What would be appropriate is a wholly uninvolved admin to work out what to close, and to close it. I'm not asking you to do that. This is simply a briefing for you in case you are not watching the discussion. Fiddle Faddle 22:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Someone is in process of reading and closing WP:Fag at present. This is just a heads up. Fiddle Faddle 11:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
It has closed as No Consensus. Oddly, that is a better outcome than I expected. Some time ago it would have been a snowball Keep. Instead of that people have considered it as an issue. They have rejected it, and some of the comments are juvenile, but they have considered it. In a year or two such things will be considered differently. Fiddle Faddle 16:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Nick Studio 10

Rather WP:LAME case. You semi protected for a week on Nov 19. IPs keep warring over a detail that frankly should not be an issue for anyone over the age of 14. Have a look and see if a longer semi would serve a purpose. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 10:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like the kids are acting up again :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Sam Sailor Sing 09:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

RFPP changes

Hi Mark, has the RFPP system changed recently? I've just added this using Twinkle and it has gone into an unexpected section. I'm unsure whether this is a TW problem per se or due to RFPP changes - perhaps a change of use in headings that has caused TW to lose its place? - Sitush (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Forget that, sorry. It would appear to be a bit of both, per this. I've moved my request, certainly using a screwed-up edit summary and probably at the wrong end of the list but admins are generally intelligent people and will rap my knuckles if appropriate ;) - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the way twinkle works with RFPP has gotten all messed up since the headers were changed. Might want to do it manually for the time being. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
At least the bot keeps on running. Speaking of which, Mark Arsten, did you know by using and RFPP template using, "ch", "chck", "q", "ques", "n", or "note", the bot will set a 24 hour timeout on the request, as it is then being marked as an ongoing discussion rather than not being responded to.—cyberpower OnlineMerry Christmas 02:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I really hope that was a typo in your above comment... Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry. It was a typo. Come to think of it, I seem to be prone to those. My autocorrect turn Mlpearc into Mlprick, and Cyberpower into Cyberpooper.—cyberpower OnlineMerry Christmas 02:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
LOL, well, I don't feel that bad then :) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
On a serious note though, thanks a lot for all the work you're doing with the bot and twinkle and so on. I definitely appreciate it. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Barney the barney barney

I noticed that you recently blocked User:Barney the barney barney for violating the WP:3RR on Rupert Sheldrake. I ask you to reconsider this block. Rupert Sheldrake is normally protected from WP:POV pushers by User:Vzaak, User:TheRedPenOfDoom, and User:Barney the barney barney. Possibly due to the holiday User:TheRedPenOfDoom has been missing since the 24th, and User:Vzaak has been far less active than usual, failing even to respond to allegations against him at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors.

User:Alfonzo Green and User:Barleybannocks have taken advantage of the situation by launching a tag-team WP:POV push. User:Barleybannocks is a WP:SPA whose antics on the Sheldrake page have primarily centered around attempting to force his own novel definition of the word “biologist” upon others. While User:Alfonzo Green has been an WP:SPA for the past month and a half (he was inactive for more than a year prior to that). Alfonzo’s recent activities have focused on arguing that Sheldrake’s work isn’t pseudoscience because every single scientist on earth hasn’t actually said the words “Sheldrake’s work is pseudoscience” despite the fact that the arbitration committee has already said that “Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more”. User:Alfonzo Green has a personal grudge against User:Barney the barney barney because Barney previously got him blocked for violating WP:3RR. Alfonzo has also been blocked for incivility on Rupert Sheldrake.

While User:Barney the barney barney may have technically violated WP:3RR I would argue that Barney’s actions were necessary to protect Wikipedia and were therefore justified per WP:IGNORE. I understand that Wikipedia administrators can be busy people, but I ask you to please read through Talk:Rupert Sheldrake to get a better sense of the situation. Sheldrake’s talk page should give you an idea of what kind of WP:LAWYERING, WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and all around sophistry Alfonzo and Barley have been engaging in. Alternately, if you won’t unblock Barney then could you consider giving the page full protection for a day? Thanks. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. I'm willing to consider unblocking if an unblock request is filed (and depending on what it says). To make a long story short, my position is that 3RR is a bright-line rule that the community has agreed upon, and there are only a few exceptions to it. As an uninvolved admin, I have to hold both sides to the same standards. Even if someone's reverts do improve the article, they can still be blocked. This block doesn't preclude sanctions against other parties in the conflict though. You might want to propose a topic ban for AG if his editing has been problematic. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for instituting the 24 block. I too urge you to take a look at the Sheldrake talk page. It's clear that virtually all secondary sources label him a scientist, biologist or biochemist. This is how he's identified even by people who denounce his work. Yet every attempt to identify him as a biologist in the opening sentence has been bocked by people like Barney who seek to impose their POV. And yes, only a tiny number of sources identify his work as pseudoscience. The majority merely disagree with his findings, but this distinction is lost on the POV pushers. Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
It was inevitable that at least one person would earn a block over this Sheldrake article since it is policed as if its fate will determine the fall of western civilization and the future of science. There are SPAs on both sides and I think folks have lost perspective that it is just one article. Liz Read! Talk! 00:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

World Trigger

I saw this your edit, and I noted that World Trigger was deleted but you (or someone) forgot to delete List of World Trigger characters too. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is kind of silly, but I can't delete it unless the AFD, PROD, or CSD tags have been added to it first. Even though it makes no sense to keep it for any longer, we have to follow procedure. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Tanveer Alam

He, the page of Tanveer Alam has been deleted, but i feel its a public figure who is working in entertainment industry of India. He was the joint secretary of Indian Film Directors' Association. he did so many serials and films. its worthy to publish his page. i ask you to please read through to get a better sense for the same page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mytanveer (talk • contribs) 13:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, can you point to where he has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources? See WP:GNG & WP:RS for what I'm looking for. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Shais Taub

Hi. Thanks for temporarily protecting this page from repeated vandalism. Sadly, the edit war is now continuing. The issue under contention is an alias that is only sourced through public records / primary source. According to Wikipedia's guidelines on BLP, facts gleaned from primary sources should not be included. Could you please intervene. Much thanks.

Ok, I left a comment on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Frank Ra

Question, I'm concerned we have some Ip socking going on at the AFD for this article. Both Ip's are from Vancouver BC. I know that spi won't comment on the identities of IP editors but what is the process when they are voting in AFDs. The user formerly known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I just deleted the page. Let me know if they come back. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi protection for Megan Young article

Hi Mark! Can you possibly put semi protection to Megan Young article so that only auto confirmed users can edit this biography? I can only see IP addresses of the editors in the edit history. Thank you. greenmarktea78 (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Pending-changes protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
"Changes must be reviewed before being displayed on this page"? Hmmmm. Let me see if this approach works. Mark, I noticed you made an edit to Megan Young on December 2nd at 17:03, which alleges that anons like myself are Persistent Vandals. From my reading of WP:PROVEIT, it looks like any edit challenged, or likely to be challenged, requires some sort of evidence. I challenge your edits that day.  :-)   I don't insist on the BBC, or even a blog, but can you at least point to some logfile which documents those dern persistent visigoths that allegedly keep invading this article in mainspace? I didn't see any slobbering horde in the edit-history. HTH.
  p.s. As you may have guessed, I don't believe enWiki and deWiki should be twinkies. I also don't think one visigoth per month is "persistent" enough of a vandal to force us to violate our mission-statement. p.p.s. If you reply, and I don't respond promptly, please ping my talkpage. You can also ask Marktanoja to join us if you like, of course. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the history, I do think there are a number of instances where the page has been vandalized. As it is a WP:BLP, particular care must be taken to protect the article. I don't believe that the use of pending changes violates Wikipedia policy, either. But if you disagree, you are free to request unprotection at WP:RFUP. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Abhinav Girdhar Deletion

Hello Mark, I dont understand the rationale of deleting the page "Abhinav Girdhar" as the people who are voting on the page knew very little or nothing about startup community of India, If you refer to the below link http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=Q0FQLzIwMTMvMTIvMDIjQXIwMjUwMg then you will see Worlds largest selling english daily The Times of India covered his wedding, which I think is a very notable source and the article revolves around him, this along with other sources that I have previously added will make this article as a permanent fixture, Please advise me on next steps to un-delete this article. • Cxs107 (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

That source only has six sentences about him, which isn't quite enough to justify having an article about him. We look for "significant" coverage of individuals before they can have an article. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks and I understand but this is just 1 Source which I came across today, but if you refer to my article their are atleast 7-8 other notable sources, so this will be just an add on source to what I already have, each an every statement of my article is backed by a notable source and people who have voted delete to the article are not from India and no nothing about the startup community, this deletion to me is totally un-fair. • Cxs107 (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, you didn't present any good source in the Afd, so it's not fair to blame people for supporting the article's deletion. Looking at the last version of the article before its deletion, I don't see any good sources there either. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I didnt get a chance to represent my case, I was on holiday for the thanks giving weekend and I just resumed work today and I see the page is deleted with Votes of people who are not from India and who know Nothing about the notable sources from India. • Cxs107 (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, feel free to provide me with the sources you have available. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure I will share the article with you with all the sources later today • Cxs107 (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Will it be possible for you to temporarily restore the page so I can share all the references with you? • Cxs107 (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Mark, As requested, I created a page in sandbox with the current sources and following is the link for the same https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cxs107/sandbox • Cxs107 (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Mark, were you able to go through the sources that I provided in the below sandbox link? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cxs107/sandbox • Cxs107 (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, those sources seem to contain brief mentions of him, not really the significant coverage we look for. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The way I see is, when India's #1 News Paper that is Times of India is covering his wedding then the Person needs to be a known personality and they even went to the extent of posting pictures of his wedding on http://photogallery.indiatimes.com/parties/delhi/shagun-abhinavs-wedding-ceremony-/Shagun-Abhinavs-wedding-ceremony/articleshow/26778982.cms also in other articles his role in his companies are clearly defined and each statement of my article is backed by a notable source and juts today I saw his company Appy Pie getting coverage on http://mashable.com/2013/12/03/build-mobile-apps/ & http://www.linkiesta.it/creare-applicazioni and being a founder of Appy Pie makes him a perfect candidate for having a listing on wikipedia (• Cxs107 (talk)19:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Appy Pie

I have asked for a deletion review of Appy Pie. 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. Cxs107 (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything you need to do at present, but you might ask at DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Mark please see the sources of this page "12 in total" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Appy_Pie all the sources are highly reputable and there is no reason I can think of this page to be deleted, I didnt know what I was supposed to do at DRV, but now I see the page is deleted, please tell me why this page was not re-listed? Cxs107 (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you should submit it to Afc and see what the Afc reviewer tells you. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I have already done that, also I want the article Name as Appy Pie Inc and not just Appy Pie, how should I go about this? 19:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cxs107 (talk • contribs)
Well, usually we don't use "Inc" in titles. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok thanks, but In your expert opinion aren't all the sources notable? Cxs107 (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Request advice/assistance

Hey, Mark. We have a content dispute at Pink Floyd in which three accounts have teamed-up to block the reversion of a poorly written and dubious claim. Can you please stop by and offer some advice? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't have a very strong opinion about the matter, sorry. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, it was more to the point of using three accounts to block a reversion. Is that really all one needs to do to block a reversion and degrade an article, is to have two friends help you win an edit war? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The best thing to do would be to try to get some more users to weigh in. Maybe send some neutrally worded requests for input to the other top editors of the page or ask on a Wikiproject. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you think that this is sufficiently neutral: "There is a content dispute at Pink Floyd; your input there would be appreciated"? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that would be perfect. My apologies for not getting involved, but it's not a topic I'm very familiar with and it might take a bit of time for me to get up to speed on the issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for your advice! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • As kind of a side question, what is the proper way to deal with an addition that contains factual errors, or makes claims not supported by the cited source? I am all out of reverts at the article, but the contested addition contains WP:OR and explicitly states something that the source does not. Do I need to leave this error in a FA until the consensus is clearly in favour or removal? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
That's a tricky situation. You're allowed to break 3RR in cases of blatant vandalism, but in this case I think you might have to wait until there's more input. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I predict that we havn't heard the last from the User:Atlas-maker account. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It looks like the consensus at talk is clearly against inclusion (8-0). Do you think that I've waited long enough, or should I give it another day before removing the contested addition. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, if there's an 8-0 consensus I think it's safe to remove it then, yes. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
If you're not too busy, would you mind taking a look so as to confirm my assertion that consensus is clearly against inclusion? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you're right. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Do I need to wait until it's been at least 24 hours since my last revert there to avoid a 3RR violation? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, technically you've only made one revert in the past 24 hours, so I think you're in the clear to revert again. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Fringe/COI edits

Hi Mark, need your help here. This guy won't drop the stick. Montanabw(talk) 23:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I left him a warning. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Change on Billboard

Hello Mark.

I'll correct the Billboard page again because there is obviously a mistake. It says in the main article that "It was first published on November 1, 1984", and then in the section right after, in HISTORY, it says "Billboard was founded in Cincinnati on November 1, 1894". It's only a problem with the "9" and the "8", isn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.218.147 (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my mistake, I got the numbers mixed up and thought you were changing it to the wrong date. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

All good!

AfD Consensus

Hi, Mark
Judging by the precedent of closed "kept" AfD cases, I think this one is ready to be closed. I'm not sure if this is something that I could do, so just letting you know. Your call. And so I know for future, do I (non-sysop) have the authority to close an AfD case as kept? :) BenYes? 03:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've closed it. You could have done so yourself, actually. See WP:NAC for the letter of the law, but if it has been almost a week and there are 5-10 people supporting keeping the article and no support for deletion other than the nominator, anyone can close it. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. You reply faster than some of my Facebook friends! BenYes? 04:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I try :) Mark Arsten (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Carlos Finlay

Can you reduce its expiration? Vandalism was due to our known friend, so by 4/5 December it will normalize. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 06:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

sure. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Admin assistance please

Mark, Can you please have a look at this edit and this edit as violations of WP:NPA? I am unsure what actions to take here. --LauraHale (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've left him a reminder. It might be best to disengage for a bit at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Domnina (Daughter of Nero)

Proposed deletion of Domnina (daughter of Nero)

The article Domnina (daughter of Nero) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Too short, lacks relevance to warrant the subjects own article. Perhaps putting the article into the article for Nero would be better.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.


I'd like to be clear, I don't think the article is useless, but perhaps in the wrong place.

Meeeeeeee39 (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but articles that have been through Afd are not eligible for PROD. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

SPI template is baffling <g>

I have made a report at SPI -- I thought I followed the directions exactly, but the case does not show up :(. Might you tell me where I erred? The case is about User:Richrakh and his myriad socks -- the latest of which quite appears to be User:Glenshiph. All eight show identical editing times, identical editing positions, at the identical same article. Many thanks. Collect (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you did, but you really messed it up :) I've formatted the request itself for now. It might show up on the list in a few minutes, I'll check again though. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. MIT degrees do not help on some of these much at all <g>. Collect (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, looks like we took care of them! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Agency Republic

Hey Mark,
I was baffled finding out that Agency Republic was deleted after its 3rd nomination. The article may not be in optimal shape but even an awards-only article is a valid stub if presenting facts in a neutral manner.
With the advisory board being chaired by ezine pioneer Andy Hobsbawm, the company worked for a great number of the most important brands, for the British government, the Royal Air Force etc. p.p. No, notability is not inherited, but contracts with major companies are strong indications for the agency being top-of-the-line. This is further strengthened by the awards the agency received: D&AD, One Show, The Webbies, Cannes Lions and Creative Circle are some of the most desirable design and advertising awards.
IMHO that's a quite impressive lineup and a quite strong indication that it is one of the UKs leading creative agencies. SarahStierch's "research" resulting in the company being not notable IMHO just isn't credible. Therefore, I'd like to ask you to restore the article or to submit it to a deletion review.
I'm usually more interested in political topics not businesses, yet hit a previous AfD round, and am not personally or financially or in any way involved with this agency.
Thank you, --PanchoS (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

My advice would be to create a well-sourced, NPOV draft of the article in your userspace. Then we can talk about possible restoring it. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I certainly won't spend so much time for restoring an article I'm basically not interested in. It's just that I'm quite certain that the deletion based on supposedly missing notability was incorrect. --PanchoS (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, there were more than just notability issues. As the nominator pointed out, the page was worded in a very promotional way. The nominator's rationale was in line with the WP:TNT essay, to some extent. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again

For helping here.
Once upon a time, you suggested that I should spend lots more time working on protection problems. I'll return the favour; have you ever considered spending more time on Balkan problems? bobrayner (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't given much thought to that, no. But it sounds like a good place to help out. You only have to ask once :) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey About Nickelodeon Israel

Hey Mark, I live in israel, and watching always Nickelodeon israel, and its on air always so why you not letting me edit the page?

You are free to continue to edit the page, but I reverted this edit because it seemed like you were adding random words into the text, like "Over" and "Bold text". Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Karan Goddwani

Hi! The article on the subject was deleted by you on 3rd Dec after PROD expiry as "This article does not have any reliable source". I don't know how i missed the PROD. It never got listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Article alerts i guess. There are some editors around these days who find it very easy to PROD articles but not look out for references around. Anyways... i don't expect Admins to do that job. Could you please restore the article if it at all had any worthwhile info in it? I now see that another user has created a redirect on 4th. But the subject actor does have many references. Check these samples from Times of India: It was frustrating to play a character role: Karan Goddwani, I never left comedy: Karan Goddwani where his numerous roles are enlisted. The subject would not have been deleted even if AfDed and hence i am bothering to get it restored. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've undeleted the history of the page. Do as you think best. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! History had some ok-ok types version; okay enough to let it stay. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Userfication

Hello. I am asking for userfication, to my userpage, of deleted article named "HireJungle". Article was deleted due to poor referencing, although it had appeared in certain notable media, such as NY Times, which was acknowledged by other users. In the meantime, some new media coverage appeared both in the USA and the UK (The Telegraph), so I think the article can be improved. Thank you --BiH (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright, it's at User:BiH/HireJungle now. Let me know if you need anything else. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Layal Najib

Please undelete the fair use photo for Layal Najib now that it is in mainspace. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Mark i said that 21 jump street was a cool film and you deleted it!?!?

Mandela death

My change was constructive. It makes far more sense for the "Death" section to go directly after the "Retirement" section, and before the retrospective closing sections on Mandela's public image and legacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byan85 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I reverted you because you added the word "reciprocent" in a couple places. I don't believe that's actually a word, so I thought you were intentionally adding spelling errors. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You must have me mixed me up with someone else. I didn't add any words. All I did was move the section.

Glad to hear it wasn't intentional. Carry on then. You did add it a couple times though here. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet.

I re-opened a sockpuppet case back in August, and then added furhter information last month, and it has not been looked at. The user(s) in question are vandalizing the same edits over and over again on pages. And information they're adding is not correct, or founded in any source online or in history. As an Admin, I'd figure you'd like to be made aware of this case. You can find it here. livelikemusic my talk page! 00:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't believe your case was ever listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cases/Overview Looks like you left out a template when you filed it, so it never showed up. I think I fixed it, so it should list on the main page now. I'll try to take a look at it soon. It might also help if you can add more specific details about how their edits are similar. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You blocked me

You blocked me because of my username but wrote that it was ok to re-register. I hope this username is more acceptable. If not, let me know and allow me to change it without being blocked. Being blocked feels hurtful. Pizzatastesverygood (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Your current username is fine, no worries there. Sorry to hear that you felt hurt by the block. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Mark, please revise the ETA article

And please check the talk section, last paragraph, in which I explain last modification I did to the article but was reverted insistently, not by you before protecting the page but by another editor after that. I explained there my reasons to do such a change and others that should be done to make the article more neutral. For example the assumption of the existence of the "Basque conflict" is not neutral in my opinion because not all people consider there is such a conflict, no matter if it refers to an armed one or a political one. "The Basque conflict" is a term always used by ETA's supporters and some extremist Basque nationalist partisants which are quite close to ETA's postulates. As consequence the reference to the "Basque conflict" does not fit in the introductory part, and of course not before ETA's consideration as a terrorist group because this definition is much more widely accepted. Note that I'm not saying to add "terrorist" as an adjective, but to explictly mention ETA's consideration as a terrorist group at the second phrase in the article. The sooner the better in my opinion.

And even if we accept there is a political clash in the Basque Country, ETA is not one of its actors because it is not a political party as such but an armed organisation, so in my opinion the only valid meaning of "Basque conflict" would be an "armed conflict", which is not a neutral term to describe Spain's response to ETA's illegal and violent acts. Judges and police are not an army to begin with and the Spanish Army never intervened in the Basque country unlike the British Army in North Ireland for example . Also I forgot to mention that in other articles on English Wikipedia about similar groups like Al-Quaeda and Real IRA the consideration of those organisations as terrorist ones is also placed at first paragraph due to the importance of that fact to explain how they act and how they are perceived among the public opinion in the broad sense. So in the case of ETA the same order of precedence may be applied. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickrivier (talk • contribs) 12:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I probably won't get involved in the content dispute there. I suggest you make your case on the article's talk page, or consider following the dispute resolution steps (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

R... Rajkumar

Hey Mark, you once protected the article, can you please protect it again. My request is in light of some worse IP editing on the article. Here are the diffs - Names of producers were changed, promotion of wannabe-reviewers, same and this had profanity. Please protect it. Soham 17:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Whoa! You're fast. Thanks, . Soham 17:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Glad to help :) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

my article was deleted

Hi Mark,

I just noticed that a wiki that I published for Darrell S. Freeman was deleted in October. Do you recall why it was deleted? How can it be republished?

Also, when the article was published, I used an email address that is no longer active. So, I can no longer access it through Wikipedia.

Draudradavis (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You can see the reasons for the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrell S. Freeman. Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Mark,

I'm surprised that the article was accepted and now deleted. Does this happen often? Do you think that it could be rewritten for republishing? I guess one could argue about someone's notability.

Draudradavis (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If you would like the article to be restored, the first step is to create a well sourced (see WP:RS & WP:V) neutral (see WP:NPOV) draft of the article in your userspace (see WP:USERSPACEDRAFT). Once you have that done, let me know and we can work from there. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Mark,

I will rework the article and resubmit it. I took a look at the Wikipedia standards that you included. Are you able to provide me a few examples of articles that you think are good (e.g., meet the neutrality and well-sourced standards). This will help me rewrite.

Draudradavis (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The articles in the Did you know section of the main page are often a good place to find decent new articles. You might look at a few of the bolded entries there for reference. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Challenge Deletion - Peter Pakeman

Hello Mark, I was surprised to see that our discussion was seemingly closed. The subject of the article (InPerpetuity) responded to your question about the name and location of the reference file, after which, a colleague of yours suggested that you contact an admin from the soccer wikiproject. InPerpetuity then commented on the fact that it is unlikely the information (i.e., games played by CSL players) exist and suggested that if Wiki makes this requirement, then no player can claim to have played in the CSL. To me, this would seem strangely absurd having a legitimate league without recognizing its players.Xave2000 (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the way I perceive the conversation was that I told you one thing I would need to see to restore the page (a reliable source indicating that he had played in a fully professional league) and you (or your friend) told me you could not provide that. So I'm not willing to restore it at this point. If you find my approach unfair, you are free to appeal my decision at the deletion review page. See WP:DRV for the procedure there. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't perceive this issue to be a matter of fairness, but rather one about the inconsistency of how Wiki's standard is being applied (i.e., it's either a requirement or it's not)-- meaning that for any Wiki article where any soccer player indicates that they played in the 1987 CSL season, for example, a reference proving that the player actually played a game is required. I accept you advise and will consider submitting an appeal; however before I do, I hope that you can address the other notability criteria (Amateur sports) which I feel the subject also meets. As explained in my initial correspondence, in his senior year, the subject received an individual award at the national level, by being selected to play at the ISAA Senior Soccer Bowl Classic, a forum where top college soccer players could compete in an all-star game and where professional soccer scouts could come to see America's best players. Both the NCCA and the ISAA also have longstanding roots in sports. However, unlike the NCAA, which has its roots in rowing and football, the ISSA, which was founded in 1926, was created for and supported soccer, only. The first NCCA, All-American award/selection occurred in 1973, a year after the first ISAA the Senior Soccer Bowl Classic game was played. While the NCAA All-American award may be more widely recognized, individuals selected to play in the ISAA the Senior Soccer Bowl Classic were also being recognized at the national level. Please note the source of all of the above information comes from Wiki. Please and thank you.Xave2000 (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
My feeling is that playing in the senior bowl probably isn't enough to justify an article. You could raise that at deletion review though. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
OK. Thanks.Xave2000 (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
==Deletion review for Peter Pakeman==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Peter Pakeman. 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.

FanforClarl socks

Hey MA, was curious what the preference is for how to treat these FanforClarl / HoshiNoKaabii2000 socks. I've been re-opening SPIs for WangsDaringsFun because the recent behavior from these puppets are all consistent with WangsDaringsFun, even though they can all be traced back to FanforClarl. When the a-hole starts up again, should I re-open the WangsDaringsFun SPI, or is it preferred that I re-open FanforClarl? Or HoshiNoKaabii2000? Just trying to make things as easy as possible for everybody involved, including casual editors who might not know the history. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I think technically the best thing to do would be to open it under FanforCarl and just note in your comments that it lines up closely with the Wangsdaring archives. I could be mistaken, but I think that's the best way to go about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Amaravathiarun and his sock drawer

I noticed you archived the most recent case. What I wondered is whether that case means that, procedurally, the two cases should be combined and all the socks of Sanka... should now be flagged as socks of Amaravathiarun for future reference. I cannot help but wonder why this editor is creating so many sockpuppets. I have a suspicion that it is lack of facility with English. Fiddle Faddle 11:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note. I merged the content of one archive to the other. Not sure that we need to bother re-tagging all the socks, a note on the SPI should suffice. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Works for me :) I am never sure of the procedures for things like this at SPI so I ask instead of assuming. :) Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

RevDel

If you have a moment, we could use another RevDel at Andrew Schlafly for this edit [26]. Thank you. - MrX 21:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done. Do you use IRC? There's a great channel there specifically for requesting revdeletion. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I haven't used IRC regularly for 20 years. I used to practically live on it. Perhaps I should consider getting on it again though to help with situations like this.- MrX 22:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, there are a few good Wikipedia channels, and some not-so-good ones. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
If I had a dollar for every time I edit-conflicted you at RFPP, I would be a rich man haha. Thanks for all the good work you do. :-) Thingg⊕⊗ 19:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar, and thank you for helping out there, as well! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

SafeMinds Wiki deletion reinstatement

Mr Arsten --

It has come to my attention that you have deleted SafeMinds Wiki page due to insufficient validation or activity.

I would like to raise the fact that SafeMinds participated as an accredited NGO under the UNEP during the recently completed mercury treaty negotiations. http://www.unep.org/hazardoussubstances/Mercury/Negotiations/tabid/3320/Default.aspx

During the past three years SafeMinds has submitted testimony, participated in the negotiating sessions, and even had news stories filed regarding their participation by the

Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/19/treaty-on-mercury-would-not-affect-vaccines-with-t/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/17/us-doctors-fight-un-ban-on-preservative-in-vaccine/

National Public Radio http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/12/17/167280941/experts-argue-against-proposed-ban-on-vaccine-preservative


We are a participant and member of the steering committee of the Global Autism Collaboration http://www.globalautismcollaboration.com/


I believe these actions and articles fulfill any obligation for validating the work of this organization. Please respond at your earliest and forward this information as needed.

I request a response on the re-establishment of the page as well as the ability to edit the SafeMinds wiki site.


Thanks...

Eric Uram Executive Director SafeMinds

SafeMindsEU (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we need to see significant media or academic coverage to justify having an article. The Washington Times articles and the NPR piece look like brief mentions. It might make sense to mention your group in an article about Autism activism or a similar topic though. You should probably not add it yourself though, per our WP:COI rules. You can suggest things on the talk pages of articles though. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


Mr Arsten --

Please see the article in Autism File Magazine http://www.pageturnpro.com/Autism-Media-Channel/53827-AF52_Autism-File_OctoberNovember/index.html#40

and the accompanying video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UAVBRg8wQ8&feature=youtu.be

SafeMindsEU (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that Autism File counts as a "reliable source" per our definition of the term. I could check in more detail though if you think it is. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm new to all of this... apparently I needed to create another account because the first one established was inconsistent with Wiki policies... so I will ask you to investigate further. I find the publisher unbiased and providing information to a large community of parents raising children afflicted with autism. I'm not sure how an arbitrary call that one outlet is biased while another is not can be made. Other materials from additional outlets can be supplied if needed. Eric Uram (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Curious--the post by SafemindsEU was signed "Eric Uram", which is the name of the user who posted the second comment as well. Looks like we have some use of multiple accounts on our hands. Jinkinson talk to me 03:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

As indicated this was a change to get compliant after being blocked due to a username violation. Eric Uram (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine then. I'll look into the matter of Autism File. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but it does not appear to meet our definition of a reliable source (WP:RS). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

DEC 2013

Thanks for protecting Greg Hardy I was getting pretty sick of the vandalism... it was a stupid joke to begin with.

CensoredBiscuit (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help :) Mark Arsten (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey if the dude is pompous enough to announce he is from Hogwarts on National TV. It should be mentioned Spudwoot (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC) http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2013/12/8/5190414/greg-hardy-kraken-hogwarts

Findlay First Edition

Hi Mark,

I noticed the article about Findlay First Edition Show Choir was recently deleted. Do you mind providing insight as to why this took place? I haven't viewed the article in a month or so. I'm just curious. Thanks!

The rationale for deletion was "I suspect this article fails our strict Verifiability criteria. A mere "Findlay+First+Edition"&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1 six Google News Archive hits. All are Ohio news outlets: mere local coverage. I suspect that none contain significant coverage. And, in general, the types of outlets which are likely to write about Findlay First Edition are low-circulation outlets which may not pass WP:RS.". It can be restored if you like, per the WP:PROD rules. There is a chance it would be re-deleted after restoration, but you can give it a shot if you want. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mark,

Thank you for your reply. I have been in the process of revamping it to meet those standards. Would you mind restoring it and I can get it up to Wiki standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Showchoirnerd (talk • contribs) 17:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've undeleted it. You might want to go ahead and add some wikilinks to the article from other articles now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Bleach (anime) shit

That IP editor came back and is basically just trolling me now. Can you reblock the range?—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not 100% sure if that comment is enough to reblock, sorry. Might want to get a second opinion from another admin. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
"I win" is pretty much trolling.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I think I'll hold off on blocking for now, but feel free to ask another admin. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
All I know is most admins are wary of blocking more than one IP at a time.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
He's stalking me now and on a new range it seems.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I think that's over the line. I've rangeblocked 166.147.112.0/20 for three days. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Did he really contact you below as well?—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, looks like he didn't take my advice though. Let me know if the range I blocked was too narrow and I'll take another look. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Well only time will tell. None of the geolocator or whois services seem to be showing what the range is outside of some really really wide range that the ISP covers entirely.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The IP left a comment on someone else's user talk and the user won't let me remove it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Greg Hardy needs modification.

Greg Hardy of the Panthers is currently claiming his college is Hogwarts. http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2013/12/8/5190414/greg-hardy-kraken-hogwarts. Can we add that somewhere, possibly listing that he did graduate work at Hogwarts while getting his undergrad at old miss Spudwoot (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but we don't like to add jokes to articles here. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

BLEACH

What is ur opinion about the hatnote there? i think we could do without the anime link in the hatnote. Please respond on ur talk page. thanks 166.147.120.151 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the matter. Also, please try to be respectful to other contributors and avoid edit warring. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong and edit warring

This issue is too large for one admin to deal with, please find another venue. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ryulong has again been edit warring. One breaking 3RR at Knockout (violent game) and the second over the inclusion of a source for the colors of University of Miami. For the Knockout game, he removed a bunch of material.[27] Reverted the re-insertion.[28] Reverted another editor on a different aspect.[29] Altered the editor's work again sparking more disputes.[30] The editor moves the section and Ryulong moves it back.[31]

For the Miami matter he's at 3RR.[32][33][34] Three different editors reverted him, and I just reverted Ryulong. 3RR is not a hard rule, but his final revert to take him to the edge of 3RR followed " No one's right to revert anything anywhere. That's all I've learned in the last few weeks. That's why I've gotten blocked twice in the past month for edit warring. It is not necessary to source a color being displayed on an article just because that color happens to be the one mentioned in a reliable source. I'm not discussing this further." at User_talk:Ryulong#Edit_warring_over_the_inclusion_of_a_source.3F. Even I agree that their arguments to source the school's colors are proper, even if it is the exact color, it just makes the Good Article better and one step closer to Featured.

This is two instances of edit warring within 2 days of the last block for edit warring. Given that is 3RR and one is beyond and this is a dispute with multiple editors on each, I think as the last admin, you should take a look into this. I'm not filing an ANI or report over this, I don't have the time and it will make drama because the assumption will be that Ryulong is edit warring with me. Aside from restoring the clearly contested and consensus from the Miami issue, I'm just an observer. Though the constant edit warring is problematic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I have not broken 3RR anywhere. I have self reverted at Knockout (violent game) and one of my reverts at University of Miami was to reverting vandalism that Mark Arsten is entirely aware of because I have mentioned it to him in a section higher above on this very fucking page. I am tired of you policing me ChrisGualtieri and you have most definitely decided to overstep the bounds on which we have so very much attempted to reconcile our editorial differences. It is entirely too tiring to have to deal with shit time and time again when I try to follow every single god damn letter of the law on this website and other editors refuse to give me the same courtesy.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
You are still over 3RR and your revert after I bring this here and your comments about it, including at the Miami page says as much. You know better to edit war, you said you would not discuss it further and than you reverted again. Now after this post you made a discussion and I pointed out it was already discussed on your talk page and it was you, Ryulong, who dismissed the concerns of the editors. Intention to edit war right to the brink is still edit warring and you know better by now. You've known this for a long time. You should be on 1RR - I am just an observer, but you seem to go as far as you can on this each and every time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:WW2InfoBox protection

I am not sure why it was declined with 15 reverts...but there still at it. Guess will just have to bring the editors to 3rvv... was hoping not to have anyone banned but we have no choice at this point. -- Moxy (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Will respond at RFPP. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Backstory

The only way I can think to verify would be to have a ststement from Keenan, or Zach. I was that confidence man, I can assure you of the events that transpired that night. Keenan was living in the WesCo 3 Dorms and had chipped in with 4 others including Zach. I can provide many more details, if anything this is the kind of backstory bands hope for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.39.136 (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but unless it was documented in media coverage we can't include it in the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Please Help to publish my mom´s Info at Logan´s Ohio Notable Resident´s

This is the message I need to publish: (The one you eliminated)

Margee Blair (Mary Martinez) 1972 Logan High School Graduate / 1976 Ohio University Graduate in Modern Language. Presently Associate Professor - English Department at Universidad de Oriente, Barcelona, Venezuela, since 1979 to the present date.

The citation to a reliable source that you need for the re-adding would be the following one:

[2]

This information was in a Logan Daily News article that my grandmother kept. I received a reward of Logan Residents chosen to the Logan Hall of Fame. My friend Jim Kalklosch -also a Logan Resident- received my Honorable Award in my name as I live in Venezuela.

Please publish that Write my an e-mail — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmb731 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but people can only be listed as notable residents if they have a Wikipedia article written about them (that meets our notability guidelines: WP:GNG). Mark Arsten (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thankyou, thankyou

Editor returned with same edit using the name of User:Frischvon this time. Same edit with same info.

Just FYI, he's using a cut and paste from a website about Garcia's art. Same words. Should I relist the SPI? Regards, --Manway 04:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Mark. Appreciate the quick response. All best. --Manway 04:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You deleted Grady Hall

I just noticed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grady_Hall when you removed a link to that article from an Outer Limit's episode. He was just nominated for a Grammy Award [35] for a music video which was listed in a major newspaper [36] as one of the best music videos of 2013, which has already won the 2013 MTV Video Music Award for Best Visual Effects. His official website list other things about him [37] such as being on Rolling Stone magazine's "Hot List", etc. Anyway, can you restore the article and reopen the AFD, so I can add information about him? The only two people that noticed and participated didn't bother doing even a quick Google search of the guy apparently. Dream Focus 05:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you can make your case at the Afd now. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Gauhar Khan

It is logical to fully protect a specific page. But the page is fully protected with an unreliable source to prove her DOB. Numerous edit requests had been requested since yesterday but all are stable. There are chaos about the public figure age in the media. Just Google, Gauhar Khan you might get an idea, i request you please try to visit the page. --- Smauritius diR mWa!! 14:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
I thereby award you with this Admin's Barnstar for your continued work at the Requests for page protection noticeboard. Your work helps to avoid/clean-out backlogs at the page. Cheers, Armbrust The Homunculus 22:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thanks for your help too. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hi Mark, could you please have a look at this edit? I think it could be considered offensive, but I'd like another opinion. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 00:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that is considered offensive, at least in the US it is more or less a racial slur. The IP hasn't edited in a couple days, so I'd just leave a warning for now and take action if he keeps it up. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Done. I left a warning and removed the slur. - theWOLFchild 01:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 Sports Network Cup

What will happen if no one else comments on this anymore? --SportsMaster (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately participation at Afd is pretty low at times so this type of thing keeps happening. If no one else comments, it will probably be deleted in another week or two. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Restore File:Ian Scott Quiver 1974.jpg

Why was this deleted as orphaned, when it wasn't orphaned and is still being discussed at WP:NFCR? Please restore. - hahnchen

Yeah, what happened was there were four files from the same page that were tagged as orphans and remained tagged for more than a week. I deleted all the ones that were tagged for more than a week, and then noticed that four from that page weren't orphans. I went and undeleted three of them but must have forgot to do the fourth. It's undeleted now. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

sockpuppet

Please block Returnofmainmainer13. He is a sockpuppet of Mainmainer13, who you already blocked for repeated vandalism. Thank you. 64.185.131.107 (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, got him. Thanks for the heads up. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Durance and The Shab-al-Hiri Roach

You were the admin responsible for deleting both these non-notable games. Mind moving or copying them into my sandbox please? Both were designed by Jason Morningstar who is notable (designer of Fiasco and Grey Ranks - and the only person to be a named winner of the Diana Jones award twice). I'd therefore like to see if either article has something I can use to pull together the whole article (as non-notable but published games each is going to get a paragraph but I've never played either). Neonchameleon (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Shab-al-Hiri Roach was deleted via WP:PROD, so it can be directly undeleted if you want, or I could move it to your userspace. Durance has not been deleted, did you mean a different article? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I meant Durance (role-playing game), which was deleted with a prod at the same time as the Shab-al-Hiri Roach. I should have linked the articles, sorry. I can't quite establish notability for either on their own, so don't think they should be undeleted - less notable works by a notable designer. And thanks. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Article protection

Hi, could you look at the article Pramukh Swami Maharaj and see if it warrants temporary protection? A user appears to be vandalizing it repeatedly. Some of the accounts have been blocked by User:Materialscientist for multiple issues but the user continues to evade the blocks. If you see the need for temporary protection, could you revert the ShantilalalSodom's changes? Anastomoses (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed vs. suspected socks

Hi, after you closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wiki_brah I went to the AfD pages where the now-banned accounts had been participating to put up some {{CSP}} tags. I realized, however, that though all three were banned only 1 was marked confirmed (I presume that means a CheckUser match). The CSP template does, however, seem to be only for confirmed socks -- without a corresponding {{SSP}} for those that are suspected. WP:Speedy keep seems to allow for kicking out an AfD nominated by someone who's been banned, but what about the suspected socks' activity when not the nominator?

In other words, can CSP be used regarding banned suspected socks? If not, is there an alternative best practice?

Thanks very much.

--— Rhododendrites talk |  16:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If they're blocked as socks, feel free to revert their edits (if disruptive or otherwise unwanted) or close their nominations (as bad-faith). The suspected sock versus confirmed sock distinction is largely immaterial—sockpuppets are only blocked when they can be confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt anyway. I generally only use the suspected sock template when the account is obviously a sock of some troll, but which of the long-term nuisances it is a sock of is unknown. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Reaper, I'll keep that in mind. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Got it. Ok, thanks for the clarification. --— Rhododendrites talk |  20:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 19:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, I made it! Thanks for the award :) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
You made it, congratulations to a milestone. How many of these were page protections? - Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
About 3000 of them, if you can believe that! Mark Arsten (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations administrator. This is a huge milestone. I pray I'm able to achieve this one day. versace1608 (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. WP:Huggle makes it pretty easy to do thousands of edits a month. But in the end, how many edits you have doesn't determine how much good you have done (although in some cases, the two correlate closely). Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Congrats on getting the odometer to turn over. Me, I don't wanna know how many of my edits are just going back and correcting something I had just posted. Binksternet (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
It would be pretty interesting to see all my edits sorted by edit summary. Probably a lot of those little edits over time. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Bad Company

I see you've just protected the Bad Company article, but you've (inadvertently) restored and protected the vandalised version, which inexplicably includes a portion of the history of AC/DC, a completely unrelated band. Please fix, thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Got it. It's not full protected though, just semi. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realise that! Cool, thanks for sorting it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

World Boxing Foundation

I marked World Boxing Foundation with the appropriate template for Speedy deletion of a previously deleted page. Just FYI Palmtree5551 (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, got it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Source from wall street journal

Here is the source

http://allthingsd.com/20131125/eric-schmidts-easy-four-step-guide-to-switch-from-iphone-to-android/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.88.35 (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but sources need to be cited in the article when you add information, see WP:CITE for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Oragami Truth Squad

I lay in wait... preparing my next move... working to evade your attempts at blocking me. Rest assured, soon the truth will be told about origami. Soon, the world will know it is stupid. You may be able to delay the inevitable, but you can never stop it. Truth always wins out in the end. And I will bring that truth to the masses. You can semi-protect the page. You can fully protect the page. You can block an IP address. You can block whole ranges of IP addresses. You will not stop the truth from being told. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.81.166 (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me guess: you do not forgive and you do not forget? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Blind reverting

So, I see you did this beauty. "All sockpuppets are vandals" are they? What's the matter, haven't you got rollback? Or are you too proud to use it on yourself? 94.196.114.191 (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Another Evlekis-sock. You know the drill, Mark. :-) bobrayner (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I can appreciate the humor though, reminds me of this classic. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Origami protection

Hello, Mark. I see you have changed your 1 week's protection on Origami to indefinite. I had wondered whether a week would be enough, and was keeping a watch on it, with a view to increasing it if the problem came back, but I see you have changed it to indef without waiting to see whether it does. Purely as a matter of interest, what made you change your mind? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that an IP was going around talking about how he was going to vandalize it when protection expired, so I thought that one week probably wouldn't be enough. My thinking was that I'd change it to indef for now and then reevaluate in a few weeks if the IP loses interest. I'm open to a second opinion though. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sandra Bullock

Could you please have a look into what is going on here → Sandra Bullock & Talk:Sandra Bullock. Thanks. --IIIraute (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't gotten to look into it in too much detail. Is there something specific you would like me to weigh in on? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, if possible, please take the time to read the section → Bullock & Ramsauer → [38], the removal of WP:RS content, fake admin claims, etc. --IIIraute (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
So fake admin claims ([39] & [40]) about Hullaballoo Wolfowitz‎‎, to justify WP:OWN and the reverts of WP:RS content - that's acceptable? Thanks for the trouble! --IIIraute (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I got distracted and never looked into this. You're right though, HW is not an admin. I'll comment there. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, RS content can be removed if there is a consensus to do so, it depends on why they're removing it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
But there was no consensus. Apart from one comment, the two reverting editors did not even go to the bother of using the talk page. However, on the talk page there also was support for the inclusion of the content. --IIIraute (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps you could have an WP:RFC on the article's talk page? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Gareth Griffith-Jones is not telling the truth - I did make him aware of his false claims - yet he did another revert, making the same claim. I did notify him on his talk page, as well as on Talk:Sandra Bullock → [41] & [42] but he did not even care to bother.
Anyway, I guess WP:RFC is not a bad idea. Thanks for your time & help. --IIIraute (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Returning Vandal

The user which recently went on a spree of such pages as Ninja Gaiden (Game Gear video game), The Flash (video game) and Zero Wing is back. User is currently using the IPs 173.55.155.9 and 156.3.163.99. User has been introducing factual misinformation in defiance of actual sources; in one article, Bases Loaded '96: Double Header, the user keeps removing references and claims the game was never released for Sega Saturn outside of Japan (its page image is the American Sega Saturn cover).

User's activities match the blocked user Sotosbros, who was investigated for Sock-puppeteering here and blocked. In fact, the latter of the two IPs I mentioned is one of the IPs in the report.

What should I do about this user? Should I open up a second sock-puppeteering investigation on this one? No matter how many times I try to reason with this user, they just keep doing what they've been doing. Crboyer (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've blocked those two IPs for now. Protecting the page might be a good idea too. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

cited for vandalism

Hi. I don't know how to prove it, but I think our IP addresses are shared/redistributed by everyone in the school. I hope the erroneous actions of a few doesn't hurt everyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.112.127.108 (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is more-or-less what happens. If a group of people are editing via the same IP and only one is vandalizing, editing from that IP will probably be blocked, preventing them all from editing while logged out. You can avoid this though if you register an account. That way you'll be able to keep editing if your school's IP is blocked. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Renee Orta Salgado.jpg

Hi Mark, Could you undelete File:Renee Orta Salgado.jpg now that there is an article in mainspace for the fair use. Thank you for all your work! Crtew (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Affiliate_Window page

Hi Mark, you deleted this page: Affiliate_Window back in 2012 and I think circumstances have changed enough that this is now a notable company with a multitude of press mentions and a large social media presence. Nickma14 (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, social media presence and mentions in the press are not enough to prove a company's notability. See WP:CORP for our standards for articles on companies. Let me know if you have any more questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Please could I get the contents of the deleted page copied over to my User page if possible? Thanks. Nickma14 (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I just noticed that it was deleted via WP:PROD, so it can be restored to main page instead of your userspace, if you'd prefer. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes please Mark that'd be fantastic. Thanks for your help. Nickma14 (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Bot adding

I was wondering. Do you know if there is a bot on Wikipedia that can add numbers in columns for a total? For example, I am wondering if it could add the wins and losses in this article List of Iowa State Cyclones men's basketball seasons.--SportsMaster (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, not that I know of, but maybe try asking at the village pump? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Mark Arsten. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— MusikAnimal talk 17:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Categories

Hey, Mark,
I noticed that you have done work with deleting categories so I'm hoping you could answer a question. Category:Cody Simpson was deleted twice because it was created by a blocked editor. But most musicians have their own category and this one has enough associated singles, albums and tours to validate having his own category. But, for some reason, I can't create a category so I'm not sure if this deletion involved salting this page or what. Can you fix this? Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was salted by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs). He'll probably be willing to unsalt if you ask him about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mark

Thanks for all your help today Mark! I appreciate your quick responses to the vandals I've reported and I hope you continue to keep up the good work. Jns4eva (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for reporting them! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Duck test?

Have you ever seen anybody go to an FAC after just 12 edits? Do you have any advice for me, since I think it is pretty safe to assume this is yet another sock-troll. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that is odd. I'd keep an eye on them, just in case. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well

Perhaps I haven't been as consistent as I should have been in enforcing NPA violations in the past, but I will endeavor to do so from now on. Happy Holidays. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Once you admitted I have been treated unfairly. A decent person who sees that another person is being treated unfairly helps that unfairly treated person to make it right. The only way to silence me is to treat me fairly. 69.181.40.174 (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping it will kill your enemies - Nelson Mandela.
Mark is helping you by trying to assist you to move on from a place where your feelings are dominated by resentment, to other places where you would (presumably) not have such problems. And thus be much happier.
Just like Mr Mandela, who was so often very visibly happy. For example when he met the Spice Girls, which he said was the greatest day of his life.
Perhaps you should go and see Viva Forever (musical) and it might inspire you in a similar way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but as I've said before, using Wikipedia to attack people isn't allowed, even if you feel they deserve the insults. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd rather you don't use my real name.
I am not using Wikipedia to attack people. I am using Wikipedia to make it right for me, and for some others in my situation, and hopefully to prevent something that was done to me being done to another person. I have been treated unfairly, to say the least. A person who is/was being treated unfairly should be helped. Period. What I am concerned about is that many Wikipedians put Wikipedia's values in front of human values, and this is just wrong. One of the simplest things Wikipedia could start with is letting me and for others like me go, and I emailed you what it means for me.
I'd like to explain to you what I meant, when I said " many Wikipedians put Wikipedia's values in front of human values". Here's an example: You say:"using Wikipedia to attack people isn't allowed". Let's see Is this a personal attack? You saw it, and said nothing. You knew I had no ability to respond, and you said nothing. Of course now tarc has admitted he harassed me for years. So I guess there are at least some users who are allowed to use Wikipedia to make absolutely unprovoked personal attacks, to kick someone who is down. 69.181.40.174 (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe Tarc (talk · contribs) has apologized to you for the comments he made in the past, so I'm not sure why you're still bringing it up? It seems like he wants to bury the hatchet, so maybe you should follow his example? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Mark, it is not about Tarc. I've no problems with tarc. It is about you. You saw that PA back then and said nothing, you allowed it to stay. If you removed it back then maybe you would have had moral rights to tell me about "insulting" others, but you have not.
Apologize? Well, I have no problem with apologizing if I wasn't right, if I did something wrong. You know that don't you? Remember my very first email to you, when we still were working on articles together. I wrote to you to apologize. Here's another example of me admitting I was wrong. There are more. But I am afraid now I have nothing to apologize for.
@Demiurge1000, I see you'd like to talk to me. Okay, let's talk, I'd like to talk to you too. For example I'd like to understand how somebody who used to be a teacher could be ... well as you are.But before we talk could you please repeat after me: "I was the first one to support your community ban. I did it while you were blocked, and your talk page access was removed. I knew you have no means to defend yourself. I used the content of your hacked emails that I got directly from the hacker or the hacker accomplice as the rational for my support vote." and sign this statement, and please remember demiurge1000, you're an anonymous user, and I am a named person.69.181.40.174 (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Cloud_Nineteen

I was also tempted, but I think you erred in blocking in that it is the individual's nom du voyage rather than the name of a group. cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I think you're right. Thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Happens to the best of us. Dlohcierekim 01:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of HC of Mozambique in London

I refer you to below which I posted on Stuartyeates talk page.

Though I am aware that a deletion discussion was held on this issue I was unable to contribute due to both being busy with other things at that point and an unfamiliarity with wikipedia's deletion process.

Needless to say I disagree with the decision; quite why Mozambique has been singled out for deletion, as compared to the literally hundreds of other embassy pages, I do not know. As I have made clear - either delete the lot or keep them.

Sdrawkcab (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)sdrawkcab


Hi Stuartyeates,

I see that you deleted my page for the High Commission of Mozambique. I have restored it for now - if you would like to delete it again feel free but please could you do the following first:

When you've finished with that lot let me know and I'll go ahead and delete the Mozambique page.

Sdrawkcab (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)sdrawkcab

Sorry, but the page in question has to stand or fail on its own merits, the existence of other pages never mean that we have to keep a page on a similar topic. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Guarin

Could you undelete Christopher Guarin.jpg now that the article is published in mainspace and the photo is no longer an orphan. Thanks much, Crtew (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit on Christopher Guarin! Crtew (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Alberto López Bello

And could you also undelete Bello,_Alberto.jpg. Thank you for doing these! We appreciate your efforts! Crtew (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance with these photographs of journalists. Crtew (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Paul Hume

Hi Mark,

I have a good source for Paul Hume (game designer), which you deleted after closing the AFD. Do you have any objections to userfication so that I can do some work on it? BOZ (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It takes two (or more) to tango

Okay, Mark, let's say that I am indeed involved in an edit war. Let's say I have come close to violating the 3-revert rule. There is someone who has in fact violated the 3-revert rule, someone who is desperately clinging to the sanitized version of the facts about a very dirty man. How come they don't get a stern, canned warning, huh? Detroit Joseph (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I saw that your edits were oversighted while his weren't so I assumed that your edits (which I can't see) were seriously problematic in some way. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Almost everything "Truth to the Fourth Power" wrote can be backed up with stuff that has been published in Crain's Detroit Business. And what can't be backed up through there, I have verified through the grapevine (I won't insist on restoring the latter). Fotouhi's corrupt (as Crain's has reported) but he doesn't seem to be racist (which was alleged when he fired a black man, but he fired plenty of white people in his quest to get funds for a bigger office for himself). Detroit Joseph (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try to look into it later. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Protection

Please Semi Protect my user page (WIN7BOOT 01:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIN7BOOT (talk • contribs)

Ok, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
This user is a probable sockpuppet of Redbranch1984, whom you have met before. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Redbranch1984, and has been on a weird frolic of his own here Fiddle Faddle 15:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I thought that seemed suspecious... my talk page is a sock-magnet for some reason. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Shooting fish in a barrel is even easier when the barrel comes to you. DMacks (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes... thanks for handling that. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for my finger trouble in identifying the wrong puppet tree. Thanks to DMacks we have the right sock drawer now. Fiddle Faddle 18:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Top icon

Hello Mark Arsten,
I have noticed you have worked in Template:Top icon and/or Template:Featured article. But that is not working in our non-wikimedia Wiki. The image icon is not appearing. Do we need to create any environment for it? We have imported the templates needed for it. Top Icon template link, Featured article template link Tito☸Dutta 03:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't help with this. I don't understand all the technical stuff with the templates, sorry! Mark Arsten (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Tito Dutta: Did you import the css classes from MediaWiki:Common.css into your wiki's Common.css file? — ΛΧΣ21 03:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What.

File:Bo Burnham What. Album Cover.jpg must go as well, I guess. - Altenmann >t 06:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately we have to wait another week now to delete that one... Mark Arsten (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Hello again, Mark. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind temporarily semi-protecting The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. There are a lot IPS removing sourced content and adding excessive plot details to the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Inactive SPI

Hi, wonder if you could help me figure out why Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Therealthings hasn't had any clerk/admin action since I opened it on December 1. Did I file it improperly? Thx. — Brianhe (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

As it stands, I'm not sure it's clear enough sockpuppetry to block without checkuser results (i.e. the WP:DUCK test), which is why I haven't taken action there. If you want checkuser attention, you could change {{SPI case status|}} to {{SPI case status|request}}, that might get some attention. Let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:DMB112

I'm just going to go to you directly because I know you're going to take care of it eventually. I have reported DMB112 for edit warring (with me sadly) and he keeps restoring his preferred version across multiple pages despite the fact I have discovered that there is a standing consensus against his proposal. I honestly do not expect not to be blocked for this but something needs to be done before any further disruption from him or myself continues. I have a report at AN3 about this if you care to look.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You will see on the college football talk page, that I have explained my position in great, great detail. I'm willing to make compromise to improve Wikipidea. I have removed content from my tables, consolidated tables. This user is very hostile and has been edit warring me all morning. I would report him, but me being a Wikipidea novice, am having trouble doing so. I don't mean the cause trouble. I hope he will be addressed appropriately. DMB112 (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
So this guy just reverted my edit on his talk page where I was explaining my position and informing him that I reported him for edit warring. PLEASE take care of him. He is not contributing to Wikpidea and is a repeating offender. DMB112 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks like you've both been blocked... this is what happens when you edit war--it's never a good idea. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Russian American protection

Well done for protecting the page! Its good to see an administrator got involved, but shouldn't the page be protected on the original version (which is the one with Maria Sharapova, and not the one with Brin)? The original version was there for years, it's a certain user who started a revert war and uses various socks to continue it.

Hmains, Mankiw2 and 69.22.169.173 are the same user who does the same thing on Russian American and Belarusian American pages. Same 3 users, doing the reverts at the same time, on the same pages. No matter how much I called that user to use the talk page as a mean of promoting a change. The joke is that user had the rudeness to blame me in using socks, only because I have a dynamic IP, when I always said it's still me but using a dynamic IP. 176.24.123.150 (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I recommend you make an edit request on the article's talk page for someone to restore the image. It might be best for someone more familiar with the topic than me to handle it. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The edit war was going on for ages and no one got involved, so I doubt anything like that will happen. We literally need few moderators, looking at old discussions on the same topic they always went to high noted but without a resolution. Could you please check that sock comment I made? Can you check Hmains, Mankiw2 and 69.22.169.173? They appear at the same pages at the same order doing the same action, and from what I know sock pupating is illegal on Wilipeda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.123.150 (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't have the technical ability to determine if people are sockpuppets, WP:CHECKUSER. You'd have to file a request at WP:SPI to get them checked to see if their IPs match. I can sometimes block sockpuppets if their behavior makes it obvious enough though. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmains has been able to keep editing while Mankiw2 is blocked though, so it doesn't look like they're sharing an IP address. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the information! It is suspicious how they are literally editing the same pages and revert war on the same page. Is there a way to open an investigation without registering an account? Thank you! 176.24.123.150 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I belive there is, though I haven't done so myself. Go here, click on the "[show]" on the blue "How to open an investigation" bar, then click "[show]" on the green "If you are an anonymous (IP address) editor, please click "show" to the right and use the box below" bar. It will give you a box to type in the username, and then you can hit "Submit" and a report will be created. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your help :-) I did it! 176.24.123.150 (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits Undone

I agree about the edits you undone y me agree, I not realize the historia was en english. Me apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.173.48 (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Berkeley Hall School

Hi Mark, sorry I wasn't well for a few weeks & just realized that the old discussion is archived. Here are the links to articles about Berkeley Hall School:

Azakeri (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for finding some sources. I'm not sure that's enough to justify an article though. You can get a second opinion at WP:DRV if you like. Hope you're feeling better. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

fooian Americans

Thanks for the protecting Russian American against the IP nonsense that has been going on. The same IP party is doing the same thing to Belarusian American--putting an image of a non-American in the article because he thinks any resident of the US can be included in such articles. Hmains (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess just try to get consensus on the talk page. Maybe consider a talk page WP:RFC if you don't make any progress. Let me know if more protection is needed. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
First of all, about the Belarusian American page, Olga Korbut is an American citizen, Second of all, on the Russian American page, you started a revert war without even discussing it on the talk page. Here is a thought, even if Sharapova isn't American by the article definition, who said it should be Brin taking her place? 176.24.123.150 (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Some socking. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
It's not for removing the external links, is there any rule to only 2 links? Sanderasa (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
It's not for removing the links, is there any rule to only 2 links?

other bands 4 , 5 ,6 ...why 2 for Crayon Pop  ???? Sanderasa (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
thanks for having protected the page. Links removed by User Evaders99 ? Sanderasa (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


Mahusha

Please help to edit galileo- professorship at pisa by adding more information.

Hmm, I'm not sure I'll be able to get around to that anytime soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Mahusha

Merry christmas.

Merry Christmas to you too! Mark Arsten (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Mahusha

Please say your number of edits.

I've made about 107,500 edits or so, in about 30 months. This tool will show you how many edits each user has made. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow! that's amazing and Merry christmas. Will you become friend of me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahusha (talk • contribs) 06:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I would be glad to be your friend. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Mahusha

How can I become a administrator of wikipedia, but I am auto confirmed user. Mahusha (talk)

It's not easy! You basically have to be a model Wikipedian for at least a year first. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

User:PWB Health Ltd

Hi Mark, I've unblocked PWB Health Ltd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (which you softblocked) to allow them to request an rename. I hope you don't mind. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

No prob, thanks for handling that. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Gentle reminder

As mentioned further up the page, mind moving the prodded pages Shab-al-Hiri Roach and Durance (role-playing game) to my userspace please? Neonchameleon (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


ASSISTANCE WITH FLO RIDA PAGE

Hello, Someone has seriously vandalized this page removing all reference to FLO RIDA song for Charity with MARC MYSTERIO which has charted internationally as well and is highly publicized.

Theyve removed Mysterio from related acts and all mentions of the single.

The song was to benefit ONE FUND BOSTON.

Can you check through the edits made on that page and revert them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.50.30 (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

What is the exact title of the page you're referring to? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

non-constructive edits

I just got the following message from you:

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Boring, Oregon with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Navigation menu

I hope you at least read the edit. (ahem!)

And I am here to announce that I find the reaction time between graffiti (or humorous edit) and Wikipedia editor is incredibly quick. So I guess- "Good Work" is in due for you. (Even if I wish my edit on Boring, Oregon would've stayed.)

As for a possible solution/idea you may offer me:

No, I will not post it on the Uncyclopedia, which is over edited lame humor.

My edit was as follows: All Wikipedia contributors apologize for any sighs of boredom that the reader of this article may exhale. In the future please note that Wikipedia strives for informative information and is not responsible for readers who wish to find something not boring in an article titled "Boring, Oregon".

Cheers, --71.205.198.123 (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I did find your edit humorous. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, it will not happen again. Hopefully. --71.205.198.123 (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you've blocked the normals from Jimbo's talk page, I'll post to you

Russavia is posting legal threats that Jimbo might want to know about.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jimmy_Wales_by_Pricasso_%28the_making_of%29.ogv&diff=prev&oldid=112046724

By the way, it seems kind of draconian to block that many users from Jimbo's talk page to get Mbz1. Hell might be other people (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that we don't have a better solution to deal with IP-hopping disruption we do now, I agree. I was going to ignore her, but then she started edit warring, so I decided protection was merited. I suggest you use the "Email this user" function to bring this incident to Jimbo's attention. Or you could post on his Commons talk page: User talk:Jimbo Wales. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to post it to his en.wp talk page? I don't think he watches or responds on commons and Russavia is saying some pretty vile things about him on commons. Thanks in advance. Hell might be other people (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I have to run at the moment, but if you post the message you want added to his talk page to WP:RFED someone should copy it over. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Bashtowndriyp

Thanks for your help with that rather messy affair. I'll keep an eye on things when he's unblocked, and so will a few others who work AfC who are aware of what's going on. Many thanks, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem, let me know if there are any more issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Savedship

A sockpuppet of Savedship002‎ (talk · contribs) a user whom you indefinitely blocked for VOA only 18 hours ago has popped up. → Savedship001‎ (talk · contribs). ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind  Already done by JamesBWatson. Thanks for the previous block. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

RevDel

Hi. Just a small thing, but it should be enough to only delete the username and not the action in these examples (à la [43]), since the phrase "was created" is not itself offensive. It Is Me Here t / c 15:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see my mistake now. Thanks for the note, I'll keep that in mind. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

HornAfrik Media Inc

Hi Mark, Could you please undelete Ali-Ahmed.jpg now that HornAfrik Media Inc is out of the creation process! Thank you, Crtew (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've undeleted it. Not sure if it qualifies as fair use in that article or not though. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, the image ended up in the content fork on the Attacks on HornAfrik Media Inc. We appreciate all your assistance Mark! Crtew (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge request

Mark, could you merge the histories of User:Crtew/Norberto_Miranda and User:Crtew/Norberto Miranda Madrid together into the User:Crtew/Norberto Miranda Madrid article so all the edits are together in one place for CC copyright. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it's taken care of now, I think. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Perfect! Crtew (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Loque2009

Hi, Because I found out that Loque2009 was only using the account for spam / advertising purposes, please reblock this user indefinitely. Thanks! Thewikiguru1 (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I might be willing to do that, but I think you should ask the blocking admin first. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have asked the blocking admin Edgar181 (talk). Thewikiguru1 (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
I see you everywhere lately - blocking vandals, deleting spam, saving the weak! Bearian (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

oh I'm sorry, I understand what I did wrong now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.219.189 (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ali Iman Sharmarke

Mark, Could you undelete the image HornAfrik.jpg for the article Ali Iman Sharmarke now that it is published. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done. I think the FUR needs to be updated though. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Opinion

If you could, please check out these two users: Pinakulo and Fairyspit. I want someone else's opinion before I call sock puppetry on them. Look at their contributions, based mainly on the edits of Benedict Cumberbatch or anyone affiliated with him like ex-girlfriends. They both seem very set on reverting any edit they don't agree with until it's border line an edit war. Please let me know what you think. Thank you! :) Lady Lotus • talk 12:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, they both seem to focus on Cumberbatch and have both edited Katia Elizarova a decent amount as well. That does seem suspicious. To file a successful case at WP:SPI though, you'd have to present diffs of very similar edits that they've made. Ideally something like, one accounts adds something to an article, someone removes it, then the other account re-adds it. If you can show that kind of thing on more than one article you're very likely to get a checkuser to examine their IPs. Basically just present enough evidence so it seems like more than just a coincidence that they have the same interests. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I will, thank you! Lady Lotus • talk 21:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
If you'd like to comment on this, I opened up a discussion here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fairyspit. If not, that's fine. Thanks for your help! Lady Lotus • talk 18:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Eat, Pray, Love

Hi Mark, I was the one who requested a protect for the Eat, Pray, Love page due to an edit war where edits selectively removes negative reviews from notable sources (Huffington Post and The New York Times). I had requested temporary full protect to encourage use of the talk page, but I was the only one you ended up blocking, and now the user who had removed the negative reviews disappeared from the talk page. It may be that the neutrality of a low-importance article is not significant, but if you think it's worthwhile perhaps you could look at the edits and talk page (there were previous complaints about neutrality due to the dearth of negative reviews). Regardless, I yield to your greater expertise and won't edit further. Thanks for all the work you seem to do on Wikipedia. Cheers. 2003:55:4D0A:6896:B9FF:E13A:182A:748E (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, from the perspective of an edit looking at a content dispute, my goal is to stop the edit warring more than it is to make sure the "right" version of the page is in place. So, in this case, semi-protection stopped the edit warring, though maybe not on the "right" version. If I had full protected it, it would have definitely stuck on the "wrong" version for a while, since by default I protect the current version. If the editor in question doesn't want to discuss, you could ask on the talk page of a relevant Wikiproject (perhaps WP:WikiProject Books) for uninvolved users to comment or try opening an WP:RFC on the talk page of the article to get more input. Let me know if you have any more questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Rif Dimashq offensive (September–November 2013)

You can set the protection on this page Rif Dimashq offensive (September–November 2013)Hanibal911 (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a little bit less disruption at this point than I like to see before protecting, so I think I'll hold off for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Geraldine Edwards hoax

Thanks for blocking 146.244.11.175 just now. The person represents a real BLP problem.

I have been working hard undoing the work of this person based in San Diego who in April–May 2011 started adding stuff about Geraldine Edwards to various articles. This person has created a couple of hoax references to help the hoax text resist deletion, which strategy has in fact worked pretty well until today. I was surprised to see that the San Diego person reacted so strongly today; I guess I thought the person had stopped caring about these articles a long time ago. I was wrong!

The hoax material usually gives Geraldine Edwards an important place as groupie or girlfriend in several musician biographies, a place at least the equal of Bebe Buell with regard to Buell or someone else being the inspiration for the groupies in the film Almost Famous.[44][45][46] This IP editor also smears the name of Mary Ambrose[47] or pushes her down in importance[48]; Ambrose was Robert Palmer's longterm girlfriend at the time of his death and a co-composer on two of his songs.

Here are some fake references used by the IP:

  • Phelps, Frank (28 September 2003). "Dapper Rocker Robert Palmer dies". The Chicago Sun Times. p. 27. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Marks, Tracy (29 October 2004). "Former Employee and Lover of Robert Palmer Challenges his Will; Mary Ambrose says she is not a Heartless Goldigger". The Sun. p. 39. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Mark D'Ambrosio (June 20, 2006). "Eric Clapton Talks". The Boston Beacon. [49] ...Which was soon changed to the following...
  • Mark D'Ambrosio (June 20, 2006). "Eric Clapton Talks". The Boston Globe. [50]

Since many people involved in this hoax are still alive, I wanted to let you know the extent of it, so that the BLP case is somewhat familiar if it arises in the future. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

For instance, when San Diego person gets home from work and reduces Mary Ambrose on the machine at home. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I'll look into it more later. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is very strange. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your various protections and blocks—what a relief! Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Lam Duong

Could you undelete the image Lam_Duong.png now that Assassination of Vietnamese-American journalists in the United States has been created. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that's the name? I don't see a file there. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

CSD-F5 deletion of .pdf image

The deletion of File:New_Jersey_Dry_Town_Listing.pdf was performed under WP:CSD#F5, but as the uploaded item is a .pdf file from the State of New Jersey, and the file is linked directly by about 20 articles as a link rather than as an image. It would appear, as I read it, that the image did not meet the qualifications to delete the file under CSD F5. Any thoughts on restoring the file? Alansohn (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I've temp undeleted it for now @DavidinNJ: had marked it as non-free, perhaps he could comment. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Xmas in Advance


Soham (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Soham (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the Christmas cheer! Mark Arsten (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

List of Harry Potter characters query

Please see Talk:List_of_Harry_Potter_characters#Students_in_Harry.27s_year. Thanks :)

I suggest you discuss the issue there and try to come to a consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Teresa Cristina

Have you protected indefinitely by mistake? DrKiernan (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was a mistake... I'm glad someone caught that! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


Removed references by mistake on the Winter Solstice page=

Hi I removed the references from :http://en.wikipedia.org/Winter_solstice by mistake. Can you please help? and bring them back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.197.188 (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I added them back. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism on Origami

The vandal on Origami is obviously back again, now as a registered autoconfirmed user, BurfyAdkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to bypass the indefinite semi-protection. A user account that was created on 17 December, the day after the block on the last IP he used expired, made the needed number of more or less meaningless edits on other articles and then sat back, waiting to become autoconfirmed, before making the exact same vandalism on Origami as the various blocked IPs did (note the misspelling in BurfyAdkins' edit summary "Oragami", which duplicates the IP-vandal's spelling here and here). And my gut feeling tells me not only that it is the same individual, but also that he has created several spare sleeper accounts... Thomas.W talk to me 20:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note. I blocked Burfy indef for now. Amazing how persistent some of these guys are... If any more pop up I'll talk to a checkuser about a sleeper check. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Aww, you're going to delete my very straightforward comments? Pity. Oh, well. Yes, I do have sleeper accounts, but I haven't decided whether to use them yet, or to go in a different direction. You're correct that I'm persistent, though. Still, I'm willing to come out in the open and state my intentions. So you don't have to play guessing games. FYI, kind of a busy day for me, so I'm done for now. Just wanted to see how fast the response would be to Burfy. I'll be back, probably next week. Have a Merry Christmas! 74.82.64.146 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
@74.82.64.146: Just a note that with comments like this, you will be blocked for block evasion and for vandalism, and your registered accounts will be indefinitely blocked. Epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for ignoring you Mr. IP. I'm willing to listen if you have something to tell me, but I can't guarantee much else. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Athens Metro Station Layouts, added by socks of blocked user Pumpie

Hi Mark, I looked through the page history of some of the Athens Metro stations. Apparently, blocked user Pumpie and their socks (now blocked) added station layouts to the Athens Metro, and you reverted some of their edits; thanks for that. However, many of the station layouts are still there, in a poorly coded condition, and I think that you have overlooked some of their edits. Should the layouts stay, should I replace them with new layouts that are in a better condition (see some of the Taipei Metro and NYC Subway station layouts for examples of station layouts that I can convert Pumpie's layouts to), or should they be deleted altogether? I know how to fix the station layouts and can do so easily. Let me know of your thoughts on this. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's up to you, but if you have the energy then I think replacing them with new layouts would be the best option. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Wow, that was a expeditious response. I'll start doing that ASAP. Epicgenius (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good! Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Carlos Beltrán

Now that this guy becomes part of New York Yankees officially, I guess that issues are resolved. Semi-protection is too much for now, so why not re-enabling PC1 and let IPs edit again trustfully? --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit hesitant to do so because of the libelous nature of some of the vandalism that he was getting earlier in the month. It's revision deleted now though, so I can't point it out. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
You mean before the December 7 incident? If so, I'll ask Muboshgu. The unsourced edits after December 7 are NYY-related. --George Ho (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The libelous edits I deleted were on December 2, I think. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd guess it's probably safe, since most of it was related to the transaction that only became official yesterday. If vandalism continues, we can always re-protect it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Under one condition, can you enable indefinite PC1? I'm sure that some IPs will do good. George Ho (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

089baby (talk · contribs)

I'm writing here because of your involvement in the SPI into this user. The case has gotten somewhat ridiculous. He has used five new sockpuppets in the last six weeks or so, for a total of seventeen this year. It's clearly gotten to a point where blocking is a completely ineffective sanction. So was wondering if there is anything else that could be done to keep him off Wikipedia? In the SPI someone suggested blocking the underlying IP address. Is this possible, and would it stop him from creating new accounts? Thanks in advance for your help. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I blocked the most recent incarnation on the duck test. In some cases checkusers can issue a range block to the underlying IP range, but oftentimes, revert, block, ignore is the best we can do. User:Mailer diablo was the last CU to look into it, so you might ask him if there's anything else that can be done. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I've asked User:Mailer diablo about a range block and other possibilities. That being said, would it be inappropriate for me to report future sockpuppets directly to you instead of, or in addition to, an SPI, because I've got one for you, User:Holydog007. Part of the reason blocking has been so ineffective in the case that its usually taken about ten days to identify and block new sockpuppets. I'm now watching several key articles in this case. This is how, I managed to find the last two socks so quickly. I'm hoping that with quicker enforcement action he might just take his block seriously. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I hope he's able to. Yes, feel free to report them on my talk page if you want. Technically it's good to have the full paper trail of a SPI filing, but the important thing is that they end up blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for Assistance

Would it be possible if I can get your assistance with dealing with an unruly ip? An ip, [51] 98.250.4.115 is upset with the edits of one Op47 over the splitting of Largest organisms, and demonstrated its upset-ness by demanding that Op47 undo his edits or face banning for his "vandalisms." I removed the ip's threat here [52] but it was then undone by Irishfrisian [53], and the ip then proceeded to accuse me of defending a vandal. Perhaps you would be better at persuading 98.250.4.115 to be more civil?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I left him a message. We'll see how he responds. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Thankyou to both of you for your help. Op47 (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


Request for Assistance: DELETION PAGE

You deleted David D.A. Doman page. I am requesting the page be reactivated. It was the lack of sources that had the page removed, and I would like to add more credibly sources. How do I go about requesting the page be put live again? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranu79 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It depends, do you have sources that indicate he meets our general notability guideline? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Chamillionaire protection

Hi! I noticed you protected the page Chamillionaire with the summary "Persistent vandalism". I see no vandalism at all to the page in the last month, and very little in the last few months. —Emufarmers(T/C) 19:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I didn't protect it, I placed it under pending changes which still allows IPs to edit. I count at least seven disruptive IP edits in the last fifty edits which I think is enough to justify PC, particularly for a BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Arsten (talk • contribs)
The last 50 edits span 4 months, which doesn't strike me as an overwhelming barrage. On the other hand, I tend to think we should have PC on all BLPs as a matter of principle, so I guess I shouldn't be complaining. :-)
By the way, [54] (if that's not what brought you to the article in the first place). —Emufarmers(T/C) 03:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
No, not overwhelming, but enough that I think pending changes is acceptable. For overwhelming vandalism I use semi-protection, but for BLPs that consistently have vandalism issues at a lower frequency I tend to opt for pending changes. How much vandalism exactly merits pending vs semi vs none is certainly a grey area, but when dealing with BLPs I err on the side of caution. I tend to agree with you about how we'd handle all BLPs in a perfect world, looking at this list each day is pretty sobering. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Hi Mark, hope you have been well. Just wondering if you know much about topic bans for users and the process to possibly start a discussion about implementing one for a user? Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Well I guess the usual way is to open an ani discussion to discuss their conduct and see if it is concerning to anyone else. If so, then open a subheading in the discussion to hold a !vote on topic banned. The key is to clearly spell out the disruption. Let me know if you have any more questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Arsten (talk • contribs)

Request

Please Office Protect my user page (FMacks (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC))

AfD on DOM?

As the AfD on David Oscar Markus generated no interest, can we close the AfD and just go for a speedy? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Generally I don't do that. Sometimes leaving it open for a bit leads to a much more solid consensus, which is helpful to have if someone tries to get it undeleted. There was some Rfc about closing one-week-old Afds like we would PRODs, and I don't think there was consensus to do it that way. I can't find the Rfc now though, so I may be mistaken. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Roger. – S. Rich (talk) 06:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, sometimes it's best to PROD first and then go to Afd if it's contested. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Scott Leaton

Hi Mark,

You deleted Scott Leaton after closing the AFD. Do you have any objections to userfication so that I can do some work on it? BOZ (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this is one of those rare situations where you can actually cut and paste it into a sandbox. Just note what you're doing in the edit summary. Then if it's moved back to mainspace I'll just history merge your sandbox and the article since there won't be any intervening edits. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
OK. I was also thinking of using the new draft space feature, unless I can find a lot of good stuff for him. BOZ (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, that does make sense. I really haven't been following the draft space news though. I should get up to speed. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
It just started a few days ago, so no worries. :) I will start a user page draft, and then probably sometime later this week I will move to drafts if I can't build it up enough on my own. BOZ (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Emmitt Smith

The PC protection will end for almost a week. I believe that extra protection time is needed; vandalism hasn't stopped yet. --George Ho (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, good catch. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hi Mark Arsten, user Vahram Mekhitaryan repeatedly added wrong, not related links in articles, and starting edit wars. Please take some action against it.--Δαβίδ (talk) 10:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Provide diffs. Soham (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
That user repeatedly adding original research statement ([55]), which has been removed per discussion at talk page, but he readding it again.
Adding non related links ([56], [57], [58]). Besides, reverting edits with uncertain/wrong explainations in edit summary.
He was previosly blocked 3 times for edit war in same article.--Δαβίδ (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I think it might be best to take him to WP:ANI now. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

RFPP

Hi Mark Arsten, thanks for all the great work you've been doing at RFPP recently; I see your name appear in my watchlist there every day. :) Hope you've been having a pleasant holiday season, too! Best. Acalamari 18:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it feels good to keep the backlogs at bay. Best holiday wishes to you too. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

More pages pending changes

Protection time of Vivek Oberoi is running out; there are still vandals out there. I'll mention more later. --George Ho (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

What about Bidisha and Friday the 13th (franchise)? --George Ho (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've extended Vivek, but I don't see much recent vandalism on the other two. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

What about Paoli Dam and Uri Sebag? George Ho (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Repeat IP vandal (under many different IP addresses)

Mark, yesterday I reported a persistent vandal on A Katy or a Gaga and other Glee articles who had finally strayed into 3RR territory, and the user, 76.69.116.46, was blocked for 24 hours. Said user is back today under IP 174.91.131.143, making the same edits trying to add Care Bears directors and writers to this particular episode's info. (I've just now reverted the edits, but don't expect the reversion to hold unless action is taken.)

As noted, this has been happening since early November. (November 9: 174.91.129.253; November 15 and 18: 174.95.201.175; December 7: 184.148.91.202; December 21: 76.69.116.46; and now early on December 23 with 174.91.131.143). If there's anything you can do to slow this vandal down, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I protected for now. I'll look into it more tomorrow. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Mark. Oddly, 174.91.131.143 made another problematic edit of Glee (season 5) this morning, but that edit was adjusted by IP 69.77.173.156 a couple of hours later. Both were Care Bears–related, so I have to assume they're both by the same editor. Might you be able to block both addresses? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Mark, I've just been reverted by that new IP, 69.77.173.156, on Glee (season 5). Unfortunately, I have three edits that could be called reversions already today (two from this vandal, and one from someone who broke the episode table), so I'm basically out of commission there; I'll have to leave this in your hands, Care Bear misinformation and all. Thanks for anything you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I think that's enough about Care Bears for now, I've blocked a couple IPs, let me know if more pop up doing the same thing. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks. I'll let you know if more IPs appear. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year


Param Mudgal (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Thanks, Merry Christmas to you too! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Need Help

This user: The Red Pen of Doom is reverting my edits unnecessarily and writing his own information using my identified sources.He being a wikipedia editor has the right to alter any wrong information but he is deleting the entire text added by me to the page Ajaz Khan and writing his own text on the page. When there was no content available on this page then this user didn't make any efforts in adding information in this article but when i added verifiable information then he deleted the entire content added by me and used my sources to add his new content. I request you to please look into this matter. If i did any mistake i will accept it with no argument.Thank you.--Param Mudgal (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, first things first, have you tried discussing the matter on the article's talk page (or the user's talk page)? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok.. I'll try to talk to him and sort it out through his talk page.Thanks.--Param Mudgal (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Styrofoam King

Thank you for your action on this editor. I should point out though that this is the same user as Прискорбные, who has previously been banned for sock puppetry having made numerous vandalism upon the Phil Collins page.Rodericksilly (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem, let me know if you see him pop up again. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

the user was also previously vandalizing and blocked under the name [59], so he's guaranteed to come back.Rodericksilly (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Rodericksilly, this (the text you dispute) is not truly WP:Vandalism; see how Wikipedia defines vandalism. From what I see, that text you removed is simply a summary of what is lower in the article (a very short summary of Collins being controversial, in addition to the note about his success) and is therefore WP:Lead-compliant. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Flyer22, since it is a sock that is trying to push it, it most definitely is not compliant with policies and guidelines. Nymf (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, anyone is free to revert edits that are made in evasion of a block. Whether a particular edit should be reverted is a judgment call--we don't have to revert a particular edit just because a banned user made it. Note that this is apparently User:The abominable Wiki troll. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Nymf, it still is not vandalism, and that is my point on this matter. It is WP:Lead-compliant, though is perhaps not needed...since the information immediately before that states that Collins has attracted significant criticism (and directs readers to the Criticism section). What is not compliant with Wikipedia on this matter is that it is a WP:Sockpuppet adding it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Flyer22, I'll agree to disagree on that. The user obviously does not like Phil Collins and is gaming the system to get his opinion across. Nymf (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The difference is that I was/am solely focusing on the text (except for mentioning the editor in my second comment in this section and now); you were/are mostly focusing on the editor. The text is not vandalism, but, yes, we'll agree to disagree on this one. Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Flyer22, thanks for your comment. I removed it because it was submitted by a troll who has taken on several user names and previously and repeatedly submitted into the lead that Collins was "The Antichrist" and "The most hated man in rock", which was judged by other users to be opinionated and inappropriate for the lead. While I consider criticism of Collins to be very significant, this guy has an agenda.Rodericksilly (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Your rationale on this matter makes good sense. Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi

You might want to take a look at IP 92.30.211.5 as well as that IP has made similar death threats and are probably the same person.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I can not prove anything ofcourse, but I would have looked once more at any connection between user TreasuryTag and the IPs. Why did this IP contact that user a (problem user) who has not been active since August. Just a suggestion to check that out.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Wow, there's a name I haven't heard in a while. I'll have to get up to speed on this. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
No worries. But I am now confident that TreasuryTag has a connection to the IPs which is a clear violation of the guidelines concerninh him for the 41st time. Anyway, take a look. Merry Christmas.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey thanks, and what did he say?

Thanks for cleaning up the Young Turks stuff, and I assume he's made more threats at me. Curious what he said? Greg Salter (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Something about the transmission of HIV through incest. He was posting that on all the Young Turks articles for a while. Not sure what Cenak ever did to him, but, oh well. This reminds me, want me to semi-protect your userpage since he keeps comeing back? I should extend the offer to User:Jarkeld as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Aleah Chapin

Hi, not sure this is the place to reply to your email.

I am the sponsor of the commission you indicated you needed a source for. What further sourcing do you need, besides my saying I have paid for the commission?

David / Jennysup

Well, do you have a link to a website or newspaper that confirms the information? Per our verifiability policy we need to see evidence that confirms that facts. Unfortunately we can't just take your word for it. Sorry! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Inland taipan

The problem, Mark, is that the IP user we are dealing with is not well versed about the subject he's editing. In my opinion, we are dealing with nothing more than a younger individual who has a fixed imaginary/fantasy vision of what the Inland taipan should be (sort of the way I used to think of tigers when I was a child), rather than focus on what it is by being unbiased and objective. His poor writing and his poor reading comprehension arose suspicion in me about plagiarism. This lead me to make use of duplicate detector and he is in violation of WP:CV. Numerous other Wikipedia policies and guidelines have been violated by this IP user over and over again. Warnings didn't stop him. When we try to edit to fix some of these problems he quickly reverts them. He is not willing to comply with anything nor is he willing to work with me (or the other editors who have seemingly given up) in improving the article. He is an obsessed fanatic. I and some of the other editors have degrees on the very subject matter - but he refuses to allow us to edit. In my opinion, he simply needs to be given an indefinite block. I believe it is necessary to save this article and to save a lot of editors from problems. --DendroNaja (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, mea culpa I've changed it from full protection to semi-protection and extended the duration. An indefinite block isn't really an option here. We try not to indefinitely block IPs, and in this case he seems to be jumping around from IP to IP, which would greatly hinder the effectiveness of any blocks. I think semi-protection is the best bet at this point for that reason. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. This is for the best. --DendroNaja (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Catherine Gross deletion

The documentation of what is essentially a secret society is difficult at best, but I am working on updating the page and references as much as possible. I direct you to the pages of Gloria Brame and Viola Johnson as well as the Kink Aware Professionals page where you will see her name. Links were also removed from SouthEast LeatherFest of which Ms. Gross is the Producer.

A comment was posted about the awards she received being "minor" but the person who commented says they do not know the origin of the awards. Awards Ms. Gross has received are nationally recognized awards in the leather community, and in no way are considered minor at all. If you look at the Leather Journal link, you will see Ms. Gross listed as an award recipient. This is a well respected publication both nationally and internationally in the leather community. Here is a link for your quick reference: http://www.theleatherjournal.com/pantheon/61-list-of-pantheon-of-leather-awards-all-time-recipients

You can see Ms. Gross listed on the Leather Archives & Museum site as a Board member http://www.leatherarchives.org/contact/contact.htm Additionally, a book edited by Peter Tupper to be published in 2015 discussing the "firsts" in the leather community specifically names Ms. Gross http://petertupper.com/2013/02/23/editing-the-history-of-consensual-master-slave-relationships/.

I would also like to refer you to the folllwing page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Southeast_Leatherfest_(2nd_nomination)where you will see comments pertaining to the difficulty in finding sources due to the privacy and secrecy of the community. While some aspects of the community are beginning to open, it is still a huge challenge to find the supporting documentation.

I do understand the need for proper citations as much as possible, and again, I'm working on that to the best of my ability. I appreciate your assistance in this matter. If it is not possible to restore the page, I respectfully request a copy of the page. Thank you. Mike Shore (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, really what we need to have an article on her is "significant coverage in reliable sources", see WP:GNG. The deletion of the article isn't meant as an insult to her or her accomplishments, but we have very particular rules about independent sourcing in biographies. Also, articles need to be written neutrally, we can't accept articles that seem like they're promoting an person, see WP:NPOV. If you'd like to have the article restored, the first step is to create a neutrally written, well sourced draft about her. See WP:DRAFT for details. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Mark- thank you so much for your response. Is it possible for you to send me a copy of the page so that I might use that as a reference and work on getting it up to appropriate standards? My email is mikeshore212@yahoo.com Thank you. Mike Shore (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure, will do. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

RfPP Tips

A few things to know. Cyberbot no longer follows redirects. Also placing {{rfpp|n}} sets a 24 hour timeout on the request. That means you don't need to slap another tag on there to have the bot archive it. Merry Christmas.—cyberpower OfflineMerry Christmas 03:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's good to hear. For some reason a lot of redirects need protecting... sigh. Merry Christmas to you too! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

SafeMinds reinstatement

Where do things stand on SafeMinds as a Wiki page? As indicated, I am new to all of this and must admit, I am not Wiki savvy. So, there is a learning deficit here that must be acknowledged, thanks. Eric Uram (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I replied below. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:Edit warring going on at Wikipedia:Notability (people)

Regarding this, I was just about to ask you if perhaps that page should be full-protected. Then I went to WP:Request for page protection and thought that perhaps it's already listed there. I have not had the Wikipedia:Notability (people) page on my WP:Watchlist for long (about a week now), and I might not have it on there for much longer. Flyer22 (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have protected it a while ago, but since I close some Afds on the subject I was worried that it could create the perception of bias if I protect the "wrong version" of the notability guideline. It sure looks bad to have admins and other veteran contributors edit warring like that on an official guideline so I broke down and protected it. I guess I don't personally have an opinion on the disputed content to be honest, but I guess I'll just skip over the Afds that hinge on the disputed passage of the guideline in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I understood the rationale you gave at WP:Request for page protection, and thanks for going ahead and protecting that page. As for the edit war that was going on there, you and BusterD summed it up well. I wonder if BusterD watches your talk page and if my initial post here about this matter led him to comment there about it. Flyer22 (talk) 07:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it needs an uninvolved admin to step in and say "Consensus is X--discussion over". That whole talk page is a mess at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I do watch Mark's talk page. I've been watching this situation with growing dismay for several days, and the discussion for much longer. I'll avoid taking a side, but the warring actions taken by some on both sides do not shower any in the discussion with glory. I was writing an RFC to appear under my comment. The issue needs a broader set of eyes. BTW, is there a WP:BURDEN related to policy and guideline changes? It seems to me that the party making the change needs defend the change, not those restoring the original guideline. Am I incorrect? BusterD (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Normally that would be the case, but in a case like here, where the alternative is not so much between two different proposed versions of a rule but basically just between the validity of a rule and its mere absence, the only logically tenable principle is the other way round: there has to be a demonstrable continuing consensus for a rule in order for it to be valid, so a demonstrable state of "no consensus" must lead to its removal rather than its preservation. This is simply because guidelines are meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive, and a valid guideline is, by definition, that which has consensus. Therefore, demonstrable lack of consensus in (including a persistent pattern of the rule being overridden in practice) logically entails that the guideline is invalid and has to be struck. There is also a practical reason for this: demanding active consensus for removal (rather than active consensus for its retention) would make it far too easy for small bands of determined filibusterers to keep a rule in place forever – which is precisely what has been happening here for years. That's the reason for the exasperation that has led to this recent bout of warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I better understand your point now. I've been noticing the exasperation for quite some time. I've taken the liberty of creating a request for comment. Does anybody see something in my request or my comment afterwards which needs changing? BusterD (talk) 08:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Maybe you could consider shortening the intro to the RfC a bit; right now it doesn't seem to make it quite clear what its intended scope is (as you are asking some more questions in the intro text than the one you put at the top). Please also note that several people have already been providing endorsement !votes to pretty much exactly the same question in the discussion above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I think this will be a good way to solve the issue. Being able to point to the results of a formal Rfc closed in your favor always goes a long way to silence opposition. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Protection

Hello Sir I Request you to Please Semi-protect my user Page Mark Assq (talk/contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 08:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


Need support and advice for BLP

Hi Mark, I've been updating one of the pages you deleted recently (Sayo Kosugi) and need your help to make it right. PROD was based on unsourced BLP, so I added some relevant references in the article, which I thought solved the issue, but probably it wasn't enough to validate. Could you help me understand better not to make a same mistake and make it right? Thanks! Aki 05:47, 24 December 2013 (JST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makwn (talk • contribs)

The issue was that we need independent sources that discuss the individual, see WP:IRS (think newspapers, books, magazines, etc.). If you can find such sources, you are free to recreate the article as long as you cite them in the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mark! I put 5 direct sources with citation discussing the article and put them in the reference list but was deleted and want to know the reasons. One was from the symphony orchestra, another was from Juilliard school but do you think those aren't independent enough to be cited? Thanks! Aki 10:50, 28 December 2013 (JST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.57.75.30 (talk)

SafeMinds reinstatement

Mr. Arsten --

I have looked back into the archives and found your response on Autism File as a reputable media outlet. Can you elaborate on what is needed to gain reinstatement if this is not acceptable and the mentions in mainstream media are unacceptable?

Here's some additional input: SafeMinds members have testified before Congress and Congress recognizes SafeMinds as a legitimate organization. Would that transcript [3] suffice?

Our members continue to participate as representatives [4] of the affected families on government committees as a representative for SafeMinds. Is that acceptable?

I don't follow why this continues to fail to meet your thresholds of recognition as a legitimate organization... including the annual ongoing IRS 990 filings on income/expenditure and recognition by the IRS that we are a 501(c)(3) organization formed in the state of Illinois and the numerous links that come up when researching the organization through Wiki's own websearch tools. Eric Uram (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, please elaborate on why Autism Files is not considered a reliable source? I don't see where this news outlet fails to meet wiki RS criteria. Eric Uram (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that Autism File is a reliable source, as it appears to promote WP:FRINGE content. The Daily Mail isn't a very good source, but my appraisal was based on this article. Unfortunately, testifying before Congress and participating as representatives does not necessarily demonstrate notability. It doesn't appear to me that there is enough coverage of your group to merit its own article, but if you disagree you are free to appeal the deletion at WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The mention in a questionable outlet (your own words) from 2008 seems rather thin for justifying WP:FRINGE - if the passing mention of a questionable outlet placing advertising and receiving promotion from years past forever condemns a periodical to this status, then most all publications and organizations would be suspect...

As far as WP:DRV, I find your responses to what has been provided for creating substantive evidence on SafeMinds existence as a credible organization as indicative of uncertainty on the deletion. Thanks for your indications on the means to move forward for reinstatement. Eric Uram (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Date vandal

Hi Mark, may I trouble you to take at IP editor 68.0.216.233. If I report the user to AIV now, it'll just get ignored for insufficient warnings, but this IP is clearly on a date-faking campaign. In these 2 edits the user introduces deliberate factual error at The Even Stevens Movie. The film was released on June 13, 2003, but the user changed that to June 11, 2004, and also massively changed other dates. User also vandalized dates here at Seven (film) where they changed the release date from September 22, 1995 (source) to June 7, 1996. Looking through some of their other edits, I noticed massive date changes here and here. There is also a piece of subtle vandalism here where the user moved Mortal Kombat down in the list and changed the release year from 1995 to 1996. Anyhow, the user is obviously here to vandalize. Thanks for your help, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation, I think there's enough to justify a block if he keeps it up. He hasn't edited since your warning, so I'll hold off on blocking for now and check back later. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. As I revert I'm noticing a lot of 1995 dates being changed to 1996. Bot? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure, perhaps. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe not. He misspelled October two different ways in one edit. What a hollow existence--finding new tedious ways to insert false information into Wikipedia articles? Geez. Here are the edits that I double-checked for accuracy at RottenTomatoes (some are dupes of above). [60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2014!
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.

Happy New Year! — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 21:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too! Mark Arsten (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Cyberpower678


—cyberpower OnlineMerry Christmas is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—cyberpower OnlineMerry Christmas 22:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too! Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you.—cyberpower ChatOnline 19:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Your alter ego

Your alter ego left a message on my talk page. I think somebody is trying to make fun of you. (Bad taste). Hafspajen (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like someone had too much Eggnog! Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Hafspajen (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Happy Holidays!!
From Hafspajen (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC) 12:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Happy Holidays to you too! Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Please Give Me Another Chance, Help me and Let me re.edit my page

Hello Mark Arsten, I am Mark Ludwig Labastida, I am a high school physics teacher at Tagum National Trade School for 2 years. Ever since I knew about wiki, I have been starting to depend on it, researching for almost every projects and assignment I had way back when I was a student.

Last December 23, 2013 I started to make/ write my first wiki page entitled The Big Five Pageants Ranks (I guess other wiki user/editor renamed it into The Five major beauty pageant) and it is a better name than mine indeed.

Just now I noticed that my page was temporarily protected, I have mixed emotions actually, I was a little sad because my page is subject for deletion. I am also very MUCH happy and shocked because I just can't believe that the admin: Mark Arsten was the one who keep my page protected.

Thank you for giving my page some time to be checked by you sir. If you could give me a chance to improve my article it would be my honor to do so. It would also be a great to receive some advice from you on how can I make my page more effective. :) I would love to be one of the wiki editors/user. To help the wiki community.

You'll be autoconfirmed in a day or so, which will allow you to edit the page then. Please take care to abide by our policies on copyright violations though when you do. Let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Truth About Lies (film)

The original version of the article from 2011 was based upon on old and inaccurate source. Further research shows the project began filming December 2013 and is now in post-production. I made corrections/expansions to the article to address the original author's errors and have added a different set of "Find sources" at the AFD. I think the now-better-sourced and now slightly improved article. What you think? Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll try to check it out later. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas Mark, glad to see I'm not the only one crazy enough to be patrolling too early on Christmas Day! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Merry Christmas to you too! Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Glee IP back, now messing with my user page

Mark, the IP that you blocked for vandalizing "A Katy or a Gaga" and Glee (season 5) is back as 173.206.72.5, and added this fake DYK credit for "A Katy or a Gaga", including the usual Care Bears association, to my user page. Needless to say, I'm about to revert it. Blocking the new IP address would be welcome. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Huh, very odd. Well, I've blocked that IP, but something tells me we haven't seen the last of him... Mark Arsten (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Well, his favorite target pages are unavailable, so it's not hugely surprising that someone that persistent is finding other outlets. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Hounding? HA! see WP:AGF

how dare u accuse me of having ANYTHANG to do with Ryulong?! Sir, my name is Ron I went to University of Miami and love anime shit. I dont want to talk to u anymore. Read the rules. Dragonron (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF is a great policy, but sometimes coincidences just become too much. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
just what r u trying to say? Spit it out Mary, I mean!, Mark... Dragonron (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
What I mean is if you continue to create the appearance that you're here to bother Ryulong you'll be blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Bangerter Machine Gun page Removal?

Can you please advise me of the information that brought you to the decision to remove the page regarding the Bangerter Machine Gun? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.107.41 (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You can see the reasons for the deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangerter machine gun. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


Yes I just found that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.107.41 (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Mwara thuku

He's back, making edits using User:66.37.51.4 as well. What's problematic is that people are reverting his edits, and trying to leave him messages on his talk page, and he just keeps inserting this nonsense. Would you mind taking a look? --Rschen7754 22:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I've blocked per WP:CIR. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

User:ErikHaugen

Mark - I could use some help. This user has deleted an entire page I added by citing "unambiguous copyright violation"; when I requested proof he deleted the page. This is not the first of my recent edit this user is trolling and I am gravely displeased. Please take a look at my talk page for his comments. I sent him message and received no reply at the time of this writing. I would like the "Kahal Kadosh" page returned in entirety. Jaim Harlow [jimharlow99] 22:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

What is the exact title of the page you'd like me to look at? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Erik Haugen deleted the following page:
(Deletion log); 18:59 . . ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) deleted page Kahal Kadosh Beth Shalome ‎(G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement)
I am requesting that it be restored. There was no copyright infringement - he made it up out of thin air and didn't possess the stones to exchange discussion. He fabricated "copyright infringement" claim where there was none. Here is my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimharlow99 Jaim Harlow 02:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I've replied at User_talk:Jimharlow99. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I've re-written the page to reflect that the site referenced by Erik Haugen copyrights material from other sources as its own. In other words, Mr Haugen was enforcing the copyright of a copyright infringer.Jaim Harlow 02:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can parse what you're saying. Are you saying they're public domain? Which one(s)? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ketchup

You have reverted a section about the HP works in Birmingham which seems to have been added quite inappropriately, possibly to disguise the insult to yourself which is buried within it. Chemical Engineer (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Ditto your reversion of removal of inappropriate material to Koala - you have inadvertently blocked the wrong user (who correctly removed the material), instead of the person who put it there (including more buried insults). Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake - I've just looked into it a bit further - it now appears that both users are socks - "(the first sock) inserted false info and used a malicious sock to revert the addition, hoping someone would add it back. These new socks operate on the same MO" - and this is what happened in this case too. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there are some very silly socks running around :) Mark Arsten (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks guys, I was actually tricked here. The user adding the vandalism as well as the user removing the vandalism were being controlled by the same banned user, who tries to trick people that way. So they're both (rightfully) blocked at this point and the text is gone from the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyvios by Thundrplaya

I noticed that you blocked Thundrplaya this summer for copyright violations. Well, I found another one at Nebraska Cornhuskers men's basketball. Which likely means there may be more. I know this user hasn't edited since November, but it may be a good idea to check his edits for copyright problems. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 23:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note. I'll try to look into that later. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

AfD closure

Mark, would you mind taking a look at this AfD [68]? It's been relisted twice, last time was 10 days ago. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a complicated one. I've looked at it a few times, but it's a hard call to make since it's so close. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I know I'm biased because of my vote, but it looks like a no consensus to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

A Simple Plan (film)

Thank you for protecting A Simple Plan. But, can you please revert the most recent addition of original research and analysis? Thanks! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I generally don't revert to a specific version after protecting a page. I suggest you make an edit request on the talk page and ask for a revert there. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Party Posse Band/Archive

Mark, I'm confused by what happened here. I understand that of the three accounts, The Party Posse Band was the oldest and should be the master, as opposed to Be Sharps (band), but there are two problems with the way it's configured now. First, we've "lost" the third account, User:Posse band. Second, the tagging is wrong. The master is not tagged, but Be Sharps is tagged as the master (because I didn't know there was an earlier one). Is there a way to fix all this, or am I missing something? the tagging, of course, is easy to fix, but I'm going to wait until I hear back from you. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for the mixup. I've changed the tags on The Party Posse Band and the Be Sharps (band) and added Posse band to the SPI. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, is there a way to get back my comments? In other words, the archive should show two reports instead of only one. My comments were somewhat important because the users were not advertising real things but creating hoaxes. If it's too difficult, I'll live. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see what the issue was, I forgot to merge one section. I've done so now. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Perfect!--Bbb23 (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
At Wikipedia we sometimes call our admins mop-wielders. You sir, are the most moppy of wielders or the most wieldy of moppers (your choice). Thank you for your dedication in cleaning up tasks that others don't make the time for. Your behind-the-scenes cleaning makes this encyclopedia run smoothy -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I really appreciate it. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Could you take a look at the edits of IP 24.209.194.7 he is adding information that is obviously not appreciated as his edits are often reverted but the user seems unwilling to change even after being told several times. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I left another message for him, we'll see how he responds and then work from there. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Good.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but there is a IP who has made a threat against another user and also is making unconstructive edits. IP 118.165.20.203 . Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I think I got him. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mark

Hello Mark. I updated my husbands information ( Peter Cartwright. Actor) you left me a message saying " You have removed it" I fail to understand why? I simply added that he had married and then passed away. Can you please explain why this is not acceptable ? You can contact me Regards Peggy Cartwright ( Peters Wife) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peggy cartwright (talk • contribs) 17:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the misunderstanding. There were a couple problems with this edit. When you add a claim to a Wikipedia article, you need to include a source with your edit that we can verify. This prevents pranksters from adding claims of death to articles about living people, something we've had many problems with in the past. Also, while I am very sorry for your loss, we don't use language like "is sadly missed" in article. Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mark. Thank you for your reply. What should I do now? Add the info again? Or will you add it? Peggy Cartwright — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peggy cartwright (talk • contribs) 00:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

We can add the information back in, but we'd need to see an obituary or an article first. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Sandra Griffin Management Ltd

A selection of our clients current and recent engagements.


It is with regret that we announce, that PETER CARTWRIGHT passed away on Monday 21st November. Ever the gentleman, and ever the professional, he will be sadly missed. If you would like to call his Agent Sandra Griffin Management Ltd , Twickenham or look on her website you will see death of Peter .. Which she has made a mistake he past on the evening of Monday 18th November 2013 ..Peggy Cartwright — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peggy cartwright (talk • contribs) 13:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That would probably work, just make sure you link to the official website when you add that to the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mark

Mark I do appreciate your offer of contacting you re the article on Caledonia. I'm working on my PhD at the moment on Wyntoun's Chronicle and have four Masters Degrees. I was struck by the use of the phrase 'in what is now Scotland'. It is perfectly acceptable to use it. It is equally acceptable simply to refer to 'Scotland' as it is not necessary to correct every potential anachronism. Ionesco key factor in this is the question of consistency across articles and within them. So, Ireland which in this article and on others is not! until I altered it referred in terms like 'what is now Ireland'. Of course, like Scotland and England it was also during the 'Caledonian' period ruled by petty or sub kings and had not attained to political unity and was not then known as Ireland either linguistically or politically. That is why I have made this particular alteration. It is certainly not vandalism and is not incorrect. You will find few, very few countries to which Wikipedia editors are applying the same rules to as to references to Scotland... This is pretty obviously unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.50.94 (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but I saw you write "Roman military incursions into central and northern Scotland,we're fleeting." and assumed you were vandalizing. Feel free to continue to edit the page. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Candidate for deletion

Hello Mark, the page I created is candidate for deletion. Last December 24, you had it protected. I did some revisions and edits on the page I also cited sources and links to make it more reliable and more informative. I hope you could check the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_major_beauty_pageants and you could give me some advice on how to make it better. The page will I think be deleted on December 31 if not properly edited. Please help. Thank you. Markimatix (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

To have the article kept, you'll have to present major media outlets who use the term "Five major beauty pageants" and discuss the subject in detail. It might be a better idea though to edit related topics rather than just this one article. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible if I will edit also other pages by mentioning this page: Five major beauty pageants on theirs?Markimatix (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That's ok, but only if you have a published reference that connects the other pages to that subject. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok I will. Thank you :)Markimatix (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Mark, I already edited these pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Earth and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Supranational. Thank you Mark.. Markimatix (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I've removed the most recent edits to each of these pages, as they only attempted to confirm the unsupported and unsourced claim of '5 major pageants.' As I've suggested elsewhere, this appears to be part of a persistent attempt to promote a recently established contest by conferring it 'major' status on Wikipedia. It's something akin to spamming, is disruptive, and given the discussions at multiple pages and canvassing at numerous others, suggests a willful ignorance of guidelines. Thanks, JNW (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand if ever you will delete the page. I fully understand that we are just trying to keep the Wikipedia's reputation and its good standing in the web for online research. I still wish and hope that someday I can be part of your team. My apology for my desire (maybe undesirable) to keep the page. Thank you for the experience of editing I have learned a lot. Thank you also for the people/editors /contributors I came to talk with. It was really a great experience. Sir, if you have time please feel free to know me more. I am 27 years old physics high school teacher from Philippines.

Deleted image was removed from article by vandal

You recently deleted the image File:Southern Methodist University Seal.gif because it was an orphaned non-free file unused in an article for more than one week. I took a look at the article history for Southern Methodist University, and the image was removed by a couple IP editors as part of a series of vandal edits that were only partially reverted. Here's the beginning and ending of those edits. Can you restore the deleted image so it can be relinked to the article? Thanks. –Mabeenot (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for the mixup, it's been undeleted now. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Polimoda revision

Sir, someone manipulated the "polimoda" page and added "It is not listed by the Italian ministry of education, the Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca, among the institutions authorised to award degrees in music, dance and the arts.[4]" which is not true. Polimoda is accredited and recognised by the region of tuscany and the comune di firenze e prato. Please kindly make a research and make the page look appropriate for this famous prestigious fashion school. http://www.polimoda.com/en/about-us.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.46.156.76 (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You should bring this up on the articles talk page and try to start a discussion there. Let me know how it turns out, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

What're ya tryin to do?

I remember u btw. That kid is not listening to reason, Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters#Manga spellings?! is about the recient changes to the page. U should be on my side, yet ur in favour of permablocking me?! Watever Im watching the threads. Dragonron (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say I'm in favor of blocking you, no. Nor do I have an opinion on the content dispute. You seem like you're looking for conflict though, which raises red flags coming from a new user. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
What?! All I EVER wanted was the best for wiki, and am met with constant opposition. Look, check the links and know that Im telling the truth. Xfansz or watever his or her name is lying about "Viz names" cause theyre REDIRECTS! Check it out dude. Dragonron (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Constantly being met with opposition may be a sign that you should change your approach, no? Mark Arsten (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Im afraid not. At least Huron is on my side. Dragonron (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Please Protect My Page

HelloMark, I would like to ask your help to have this page be protected. I am planning to finish this page before the year ends. Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_Named_After_Jose_Rizal. Thank you so much :) Markimatix (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but we generally only protect pages if there are problems with vandalism, copyright violations, or other issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

editors

Hello, no doubt you will simply ignore this and then block my account, but can you please explain why you won't let blocked editors create a new account? If they continue to create trouble then yes fair enough you should block them, but it seems no one even bothers to find out why people do the things that they are doing, most of the time they do believe they are right even if they're not it might be a matter of opinion. Just ignoring it and telling them they are a vandal then blocking them without even listening to them is totally wrong. So I beg you, let me prove to you that a second chance is worth while just for a week then if you really feel it's not then block me and I promise I won't ever come back. But if you do, do that it will just show what sort of peeople are in charge of this site are really like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaacafe (talk • contribs) 11:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Think of it this way: if someone is arrested for drunken driving and has his license suspended, if he responds by using a counterfeit license and continuing to drive during his suspension he'll get in more trouble if he's caught. Now, sockpuppetry is harmless compared to drunken driving and wiki-admins are not police, but I think the analogy basically works. If you go the duration of your block without evading it, you can be welcomed back as an editor in good standing when it ends or when you qualify for the standard offer... that way you won't have to worry about getting more blocks from admins like me. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

More 089baby socks

Could you please block the newest sockpuppet: Overhadkick (talk · contribs)? There aren't many edits to go on, but three of them are essentially identical to one made by previous socks. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, obvious enough that I could just block him. I should protect some of those pages when I get a chance. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No need to worry.

Hi, I recently reverted all the remaining edits by sockpuppets of Pumpie that were marked "current" to relive most of your workload. I was going to upload a brand new map of the Athens Metro (which has citations of course) but it's these users that delay genuine contributions like mine. Anyway, there are two remaining SPI cases for the said user. --Marianian(talk) 18:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to look into it later today. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Cheema

Cheema has been a problem since this edit on 12 December. Until then, it had been stable for a good while. I've raised the issue on the talk page on a couple of occasions but feel like I'm hitting my head against a brick wall. Some might call it a slow edit war but I'm in a good mood at the moment and would rather not put someone who is apparently new-ish at the mercy of WP:AN3 where a block would seem the likely outcome. WP:3O is an option, I guess, but I wonder if you could take a quick look at it. No worries if you are not so inclined or do not have the time. - Sitush (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, a trip to WP:AN3 seems unavoidable at this point. Sorry that I can't come up with much more to say. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for taking a look at it. I'm getting fed up of having to make repeated visits to SPI, AN3 and RFPP and worry that I'm gaining a bad reputation for biting or cabal-like behaviour etc. But if needs must then the integrity of the project trumps all, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Major copyright violations made by IP user (Inland taipan)

Ok, thanks for the note, if it's not too much trouble, could you point out which revision they were first added in and which revision they were removed in? I'll revdelete the intervening edits. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
It's going to be difficult, I mean that was just after a very brief search, god knows how many copyright violations there are. The article, from my point of view as someone specialized in the field, is in shambles and the user should not be allowed to edit it ever. --DendroNaja (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, agreed. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Heads Up

May be a sock to add to a list?Flat Out let's discuss it 09:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let me know if you see any more silliness of this sort. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and question

Dear Sir,

I am French student and I published the Wikipedia page of Arnaud Courlet de Vregille, peinter, and you accepted it in november, I thank you for that.

Moreover, I would like to know what means the designation "Orphan page" and if I can doing something to change this statute. I read the Wikipedia explanation but I don't understand what it means precisely.

To finish, I thank you very much for your open mindedness and your interest for culture.

Thanking for your availability, I address you my wishes.

--Drapé (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Basically, what you have to do is to find other articles that mention de Vregille and add wikilinks, [[]], around his name there. Then you can remove the orphan tag. If you're having trouble finding mentions of him, there are often pages that list everyone with the same first name or last name, or everyone from the same city, or everyone from the same profession. Those would be good places to add his name and link it. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
You could add him to Arnaud (given name), Bourges, and List of French painters, then you could remove the tag. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ritratto_di_Dama_-_Anna_Sforza.pdf

Who gave you the permission to delete this file? This file contains original art historical research of more than 3 years and adds value more than anything else on the page. There is no copyright issue as I have everything clarified with all the parties having an interest in it. So please undo your change or I do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RESA79 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was marked as a copyrighted file, which means it must be used in an article. As it had not been used in an article for one week, it was deleted. Are you saying that its authors released it under a free license? If so, it may be possible to have it restored. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
Mark Arsten, for all your dedicated hard work around Articles for Deletion, I hereby award you the The Admin's Barnstar. I appreciate your willingness to make closes that many admins, myself included, shy away from and leave for others. Thank you! Mkdwtalk 21:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. Afd can be a full-contact sport at times! Mark Arsten (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

CAM editor

I just discovered you erroneously deleted the page CAM editor on the 2nd December.

It is only happenstance that I found your message - why your computer system does not email authors with deletion pending emails I do not know.

Obviously if I had been aware of your original notice I would have responded. I can only act on what I can see - not what your system hides from me.

Please restore the content - and I can then address your concerns from there. Right now I am completely blindsided by your actions and can find no credible reasoning to support them - especially given the reservations in the discussion notes. Did you once stop to think - "Well let me contact David Webber directly?".

You may want to note that the CAM editor project has 1,000 downloads weekly worldwide - is now an Enterprise level contribution on SF.net - and has numerous articles referencing - all of which could be added - if you had only taken time to notify our project - its not like we are hidden and hard to find.

  • Restore - I just ran a Google search for 'CAM editor' - and the first 3 pages of results are all links to CAM editor related content and then many articles referencing the CAM editor - e.g. http://www.devx.com/xml/Article/41066 along with articles in IBM Developer, SOA magazine, DDJ, and the list is extensive also of cited publications and academic references.

Not to mention that the OASIS CAM specification is an approved member standard of OASIS - of which the CAM editor is a reference implementation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrwebber (talk • contribs) 02:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Disappointed :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrwebber (talk • contribs) 02:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I can explain why the page was deleted, but I think the best way would be for you to read the deletion discussion itself: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAM editor. Let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Mark - I read that discussion - frankly its a joke. If you had asked me directly I can point you to dozens of articles, journal articles and such relating to the CAM editor - also of course the SourceForge.net project itself and the evident activity there (current holiday period excepted of course - thankfully XML folks do take time off over the holidays). Over 200,000 page views and 50,000 downloads from over 150 countries in the past two years alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrwebber (talk • contribs) 02:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The version that was deleted lacked third-party, reliable sources (see WP:RS). To have it restored, please write a draft of the page containing citations to reliable sources in your userspace or the draft namespace (see WP:DRAFT) and then submit it to WP:AFC for review. Let me know if you have any issues, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I can happily do that. It would save me a great deal of time and effort however if you could post the original page content here - or a link to the archive - since otherwise I will need to produce the whole again completely from scratch - and likely it will bear no resemblance to what was originally there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrwebber (talk • contribs) 03:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You state the impossible, and Mark, you offer a disservice. While the article lacked reliable sources, it could never have any since none exist to meet RS. Dr. Webber, please work on improving your product and its recognizability and then when articles that meet RS are written, start the article again. If you insist on having the article restored, make the request at the place I suggested on your talk page and request that it be "userfied". That's Wikipedia jargon for moving it to a sub-page in your user space. It likely won't do any good to then try to move it to the main space after that since there are several editors who are watching that article and will request a speedy deletion if nothing has improved in the product's notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure giving you the draft would help really, since that was deleted for poor quality. Just find some the reliable sources and summarize them as best you can. You don't have to write pages and pages, just take a few paragraphs and explain when it was founded, what it does, and why it's important. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Mark and Walter - OK understood - I will execute new then. Looking at a week till I can get to it - since we are in middle of new software release and then web page content updates - once that is done I can circle back on this. I know where to go find suitable citations and articles already. It's a constant challenge having to coordinate all this - as you can see we have already built up a substantial information presence - but it is never ending task to improve and crosslink. Plus we cannot know everything - I'm constantly discovering new projects and efforts that are using our software successfully.

Thanks, David Webber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.48.150 (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Current round of vandals

Maybe contact their ISP's abuse department? [69] --NeilN talk to me 17:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I've never done that before. You might want to talk to User:Philippe if you're thinking of doing so. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I suppose a rangeblock would cause too much collateral damage? --NeilN talk to me 17:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
At this point it seems like a rangeblock wouldn't work... but I'll keep it in mind. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory

Can you move-protect the article? Someone unofficially requested a move last month, and people hope that consensus may change when the show becomes unpopular or cancelled. --George Ho (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, has it been moved in the past? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
In 2011. No disruption recently. If consensus changes, it changes. --NeilN talk to me 20:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Not including my recent mistake, there are no disruptions since either 2009 or 2011. --George Ho (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion is only worth 31 hours?

Not sure how your response here makes sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

When dealing with some dynamic IPs, you have to keep in mind that they change IPs within 31 hours. Indeed, some of them change IPs multiple times a day. The one we're dealing with now seems to be able to change at will over a pretty wide range. The best solution in this case is to find the pages he's targeting and semi-protect them.Mark Arsten (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes right, that's correct, but this only work if he really target something, this is because when his target was semiprotected he said will random do chaos in random pages, what can be done against that ? You can call the ISP but there are two aspect, 1st what your demand will be ? 2nd the ISP representative will ask you, what you want? anything you will ask :) You can write him an email at johanna.herrman@yahoo.com or you can undo on his target page, because on same page that actually is semiprotected are links like a2zvideo :) Cheers guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.85.227 (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

166.147.0.0/whatever

He's persistent isn't he.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've given a small rangeblock. Let me know if he jumps it. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection at Michael Schumacher

Hello. Can you give your rationale for semi-protecting the Michael Schumacher page please at 03:04, 29 December 2013, with diffs of the heavy and continued vandalism by IP editors that you were protecting against, as I am struggling to see any such activity in the article history. Thanks. Burgring (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking back at the month or so before the protection was enabled I do see a number of unhelpful IP edits. Semi-protection is used when there are persistent problems with IP disruption, and the definition of what is "persistent" is a judgment call by the protecting admin. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Diffs would be helpful to get a feel for what you judge to be unacceptably persistent IP disruption. Burgring (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

DrDBKarron

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

Michal Safianik deletion

Dear Mark please bring back - unlock the English version of Michał Safianik (which exact translation exist in Polish Wikipedia version). I've spent a lot of time and effort to create this article having citations, and following the advices of your colleagues. Can you explain me how to improve (if needed) and get it back? Regards,Ula Urs8721 (talk)Urs8721 —Preceding undated comment added 09:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It may be possible to have the page restored, can you provide reliable sources that discuss it in depth? See WP:ANYBIO for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Jail

Mark Arsten, if the truth is not constructive for you that's not my problem. Peter Shift is a jew, his father is in jail, it's important to know so people avoid getting scammed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.129.78 (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

We can say he's Jewish, and we can say his father is in jail, but we can't say that his father being in jail proves that he's from a Jewish family. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

New incarnation of an IP that was blocked two hours ago

Hello. IP 68.146.120.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who was blocked by Ohnoitsjamie two hours ago, quickly reappeared as IP 70.72.13.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), repeating the exact same unsourced/deliberately misleading POV edits that the first IP got blocked for. I've posted this on Ohnoitsjamie's talk page too, but he doesn't seem to be online, while you do... Thomas.W talk to me 22:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've blocked per the similarity in edits. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I checked all contributions made by the new IP before reporting, and the latest edits were exact duplicates of unsourced and unexplained POV edits made by the IP that was blocked a couple of hours ago, and all previous edits by this latest IP were also of that type (introducing factual errors promoting the Punjabi language at the expense of Hindi and Urdu, etc.). The anonymous editor seems to have been around for a while, BTW, because the edits were made as exact duplicates of the other IP's edits without being reverts, apparently knowing that reverts always attract more attention than regular edits. Thomas.W talk to me 23:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting, thanks for looking into that. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

YO STOP

YO STOP

Sorry but we need a source before we mark someone as deceased. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Do you think page protection is necessary in this case? I've posted at the BLP noticeboard here. Edge3 (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Just sending you another notification, in case you didn't see this message. Do you think that further action is needed on the Paul Sally page, given recent efforts to add unsourced info on his alleged death? Edge3 (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, I'd suggest listed it at WP:RFPP. I'd protect myself but I've already reverted a few times. My google searches aren't turning up anything at the moment. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for checking! I've listed it at the RFPP page. Edge3 (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
And as luck would have it, it's really backlogged right now... I'll try to do the rest so this one sticks out. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh cool, someone got to it right away. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I saw the YO STOP here and took care of it. Acroterion (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Acroterion. Yes, that was much faster than I expected. Mark Arsten, I don't visit the noticeboards often, so I really appreciate your help in monitoring the situation and guiding me to the right place! Edge3 (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Ahmed Ennaji

FYI, I've protected this page. You accepted someone's request for create protection at WP:RFPP, but nothing happened, so I've applied protection. Please modify the protection if what I did wasn't what you were envisioning. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I just opened the page and then forgot to protect it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

IP 54

Be aware you have declined blocking an apparent sock of blocked user User_talk:54.242.221.254 whose edits are still live on the ref desk talk page. I have no opinion as to whether his comments are vandalism, but the socking is indubitable. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The block on 54.242.221.254 expired over a week ago, so it's not block evasion for him to come back with another IP address tonight. Do you know if he's evading another (currently in effect) block? Absent any clear evidence of block evasion or personal attacks I'm not inclined to take action here. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't follow people or keep track of such things, but I do geolocate IP's such as this, and the connection was rather obvious. I am not expecting any specific action, I just thought the information was interesting. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
That is interesting, might want to keep tracking him if you can. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Given these: 54.224.35.46 (talk · contribs)
54.224.206.154 (talk · contribs)
54.242.221.254 (talk · contribs)
It looks like this guy is evading a current block. I assume you'll act on this, if not, please leave a message on my talk where to post a complaint. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, which account is currently blocked? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
None are currently blocked. As noted below, .154 made his first entry before the block on .46 had expired. So that was a block evasion. Since he's an IP-hopper, he might not even have been aware that his previous IP had been blocked. The one who really ought to be sanctioned is Onorem, who stuck his nose into this and fed this troll after I had tried to quietly revert him - as per frequent advice on the ref desk talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
If I was in charge, I'd semi-protect that talk page and put it all to rest. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Requesting that has been tried. They won't do it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
And I asked again, and they won't do it. Maybe you could have a talk with the admin that declined it? I'd rather not take this to ANI, as the troll would gorge itself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome (as is any other admin) to protect it, Mark Arsten, but I declined it for now since it seems like relatively few disruptive edits which are handled relatively quickly. only (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't "dealt with", the IP simply went away. He'll turn up under a different IP if there's sufficient troll-fodder available. Summit has already vetoed protecting the page, so Mark may as well box up or delete this discussion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Bugs, please, I ventured my opinion that protection wasn't warranted. That's hardly a "veto". —Steve Summit (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
You didn't say, "I think it's not needed," you said "It's not needed." The end. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

DC-area IP-hopping harasser

The item you declined is an IP-hopper, some of which have been blocked recently but all he does is reboot and get a new IP so he can continue harassment. Here are the four that I know of:
54.224.35.46 (talk · contribs)
54.224.206.154 (talk · contribs)
54.242.221.254 (talk · contribs)
66.87.82.173 (talk · contribs)
←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I see Medeis already posted the known 54's. There's also the 66, which looks like the same guy although it's a different ISP. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I guess my advice would be to open a section on WP:ANI. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The block on .46 expired a couple of hours ago. The first edit by .154 was in evasion of that previous block. Of course, with .46 blocked he simply rebooted and got a new IP. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, since this is a complex case I think AN or ANI would be the best venue. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Haven't we already fed this troll way too much? If you had simply blocked the sucker, that might have fended him off. And if Onorem hadn't restored the troll's trolling comment, I wouldn't have had to bring this to AIV. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The ref desk talk comment under the open account was made at 8pm Eastern, the 48hr block (with the BS unblock request about using ouija boards which did the editting without the IP's input (!) to monitor bad users) expired after 9pm Eastern. That's evidence of evasion. It's close to my bedtime--I'll support any reports later, but I think the case is made for a lengthy or indef block on all these accounts. μηδείς (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
A range block may be possible in this case. As there could be a significant amount of collateral damage, you'd have to ask at ANI or talk to a checkuser about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Glee/Care Bears IP vandal back once more

Mark, the vandal is back once again under the IP address 174.95.202.246. Your weeklong block of "A Katy of a Gaga" expired yesterday, and he's back with the same old nonsense vandalism. I think this article is going to need a month, like you gave to Glee (season 5), to keep him away. He's also adding extraneous (and possibly inaccurate) Care Bears info to The Sing-Off (season 4). Thanks as always for your assistance. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the heads up, I've blocked and protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. With luck, this long a time will prove discouraging. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Hyhg

Can you block Hyhg for indefinitely, because he/she did a purpose with unsourced genres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.177.50 (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, he hasn't changed any genres since being warned not to, so I'll wait and see if he heeds the warning before blocking. Let me know how it turns out. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

United States Senate election in Louisiana, 2014

Hi Mark,

My name is Brannon McMorris. I'm the libertarian candidate running for US Senate in Louisiana. Please let me know why my name is not allowed on the Wikipedia page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmorrisb43 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It was probably removed because it wasn't accompanied by a reliable source. See WP:V and WP:RS for the details, but the issue is that we have to see proof before we can list you as a candidate. If you can provide sourcing, your name can be restored. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Miclas versus Eleking.jpg

Hi Mark. Was there any discussion or notification of this deletion? Given these were the two most prominent antagonists in the various Ultra series, I would have associated the file with an appropriate article. In any case, is it possible to restore deleted files, or do I need to reload the file from scratch to associate with an article? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It can be easily undeleted but fair use means you have to be completely precise with defining where and how the image is used. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think the issue is that it was used in Miclas and then in List of Ultra Seven monsters, which were deleted. If you have another page you'd like to add it to, let me know and I'll undelete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I will add something to Ultra monsters and let you know. μηδείς (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Allen Wastler

Hello, Mark Arsten. You have new messages at Ottawahitech's talk page.
Message added X23:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Mark Arsten. You have new messages at Ottawahitech's talk page.
Message added XOttawahitech (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Happy 2014 from Cyberpower678


—cyberpower OnlineHappy 2014 — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—cyberpower OnlineHappy 2014 00:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.—cyberpower OnlineHappy 2014 22:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Tu ne cede malis

The Austria Barnstar of National Merit
Presented to MARK ARSTEN

For yeoman's service in support of Austrian Economics articles on Wikipedia.
SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Kiss-FM, KBKO, and KVMX logos

Don't know why the logos were deleted. They were being used on the KPSL-FM page at the time they were deleted as previous logos. Need to know why they were deleted in the first place. That's all. (JoeCool950 (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC))

Could you give me the exact filenames of the deleted files? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. File:KBKO.PNG, File:KVMX.png. They were being used in the KPSL-FM article. The Kiss-FM one was being used also, but I'll have to see what the file was for that. Those ones I know where still on there. They were under as Previous logos. (JoeCool950 (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC))

It looks like they didn't meet our non-free image guidelines, see WP:NFG for details on the policy. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you know what was wrong with them, or why they didn't meet the non-free image guidelines?? (JoeCool950 (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC))
Forgot to mention why I was wondering. Don't want to have those up, unless they meet the guideline mentioned WP:NFG. So, if you could let me know why they didn't meet the guideline, since they were being used in the KPSL-FM article under previous logos. (JoeCool950 (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC))
This is really simplifying it a great deal, but: basically we're only allowed to have one or two non-free images in an article at a time. We can't have several of them used like that. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Tip

Try archiving your user talk page for the New Year. Happy New Years! ///EuroCarGT 01:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, done! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

happy new year

You've been mentioned at this ANI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:The_Rambling_Man. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for semi-protecting my userpage. :-) Its fun to tick off a troll isn't it? Nightenbelle (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sure is! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Pamela Geller

The protection on Pamela Geller will be expiring soon - I wonder if it's worth extending the protection? We haven't been able to come to a consensus yet, and it seems from Talk:Pamela Geller#Here is what will happen that some editors are planning to edit war once the article becomes unprotected. StAnselm (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You can avert the edit war simply by not reverting. HTH. MilesMoney (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, good question, I'll think about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

More protection time on pages pending changes?

What about the following articles: Longboarding and Captain Pugwash? --George Ho (talk) 07:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I'll hold off on that for now, since they haven't been edited much lately. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Mark Arsten!

Happy New Year!
Hello Mark Arsten:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 09:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Thanks, Happy New Year to you, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Happy New Yer and cheers Mark Arsten! I award you with this Admin's Barnstar for your particularly difficult decisions made in cases related to Balkans related topics. Jingiby (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Happy New Year to you, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Mark Arsten

Pratyya (Hello!) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

--Pratyya (Hello!) 14:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Happy New Year to you, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

A7X Walk cover

Hi Mark, I was just wondering if you could restore "File:A7XWalk.jpg" which was deleted on 3 December 2013. The fair use file was no longer in use as the infobox using the image was removed from Walk (Pantera song) without explanation. Thanks. Del♉sion23 (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, sure, I've undeleted it. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Mark Arsten!

Happy New Year!
Hello Mark Arsten:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Ruby Murray 21:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Thanks, Happy New Year to you, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Explain this automated revert and associated warning, please

link. Think you're going too fast. Thanks, Ponydepression (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't recall making that edit... I must have clicked "revert" when I meant to click "skip" or something. Sorry about that! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
No, just checked again, I was right to revert that, it was vandalism. In addition to the unobjectionable code formatting that was changed at the top, it subtly introduced vandalism lower down. The edit changed "Abrupt closure of investigation lifts cloud of uncertainty over firm" to "Abrupt closure of investigation lifts butt of uncertainty over firm" in a few places. Please don't restore that again. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Adam & Eve

The picture I posted may not have been the cream of the crop so to say, but just about any picture which isn't as crude as the one replaced is permissible. I did go to some effort to find a suitable picture, so if you kindly may, could you find a more suitable picture which isn't nude and depicts "gender". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus is King of Kings (talk • contribs) 00:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, you might want to raise this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, to get input from other editors who are interested in the subject. To be honest though, I'm not sure the picture is objectionable. Weren't Adam and Eve more-or-less given permission to be naked in the garden before they sinned? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Advice on handling edit warring

Hi Mark, I respect your actions and attitudes on the site, so I'm asking for your advice and input. Twice now in about the last week, I've been involved with User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz regarding his reverts of content. His Talk page is littered with similar instances, but I never encountered someone who is so blatant or flippant about reverting over and over and over again. The two articles in question are Kristina and Karissa Shannon and Tanya Tate.

After the third reversion on the Kristina and Karissa Shannon article, I placed a 3RR warning message on the Users Talk page which seemingly resulted in a discussion on the article Talk page and a compromise of how to add the content. I thought that was the end of it. But its happened again in the Tanya Tate article and this time its not even my content submission. Recently the awards section of the article was redone in a grid style and an award that the person won with a reference was added. Later it was removed with this edit summary, "not noteworthy, employee-of-the-year type award". I reverted the removal with this edit summary, "It's brand new, please state how you came to this conclusion on the Talk page" and started a section on the article Talk page. It was reverted again with the edit summary, "my solid grasp of the painfully obvious" and no response on the Talk page. I reverted it with this in my edit summary, "Great, have a relable source for that? Otherwise Per WP:BRD discuss it on the talk page". OK, I admit it was snippy, but so far I've seen no good faith from this User. He replied with "No.You need a reliable source indicating its significance. This is disputed BLP content, and consensus has run against including this sort of "award".

This user is at 3RR, so I won't revert again making the matter worse, so I'm asking for your advice. Personally I prefer not to use ANI or other formal procedures and prefer to talk it out, but this User seems a bit too inflexible for that. Any ideas? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, you could try going to WP:3O, that's usually a good place to settle a dispute between two users. Also asking for help on the talk page of a wikiproject is a good idea. HW can be a bit gruff in my experience, so just try to be polite and focus on content if you can. Does these suggestions make sense? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I've asked one other person in the Project for help and can always try WP:3O assuming I can get HW to respond on the Talk page. Happy New Year! :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, hope it works out. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Human Development Index

Hi Mark. You recently declined semi-protection on the above named article. My question is, since the vandalism to the article has been long term and consistent, what would you suggest is the best way to handle it in the future. Thanks. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that, I almost protected it but I felt it was just under the level of disruption that I like to see when protecting. Let me know if it gets any worse and I'll protect. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Professionally done

Thank you Mark Arsten for extending such a fair consideration to the editors collaborating on the Phil Robertson article. I am glad to have witnessed such a professional courtesy; gladder telling you I've seen an outstanding thing. We, as a community, are too quick, and far too loud when vilifying the down trodden; yet inexplicably quiet when something works well, or is done commendably. I have decided that I enjoy telling someone when I've seen something swell; and today, you have demonstrated yourself emulable. Bravo!—John Cline (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Need Your Attention

Hi, I am Muhammad Ali. About two months ago you blocked my accounts for sock puppetry. I started editing again. But this other user has been following me all around on Wikipedia and tagging the articles that I write. Now he says that I have been paid to write and article while there is nothing to prove that. I want you to give a third opinion here because this dispute is going to resolve like this. I have left a message for you at Talk:Nicholas Boothman. Please look at the matter soon per your convenience. Thanks(talk) 09:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

So I have read the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Third opinion thoroughly. I will post this issue to the 3O board and get someone to look into the matter. It would take time to confirm whether there's a COI here or not and somebody with a registered Elance account would be able to check it better. Thanks and happy new year. May this year bring you happiness and prosperity.Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, let me know how 3O turns out. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

User:DSNR

You've said in his talk page that he's blocked for one week, but you've set the block with an expiry time of indefinite. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 10:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops! I've fixed that now. Thanks for pointing that out. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

International Flame Research Foundation

Hi and Happy New Year.

I want to reconstitute the IFRF page which was deleted a few days ago. It had been created in the name of tkklajny and I revised it under that name on the day before the Christmas break - to no avail it would appear, although Martin Pitt confirmed that it was better than the original. He suggested I ask you to let me have the text back as I didn't keep a copy of my work. Please let me know whether you would need an email address for the purpose? Thanks in advance. (Traceybwiki (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC))

Ok, I've given you the text at User:Traceybwiki/International Flame Research Foundation. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks a lot. I will have another go at improving it. The truth is I was surprised when it was deleted as I thought I had brought it into line with requirements. Obviously I still have some way to go! Can I ask you to check it again afterwards for me? (Traceybwiki (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC))

Hi again. I have just saved the changes on a complete from scratch rewrite of our material. I didn't click on submit as I thought it would be best to check with you first how it looks. It's in the same place where you left it. Would you mind taking a look? I've read all the instructions I could find but am not too clear on the difference between References and External Links - I guess some of my references should be external links actually - I would be grateful for some help on this issue. Thanks in advance! (Traceybwiki (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC))

At this point I think the article needs work. What will help it be restored is if all of its facts are cited to independent sources that discuss the group in detail. The first three works listed in "Further reading" look like they might satisfy that. You should re-write the article so it's cited to them, in my opinion. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Continued edit-warring

Hi. I appreciate your block of one of the IP editors warring on Cluj-Napoca, but the fact is that this individual has at least two IPs and has gone right on with his spree - now performing the same edit 16 times in 8 days. What exactly would it take to get this page semi-protected for a week or two? - Biruitorul Talk 15:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've blocked the second IP. Let me know if a third one shows up and I'll protect. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

SP request

Hello again. Got a second? Special:Contributions/Theoneiammassivelyjealousof Thanks. Ruby Murray 16:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

So convenient how some socks make it so obvious for us :) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
That, and rollback. :) Thanks for the quick response. Ruby Murray 17:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That was my brother making those edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.185.150 (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Katrina Villegas

i added another one. the page does not look right. I may have messed something up with it. (fatigued) Dlohcierekim 19:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, seems Ok to me. I'll look into it more later. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Happy 2014! I hope that we can find a long term solution to the Pumpie malarkey because when I asked NativeForeigner about an ANI entry for Pumpie after seven socks, the user thought that I know a lot more than the user, albeit I am actually late into this given that my early contributions was about Zimbabwean dollars and Southall station, not Greek drachmas and some random Greek station that's yet to have a permanent cultural installation! Marianian(talk) 19:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi, thanks for the note. I've done a little bit of work with the Pumpie situation, but not as much as others. I think semi-protection of his targets makes sense at this point. Do you think you could prepare a list of articles that he usually targets? That way I can look into protecting a bunch of them. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Hello again, I know that Larissa metro station did not qualify for its own article because it is not as notable as the main station despite having cultural works there: given that that has been target more than once maybe a indef create protection on "Larissa metro station" and "Larissa station" (pointless redirects is one of Pumpie's modus operandus). "Thiva railway station" was targeted twice, but autoconfirmed users should be able to create it once they have something that makes it notable (we don't have it yet). I think that's all I can think of for now, but what I have done tonight is joined WikiProject Greece so I can make a start in getting the project members to clean up the mess Pumpie left behind. A fast learner I may be, having being able to solve the anon "Global Cash dinar" vandal, but pretty late into this. --Marianian(talk) 20:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the info, I've protected those three. Let me know if there's anything else that needs to be done. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit summary vandalism by another user

This filth by User:IPadPerson is absolutely uncalled for. This guy evidently has a temper problem. Can you please delete his edit summary? Thank you. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure it meets the revdelete standards, I'd have to get a second opinion from another admin. I left him a note about his edit summaries though. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hope you had a great New Year! I might be mistaken here, but could you just check if user Ale83 webmaster who is POV-pushing a article is the same who is using the username Realreason and Gianluca 74. So he isnt using two accounts to edit Herciana Matmuja. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

While I am at it, could you take a look at user Lemontee33 who has confessed at his talk page that he is a pageant official from South Korea. He has re-created articles about the Miss Asia Pacific World pageant which has been reverted in the past under new names from its start in 2013 until now. Under the names Miss Asia Pacific World Super Talent 2014 etc. He also is using sources that are from nationalistic state controlled media in South Korea to discredit Amy Willerton at her article. Something he even confesses to at his talk page. I think atleast you could take a look at it and check if I am correct. regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try to look into these later. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Much appreciated. No hurry... :)--BabbaQ (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, looking at it, I wouldn't at all be surprised if he was controlling all three accounts, but it's hard to prove when dealing with one-edit accounts. My advice would be to wait and see if more pop up or if all three keep making similar edits before proceeding. You might be able to get a checkuser to look into it at WP:SPI, but again, it's probably best to wait until you have more evidence, in my opinion at least. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I dont know if you can do it, but could you revert the Miss Asia Pacific World Super Talent 2013 and 2014 articles into the Miss Asia Pacific World were they belong per the AfD. Also if you got the time please check out user Häxhammaren edits at Abeba Aregawi me and other users have done alot to try to satisfy the user who stills continues to POV pushing and frankly being rude. I do not have the time or the energy I feel to keep the discussion going further. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, looks like they all were reverted before I got to them. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

A cookie for beating me to reverting vandalism on Melon Heads. Good job! Bananasoldier (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I've been beaten a few times myself, so I can sympathize :) Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Damn, you're fast

The energy, the faith, the devotion which you bring to Wiki-editing will light our community and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world. My fellow soldiers of Wikination, ask not what Wikipedia can do for you—ask what you can do for Wikipedia.

Johneffkennedy (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, very inspiring :) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Dude...

Mark, I just wanted to let you know that since 00:00, January 1, 2014 (UTC, of course), you have been given two cookies, two barnstars and have been thanked for your work multiple times. It is January 3, 2014. You did all of that in two days and change. I figured that you're doing something right, so I just wanted to thank you for everything you've done for Wikipedia (and hopefully all that you'll continue to do because it would take about twenty me's to do what you do). --Metsfreak (Hello!)| 17:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :) I guess I've been doing an ok job! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Mail

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

Rivertorch (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Seen and acted upon, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MATHEUS_HS

Thanks. I've reverted some of the sock's recent edits, but for all but the most recent it seems genre warring is ubiquitous, so I'm not sticking my oar in any further. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Quick question

Out of curiosity, is there anything that can be done about an editor that refuses to use an article's citation style? The user in question only uses urls and titles for citations, even after repeated requests to use full citations. While it is not vandalism, its very annoying to go behind all of his/her edits and cleaning up his/her citations.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that's hard to deal with since it's annoying yet good faith. You've posted about it on his talk page, right? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, many times.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I guess you could take him to ANI. I can't think of anything else to do really. Sorry if I'm not being much help here. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Way to go! The second I nominate a user to AIV, they get blocked by you! Take this barnstar as my appreciation. buffbills7701 20:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, it's good to have a quick response on that board! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Writer1962

Hi, Mark, you said that both editors were indeffed, but User2001 (talk · contribs) was blocked for 72 hours. Not sure what you intended.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this was a typo on my part, thanks for catching it. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I've now archived it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

another sockpuppet

Please block the account "Thereturnofthereturnofmainmainer13" -- it is a sockpuppet of "Mainmainer13" and "Returnofmainmainer13" which you already blocked for vandalism. Thank you. 64.185.131.107 (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I've done so. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

IP Block

The IP that you blocked User:75.223.45.25, is still vandalizing User:Anna Frodesiak's talk page, but is hopping ip addresses. On User:75.223.89.119 and User:75.219.230.162. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note, I've taken care of them. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
No thank you for your work! -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18

NE Meetup #4: January 18 at MIT Building 5

Dear Fellow Wikimedian,

You have been invited to the New England Wikimedians 2014 kick-off party and Wikipedia Day Celebration at Building Five on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus on Saturday, January 18th, from 3-5 PM. Afterwards, we will be holding an informal dinner at a local restaurant. If you are curious to join us, please do so, as we are always looking for people to come and give their opinion! Finally, be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.

I hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Another User:089baby sock?

Hello Mark. I might have found another 089baby sock, User: Mindeliyev, though this case is a little less obvious than the past few, and I'm not sure whether the few edits he's made are sufficient to warrant a block. At the time of writing this, he's only made three edits to the article namespace, all of them consistent with past socks. However, when I flagged him as a suspected sockpuppet, he protested (see a and b), something none of the past socks ever did. Less significantly he's also created his own sandbox. I don't know whether this is enough make decision one way or the other, but he's definitely a user to watch and I could use a second pair of eyes in this case. If in future, I become more convinced that he is a sock I'll start an SPI and let you know. Thanks again for all you help. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, Ok, sounds like SPI might be the best bet here. Thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I've started an SPI as suggested, but whatever doubt I had a few hours ago is now gone. It was predicated on the fact that he was behaving the way a new user with similar interests might, and the fact that 089baby had been completely uncommunicative in the past. With more edits to go on, all of them to pages edited by previous socks, he looks more and more like a sock, and I learned that using the master account, he made an unblock request on his talk page about a week ago. All told, I think this account passes the duck test now. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

He's back...

He's at it again, User talk:79.182.111.44. After destroying the Inland taipan article, that IP user is now taken to the Snakebite article. He added a list of most venomous species that we had deleted due to the methods that the researchers used. The methods have been proven to provide inaccurate results. But he added despite the fact that others disagree. He committed numerous WP policy and guideline violations and continues to do so. Can he not be blocked? I have warned him on the various IP's he uses. But nothing is being done. Besides the warnings, he is a promotion-only anonymous editor. He has one purpose and he is dead set on promoting that view no matter how many disagree. And there are other users that have showed displease and disagreement with his edits. He also engages in edit warring. He will revert and revert no matter how many times you tell him not to. He must be blocked. He also seems to now be harassing me, follwing every page I edit to cause a raucus. He is now angry and vengeful because I discovered his violations and got the article semi-protected (the Inland taipan page). I shouldn't have to put up with harassement. --DendroNaja (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Another thing, I checked this IP above at domaintools.net. I just went to the bottom his page and clicked "tranceroute" and I don't know anything about this stuff, but he may have been a former user with a username who may have been blocked. He knows how to use all the tools on Wikipedia very well, so it wouldn't be a surprise and it's worth checking in on. --DendroNaja (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
He has reverted again, but under a new IP (the fifth I know of) diff here. Something has to give. And look at the silly immature comment he left. The mambas are my favorite species, but I'm not here to promote any snake the way he was with the inland taipan. Black mamba just achieved GA status after a rigorous review. I joined Wikipedia early this year for one reason and that reason was many of the snake articles were full of misinformation, exaggerations and other BS. My mission here is to expand and as many article on venomous snake species as possible and try to have them attain GA status, so I started with the Black mamba. I recently nominated the forest cobra and many-banded krait for GA status, but they need a lot of work. The guy that took to review the forest cobra article failed it in under 24 hours because I was busy and couldn't expand the article. I told him before hand, I was going to collect all my data on the species before beginning to make the expansion. I'm still waiting for someone to start the review on the many-banded krait, so I am already gathering all the material I need on the species. But this IP user is an immature amateur on the subject who has the mentality of "my snake is deadlier than yours". His value here on Wikipedia is zero. He's not interested in making Wikipedia better, but only in imposing his point of view. Even in discussion, it doesn't help. We have discussed with him. Two or 3 other editors have talked to him, but he doesn't care. A block of all the IP's he's been using is necessary in my opinion. His mission now is to harass me, engage in edit wars and continue to promote his POV on articles. He isn't needed here, in my opinion --DendroNaja (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm not being much help here, but I think it would be best if you file this report on WP:ANI. Let me know how this turns out. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Mark, please I'm going in circles going into these noticeboards and nothing is being done. I once got blocked for simply suggesting on the talk page of Angelina Jolie that a section on her mental health should be made since her mental health has been in serious question since her own father made a public plea crying and begging her to get help for what he called her "serious psychological problems". It is public knowledge that she was sectioned at the UCLA Neuroosychiatric institute and was rummored to have been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. I got unblocked the same day, but that is all it took. This guy violates every WP policy and guideline, is now harassing me by following me around and trying to cause trouble and arguements wherever I make an edit. That's wrong - nobody should have to deal with that, Mark. It is ruining my experience on here. I have two degrees in the subject that I am working on here. I worked with venomous snakes for a long time and he's literally ruining my reputation by going around to try to discredit me at every turn. All for what? because I uncovered his violations and got the Inland taipan page protected from HIM. Mark please, I beg you to block this guy. Ask yourself what value is he here? I have two articles that need my attention because I nominated them for GA status (forest cobra and many-banded krait), but I have asked the reviewer to be patient because of what I have to deal with this IP user. It just isn't fair. Please take action. He made another revert on Snakebite (a different one than the one I mentioned earlier) and I am not reverting back, even though I have rollback. I just am slowly losing interest in editing because of all this. And it would be a loss to Wikipedia to lose me over an IP user who doesn't give a shit about policy or resolution through discussions. Please do something. --DendroNaja (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have limited time and energy this weekend and can't individually deal with every dispute that I'm approached about. I suggest you ask for help on the admins noticeboard because there are over 1000 admins and there's a good chance that someone other than myself will be able to help you with this situation. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a dispute. It's one person violating policies and harassing another editor. It's that cut and dry. But I just posted a complaint on the noticeboard you suggested. If he isn't blocked, I'm gone. Let Wikipedia have him edit articles at whim, violate whatever policy he wants to, bug people that figure out he's violating policies, etc. Oh well. --DendroNaja (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion at Genesis Creation Narrative

Hi Mark,

As the administrator who warned those in the move discussion Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Requested move, I would like to call your attention to this comment: [70].

It's hard to know what to do when this kind of hyperbolic rhetoric is used.

jps (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, will look into it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Previous blocked IP goes right back to it

Hello Mark. I wanted to let you know that this IP 173.52.112.184 (talk · contribs) has returned to its disruptive editing after the block ended. For several years now we have had problems with IP's (mostly from New York for whatever reason) who dislike the fact that Man o' War was named horse of the century. This article is actually more of a list and there isn't much to change in it so, if it were up to me, I would semi-protect it and avoid this persistent nonsense. However, I know there objections to that so I would ask whether you might add it to your watchlist so that you can help out when things get out of hand. Of course, you are under no obligation to do so and I will certainly understand of you don't want to add it. Thanks for your time and have a great 2014 on wiki and off. MarnetteD | Talk 18:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that's pretty blatant so I blocked again. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks. MarnetteD | Talk 18:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Help to prevent provocation of conflict

Do you still believe that the protection is not needed? Believe me, I already have enough experience with this user, the conflict will continue in the hope that his opponent will block the war edits. Mistery Spectre (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, it does look like protection is merited at this point. I've done so. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I hope I will be able to resolve the conflict in the original section. I apologize for my english, I do not have the required language experience. Mistery Spectre (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Colleague! User Mistery Spectre conducts purposeful campaign twisting historical events. User Mistery Spectre was seen in Ukrainophobia. And has a great aversion to all Ukrainians as a nation. In statte Khatyn massacre, he tries to put the Ukrainians as involved in this tragedy. In the role of killers. In the Ukrainian Wikipedia, there are professional historians, and they all claim that the version of Mistery Spectre preconceived, one-sided, Soviet version. Version Khatyn massatsre that now - the false!✍ Green Zero Letter me 14:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I probably won't get involved further. Just make sure you present reliable sources to back up your opinion on the article's talk page. Or consider WP:DRN if that doesn't work out. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Can you invite a historian, a neutral person to objectively review the situation arisen? Unfortunately, I did not very well familiar with English wikipedia. I dont want new war with user Mistery Spectre, but, as far as i know - this user dont stop. Needed neutral person. Thanks for time. ✍ Green Zero Letter me 16:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Just to note that you are mentioned in this ANI thread concerning User:CEngelbrecht: [71] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Made a complaint on ANI

I put in a complaint, but nobody has done anything yet. If you have time, please look at it or give my complaint some support through a message left on where I posted the complaint. Maybe someone else will also take notice. --DendroNaja (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know much about this subject, so it's hard for me to determine if keeping both tables is worthwhile or if only one belongs. I suggest you ask for help on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles or ask other users who have edited other snake articles. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Mark Arsten. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:54, 5 January 2014 (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.

///EuroCarGT 01:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! ///EuroCarGT 02:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
No prob, that was easy compared to a lot of my admin chores :) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't me

I think it was one of 49 other 81.131.134.127s. 01:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.134.127 (talk)

Ok, that's the nature of shared IPs, you get messages that aren't meant for you. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sheikh Hasina

Please hide this version of edit as it is a serious vandalism (মাগীর ঝি means a prostitute). - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 07:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've done so. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Protecting my page

Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help! Mark Arsten (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Steel Core

Hello, I see you were the admin who deleted the article Steel Core. I'd like to ask you to reconsider the article's deletion. I am the original author of the article. I was not notified of the AFD. Also, I noticed that only the nominator and only ONE PERSON commented in the deletion. I don't feel that this was a fair review on the article. If you could restore the article, I'd like the change to address any problems people had with it. Thank you. Mathewignash (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It may be possible to have the page restored, can you provide reliable sources that discuss it in depth? See WP:GNG for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
For instance the edit a book like Transforming Collections, by the editor of Steve Jackson Games, spending two pages talking about the character? Reliable, a notable author, and in depth discussion. Mathewignash (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
That sounds like a good source, do you have any others? Usually we require multiple sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Mark: Please review 71.175.31.16 (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/B._Dusty_Nathan 71.175.31.16 (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It may be possible to have the page restored, can you provide reliable sources that discuss Dusty Nathan in depth? See WP:ANYBIO for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

About Deletion of My Page Hardik Malaviya

Please Remake my info page its not fake, it's true Please Mr. Mark Arsten http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5910274 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.9.23 (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It may be possible to have your page restored, can you offer evidence that you meet our WP:ANYBIO standard? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

I forgot how to sign stuff

No problem. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoops

I was doing an art presentation on Cai Guo-Qiang, and trying to copy down what it said I accidentally removed a sentence and didn't know how to put it back I hope I don't get kicked off Wikipedia haha. Thanks for fixing that. I was wondering if you guys had workers or something because i'd love to edit productively for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.215.45 (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries, everyone makes mistakes. Wikipedia is run by volunteer editors, so you're more than welcome to help out if you want. See Help:Getting started for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Eau Claire, Michigan

Hello.

You correctly flagged my posts on Eau Claire, MI; my cracks at their high school English department may be uncalled for. However, the "High School" section is a grammatical train wreck. Please, at least, spot check this section of the Eau Claire page. Eau Claire's high school should certainly be ashamed of itself.

Ok, I trimmed that section a little for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers

Is this good for pending changes? --George Ho (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's a little bit less disruption there than I would want to see before applying PC. Sorry. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Not a test: it was a grammatical correction

My first edit was a mis-correction in attempt to add an s to the word "sum" and hit the "g" instead; the second edit corrected the problem.

No need to "test edit" after over 15 years of wiki use ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.141.98 (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

We get people trying to add subtle errors sometimes so I'm never sure if things are accidental typos or not. Sorry for the misunderstanding! Mark Arsten (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Living Decorations EP

Hi Mark, can you please help me remove the enable feedback template from this article. I accidentally enabled it. versace1608 (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, not sure it really matters much, but I disabled it for you. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I was reviewing the page using page curation and mistakenly clicked it. versace1608 (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Earl of Kent

Hello, I am trying to edit the Earl of Kent following a death so I can update it but it keeps being deleted94.175.56.189 (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted you because I saw this edit and thought you were vandalizing. Sorry for the misunderstanding. You should probably use edit summaries and preview your edits in the future though. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Why dont change the wrong and old information to the true and new information ??!!!!

Please convert this false and shamless information of damavand elevation to the correct and new elevation that's NASA and so many competent organizations that have been calculate that , (( 5610m is false and 5671m is correct )) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horamantarh (talk • contribs) 08:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I probably won't get involved further. Just make sure you present reliable sources to back up your opinion on the article's talk page. Or consider WP:DRN if that doesn't work out. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Fresh

Hi Mark, I wanted to let you know that all of the accounts with "Fresh" in it is. I promise not to vandalize. Please leave me a message on my talk page of what you thing. Fresh C. Sullivan (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I meant that you have always reverted the edits with some accounts such as Fresh Clean and Fresh Sullivan. That is the same person typing this message, I created a new account. I apologize for vandalizing Wikipedia, and I can now edit. I no longer vandalize. Have a nice day! Fresh C. Sullivan (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, for reference, how many accounts do you have and how many of them are blocked right now? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Back2Basics

Hi Mark, On 11th November you deleted the page I set up for my radio show Back2Basics. You indicated that it lacked notability as it was just a local radio programme. I appreciate that on the face it of it probably did look like that, however, given the very high profile interviews & our focus on new media we have grown our listnership outside the traditional media of our limited FM range. We now have over 100,000 listeners to each podcast of the show worldwide through iTunes alone and are now a featured podcast on PodBean. This growth has resulted in the show now being picked up by RTE. We recently finished on our local station and are in process of transferring to RTE Pulse, the dance music station, where we will be broadcasting nationally. We're in the process of finalising an announcement with RTE. We will be the first all vinyl show to air on RTE in 20 years. Once the announcement is made I was hoping to reinstate the page I wrote for the show. Will this be possible? Is the content saved anywhere or is it deleted immediately? I don't have a copy so it will need to be rewritten. Thanks for your help. Simon. --Simonjohnpalmer (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonjohnpalmer (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It may be possible to have the page restored, can you provide reliable sources that discuss it in depth? See WP:GNG for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Mark, thanks for that. I don't have anything independent just yet but on Monday RTE will be issuing a detailed media release for the show, which will be posted on the main RTE.ie website, so I'll post you a link here. Cheers, Simon. --109.255.90.92 (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rousseau Metal

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rousseau Metal. 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. Background: see WP:REFUND#Rousseau Metal. JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the semi-protection. It will save us a lot of trouble reverting vandals. Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 22:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Question about a user

Hello, I have a question about a user named Moe123usajr. He keeps changing Natalie Morales's year she joined from 2006, to 2003 on the Today (U.S. TV program) article. Natalie's biography currently states that she joined in 2006, not 2003. I added a reference, but he reverted it. So I was wondering, what I should do? Other wiki users keep reverting his reverts to 2006 as well. I know you are an administrator on here, which is why I am asking you. I hope you can suggest a few ideas. Thanks! Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 22:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I left him a final warning. If he does it again you can report him to WP:AN3 and he'll most likely be blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Looks like I'll be reporting him. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 03:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Daisy Haze

You removed my Daisy Haze post on the Middletown High School Alumni. He's a link to her twitter

https://twitter.com/DaisyHazexxx

and being a student that went with her to this high school I can confirm her past attendance. Her real name is Annabelle Ackerman and you can find this in the registry at MHS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.62.35.186 (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but to have a name listed on a school page as an alum a person generally needs to have a Wikipedia article written about. The rule isn't always enforced very well, but that's what we shoot for. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

IP Vandal

Thanks for your recent edit on my User page, but this IP:209.121.43.215 keeps vandalizing my page. I dont know if two times warrants a block or another warning. Doesn't look like they read the first one. —KirtZMessage 04:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think that's enough out of him for now :) Mark Arsten (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Very much appreciated Mark! —KirtZMessage 18:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

contributors 79.31.145.125

Dear mister Mark Ardsten, I would like to apologize for my mistakes and errors that I have made during my publications in the page "Creatures of Grimm" of the Grimm(TV Series) and to have failed to notice yours statements and complaints about my publications and also about my poor english (which since I'm italian I failed to notice) especially of User Icealien33. I have to admit that I too was a little concerned if my publications were correct since were based of secondary publication (Books, comics,ecc.) of the show. So with this message I would like to make my full apologizes for the regrettable situation I have created and to assure you that I have no intentions to recreate or add others publications who are not based on the direct development of the show. I also had to inform you that one of my publication, about a creature that doesn't appears in the show(the "Waranehuter"), is still present in the article "Reapers" of "Creatures of Grimm" and had to be removed to avoid further misunderstandings. With full regrets and asking forgiveness for my mistakes, Truly Yours, contributors 79.31.145.125. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.2.157.253 (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note. Sorry for the misunderstanding earlier. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of David Oscar Markus page

Mark,

I was wondering if you would reconsider the deletion of the wiki page for David Oscar Markus. It appears to have a number of reliable sources and covers important material like the representation of Buju Banton and Gilberto Rodriguez-Orejuela.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.221.30.194 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It may be possible to have the page restored, can you provide reliable sources that discuss David Oscar Markus in depth? See WP:ANYBIO for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of TempleCon Page

Hey Mark,

I am speaking in reference to TempleCon, a page that was recently deleted due to lack of cited references. I appreciate the holding to the rules of Wikipedia, and I would like to take the responsibility to get that page updated and referenced properly. How do I go about this with the page having been deleted? I am new to editing, and don't want to step on anybody's toes with regards to filling out this page again with the proper level of accountability. There are things such as The Providence Journal [5] that will lend to it. Thanks, Ryan Pease Peasepoint (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It may be possible to have the page restored, can you provide reliable sources that discuss it in depth? See WP:GNG for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
So, the basic stuff is www.TempleCon.com, www.facebook.com/templecon, http://www.thesteampunkempire.com/events/templecon-2012, http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?162835-Power-Progression-Templecon-2014. The print media in the area is pretty terrible about keeping up articles relating to this, and will probably take quite a bit of digging. =( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peasepoint (talk • contribs) 20:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately sources have to meet WP:RS guideline before they can count for notability purposes. Facebook and forums don't count for that. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrofuturist convention [6] http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2011/02/6th-templecon-draws-gaming-hob.html ?
http://nerdcaliber.com/the-steampunk-demon-of-templecon-2013/ http://nerdcaliber.com/templecon-2013-cosplayer-spotlight-kitty-deane-albano/ http://nerdcaliber.com/nerd-caliber-set-to-bring-you-all-the-templecon-goodness/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peasepoint (talk • contribs) 20:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Aamzingly, http://nerdcaliber.com/tag/templecon/ is one of the most reliable reporting sources on the subject. Peasepoint (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I believe www.nerdcaliber.com is reliable, and in this case, considered applicable based on its standing, history, and content. Thoughts? Peasepoint (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/projo/doc/849537119.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Feb+7%2C+2011&author=Grimaldi%2C+Paul&pub=The+Providence+Journal&edition=&startpage=&desc=Hotel+becomes+fantasy+world+for+weekend Peasepoint (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/projo/doc/397697679.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jan+31%2C+2008&author=Emery%2C+C+Eugene%2C+Jr%3B+Journal+Staff+Writer&pub=The+Providence+Journal&edition=&startpage=&desc=SHOWS%2C+TALKS%2C+TOURS%2C+and+MORE-+Another+dimension+of+games+at+the+Biltmore Peasepoint (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

New TempleCon Page

Seeing now that the content is out there, would I now be clear to author a new properly referenced page for TempleCon without it facing immediate deletion? The old page's restoration is sort of a moot point given it's apparent ( and unfortunate ) total lack of any useful formatting.

Thanks for your attention to detail on this, Peasepoint (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please create a draft in your userspace, User:Peasepoint/TempleCon would be best. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Will do, Thanks! I am finding that our local newspaper locks its archives for paid subscription service / pay per article viewing. Any advice for dealing with that in a reference capacity? Get the full texts, reference them, then link back to the article's free summarized page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peasepoint (talk • contribs) 22:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is the best way to do it. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Your thoughts

Hi Mark, I have tried using SPI and AIV to report several I.P's who are the same editor, and block evading socks of User:MarianoRivero. These I.Ps are creating havoc by posting false warnings using other editor's signatures, and pasting articles into the talk page of other articles. Both courses of action have failed and I am curious as to the best way of resolving the problem. The I.Ps (so far) are 124.105.243.22, 119.93.155.158, 112.207.248.114, 119.95.119.13, 124.83.57.125. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, it looks like you have blocked a few of them. Cheers Flat Out let's discuss it 23:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, while the checkusers won't ever link an IP to an account (not explicitly at least), SPI clerks are free to block IPs that are engaged in disruptive editing. I've done so for the four listed there. Let me know if any more pop up. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, much appreciated.Flat Out let's discuss it 00:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Mark, same editor this time as User:Knightrider21o is harassing other editors with posts under other editors signatures here, and here, and here. Pretty sure this is block evading sock of User:MarianoRivero.Flat Out let's discuss it 22:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, blocked per WP:DUCK. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

SFO destinations

Hi Mark: Since your last semi-protection on San Francisco International Airport expired in December (due to an editing dispute), one guy "unilaterally" added back the content in dispute (i.e. Qingdao and Wuhan as destinations served by China Eastern airlines) compared to the protected the version, while a discussing on WT:Airport has been on going and clearly there is no consensus. Currently, that party (HkCaGu) has ben reversing any edits that try to remove those two destinations even if valid reasons are given in summary as well as in WT:Airport. Another IP: 166.147.121.148 made threats to block users who edit on this and it looks like a sock of HkCaGu. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Francisco_International_Airport&action=history

I'll try to check this out later tonight. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
If you have been around airport articles long enough you would know the dynamic IP editor in 166.147 range and a static IP editor at 68.119 are long-time contributors obviously separate persons. OTOH, it looks like you're alone (editing from various IP ranges) on this issue. Beside you and me much of last round's discussion on WT:AIRPORT gave comments but did not take any side. In the practical editing world, however, nobody is taking your side, while unlike your single purpose presence on Wikipedia, more than we three are long-time contributors trying to maintain consistency between airports worldwide. HkCaGu (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
As explained countless times and in the hidden note provided, there is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:AIRPORT#.22Directness.22_of_beyond-hub_flights_by_Mainland_Chinese_airlines. I suggest you stop edit warring and take part in the discussion (in which you have not participated in). 68.119.73.36 (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
You might think of opening a WP:RFC on the article's talk page to settle this. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Browsing through my user contributions, it seems almost funny how we both reverted vandalism on the same article sometimes. Ah well, keep that mop next to you like a soldier would treasure his rifle. K6ka (talk | contrib) 02:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, you deserve a barnstar too! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

107.5.104.104

After [72], can you revoke his talk page access? Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like he's calmed down, so I probably won't do that now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Morgan McKinley

Dear Mr Arsten, on 3 October 2013 you deleted a Wiki article on the company, Morgan McKinley. This was apparently because it was posted by a banned user. I have looked at the content and it seems to meet notability and other criteria, would it be OK for someone to start a new page?

Yes, you're free to do so, unless you're being paid by the company. In that case you should go through WP:AFC, disclosing your relationship with the company. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Blond article yet again

Not sure if this article is on your WP:Watchlist, but that same sockpuppet is back. With regard to Samer154 and 000Unknown100 focusing on Asia, see how their edits are the same or similar in telling ways; for example, their focus on Tajik people. Flyer22 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

What a coincidence, I was just looking at that article when I got this message. I think it's a pretty clear sock. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep. Thanks for the block. Flyer22 (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
And, wait, the article's not on your WP:Watchlist? If not, definitely an awesome coincidence. Flyer22 (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
No, not on my watchlist, but I saw the edits come up on Huggle, oddly enough. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Berkeley Hall School

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Berkeley Hall School. 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. Azakeri (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I got a second review at WP:DRV and the outcome was to restore the article. Should I go ahead and undo the deletion or is this something that should be done by you? Thanks Azakeri (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
It will be done by an independent admin who judges consensus in the discussion, actually. It might take a few days, but it looks like it will be restored. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this... implied legal threat?

Does this warrant reporting to the admin noticeboard? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

User already banned. Nevermind. 22:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, let me know if he shows up again. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Jose Rafael Cordero Sanchez

Hi Mark, I hope this finds you well and that the new year has been happy so far. Looking into José Cordero Sánchez, which is up for discussion on AfD, I noticed the dupe Jose Rafael Cordero, and I have noticed that this little bio has previously been created and deleted multiple times under slightly different names here on the English Wikipedia, e.g.:

But that is nothing compared to Spanish Wikipedia where it has been deleted ... {{Drumrrroll}} ... at least 34 times under different names.

Can you as an admin see if José Cordero Sánchez and Jose Rafael Cordero previously were speedied and if yes will you tell me how many times? Best, Sam Sailor Sing 23:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Jose Rafael Cordero was speedied once before yes. These definitely should be salted when they're deleted. Unfortunately they might not qualify for any CSD criteria at this point. We might have to wait the next five days or so for the Afd to conclude. But that way we'll be able to speedy any new drafts as recreations of a page deleted in a discussion. Thanks for the note, Mark Arsten (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply; suggesting salting at AfD was why I asked. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 14:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, they're both deleted and I've salted them now. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Restoring a deleted pic?

Hi, is there any way that you can restore the deleted version of this Sonic the Hedgehog picture? It's a relatively minor complaint I guess, but his version an edited version of the actual gameplay pic made to improve the quality, which is a little silly seeing that since the pic is supposed to be taken from a Sega Genesis, visible pixels would be a given. HappyLogo (the uploader) has been going around trying to upload "higher quality" versions from some games (like here and here), which are really just widescreen hacks from an emulator instead of actual gameplay pics, so help with getting the old deleted version of this picture back would be appreciated. If you can't, well, that's fine. Thanks, TheStickMan[✆Talk] 06:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, never mind, I've somehow just discovered the requests for undeletion page. Sorry to bother you, TheStickMan[✆Talk] 18:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, I've restored the second most recent picture. Was that the one you wanted? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's perfect, thank you! TheStickMan[✆Talk] 02:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleted article regarding HVKumar

Hi Mark, requesting you to restore the article regarding HVKumar that was posted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._V._Kumar I fully agree it was my mistake not to have edited the page once in 6 months. While the discussion was going on during 21-Dec, I was away riding to Gujarat, India & had no access to system or internet & hence I couldn't respond on time. After coming back, I wanted to update about his credibility mention in THE HINDU, national daily in India, I was shocked to see the article was removed. Hence requesting you to restore the article & I assure I'll keep updating it as & when there're credible mention about him at various sources. Thanks Aarganesh (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It may be possible to have your page restored, can you offer evidence that you meet our WP:ANYBIO standard? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mark, yes, I've met the standards of Wikipedia as this article was published during Dec 2012. Like I said, I didn't know the article should be updated every 6 months or so otherwise, I would've kept it updated. Aarganesh (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed undeletion of Java update virus

I just found another source at http://www.virus-removal-911.com/2013/05/java-update-virus.html and I don't know if it's reliable. In that article, the phrase 'Java update virus' could be used to refer to all viruses that appear to be a Java update reminder instead of just the one specific Java update virus, as the article originally did, and have the beginning of the article describe what a Java update virus is instead of what the Java update virus is since there's more than one Java update virus. During the discussion of its deletion, no one thought of changing the meaning of 'Java update virus' to refer to all fake Java update reminders instead of just that specific one. I think the article got deleted because almost all the information in it was unverififiable because it was about that specific Java update virus instead of Java update viruses in general. There were probably tons of reliable sources about Java update viruses in general but none about that specific Java update virus, so it probably would have been better for the article to get rewritten entirely than for it to get deleted. I probably also found another Java update virus at http://wvd.proresync.net/sd/cpops-1.2.0.html?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwvd.proresync.net%2Fsd%2Fapps%2Ffusionx%2F0.0.4.html%3Faff%3D1060-2080&p=SuperLyrics after the article got deleted. The page with that url used to look totally different and part of it stated that the Java download takes 24 seconds, but since I didn't test it out, I don't know for sure that it wasn't the legitimate Java update. Maybe the article Java update virus should have an 'Examples' section listing different types of Java update viruses. Blackbombchu (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It may be possible to have the page restored, can you provide reliable sources that discuss it in depth? See WP:GNG for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The stick man report

I've reported The stick man for his obvious edit warring to the images while I was trying to keep the improved quality photos on the site, but he's requesting the genesis pixelated photo to be restored and the smooth one deleted. He is just reverting them to get away with it and I'm trying to get you guys to stop him from doing that. I didn't want to make you and the admins mad at me for violating the 3 revert edit war policy, but it's no use because they never want to stop reverting and leaving it as is. If he reverts or something like that to get me blocked, don't trust that guy and just ban him from wikipedia.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, hmm, I didn't realize his request above was contentious. Oops. Maybe you should bring this up on the video game project and try to get consensus about what to do there? Banning is a last resort, and we usually just save that for malicious users--this appears to be a good-faith content dispute. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Doris Day

Hi, Mark. The Doris Day page was protected due to IP vandalism re year of birth but even after you protected it an IP was able to vandalize it (see [73]). Why and what to do? Thanks. Quis separabit? 00:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW: Is the red template at the top of this page your own self-deprecating joke or vandalism? Quis separabit? 01:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Those messages were apparently from a member of my "fan club", which grows larger by the day :) Technically, I didn't protect Doris Day, I placed it under Pending Changes. PC still allows IPs to edit, but their edits don't appear to unregistered readers unless they're approved by a Wikipedian. This allows good-faith IPs to edit but makes BLP violations more-or-less invisible to most readers. It's helpful on BLPs that are regularly vandalized, but not disrupted frequently enough to justify semi-protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Creating User talk:115.140.51.161

You deleted this user's talk page. The person is removing/deleting content without explanation and I wanted to place a warning. Is it ok to recreate their talk?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 13:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine to recreate it. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaudiya Nritya

Hey Mark--remember protecting that article, and this rant on your talk page? Well, I also got charged with knowing jackshit about Indian classical dance, in the same tone, words, and poor syntax, but this time by user RupalDel. I was filing a report at WP:AN3 on them, and while I was doing that Rogblr picked up where RupalDel had left off, and I started seeing all kinds of interesting similarities--see Wikipedia:AN3#User:RupalDel_reported_by_User:Drmies_.28Result:_.29 for more details. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, Ok, I'll try to look into it later this afternoon. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't see this before I went there, or I might have held my fire. I've just removed a substantial copyvio, apparently, if memory serves, the same stuff that was repeatedly added to the article prior to its deletion. Some of that at least is lifted from the original www.gaudiyanritya.org website from 2003. As I recall, the old article had a number of editors with usernames of the form KrishnaABC; I never saw anything to convince me that there was any difference at all between them. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I revdeleted a bunch of the stuff. Looks like one of the three troublemakers is blocked right now, we'll see if we have to issue any more. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Mark and Justlettersandnumers: hey, I didn't come by to put you to work, but I thought it was interesting that you and I got the same rant. I did look for an original, but couldn't find anything. So...did you remove it from Indian classical dance, or whatever it was? I'll check on it later tonight: dinner first. Thanks again to both of you, Drmies (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I think I semi-protected an article he wanted to edit and he took it personally. Oh well, what can you do. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm feeling deprived - you both got a rant, all I got was a vandalism warning. I want a rant too! Anyway, DrM, thank Mark not me, he did all the work. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleted article 'Devcoin'

Hi Mark, you have deleted an article I last edited. This was just as I had submitted a comment in the deletion discussion, so I did not have time to take a copy of it. Could you please post a copy to my draft page (User:Andersonf87/Draft) - overwriting the older edit, or tell me how I could do this? ThanksAndersonf87 (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved the deleted article to User:Andersonf87/Devcoin. Please ask me before moving it back to article-space though. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm not sure why it was deleted so soon after my comments/questions and overhaul edit of another's earlier awful submission (thought I had more than 2 days to discuss and resolve) but guess that's the way it works. RegardsAndersonf87 (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, give it some time and keep working on it and there's a decent chance you can get it undeleted. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Matt Jones (ice hockey, born 1986) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matt Jones (ice hockey, born 1986) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Jones (ice hockey, born 1986) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ravenswing 08:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cryptocurrencies
  2. ^ Martinez, Mary "Logan Resident","Teaching English in Venezuela" Venezuela, 9 December 2013.
  3. ^ http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Blaxill-Testimony-Bio-TnT.pdf
  4. ^ http://iacc.hhs.gov/about/member-bios.shtml#public-members
  5. ^ http://www.providencejournal.com/external-search/?search_type=site-search-basic&service=search&pageNumber=1&sortString=by_date_desc&pageLength=10&dateFacets=1%2C30&articleTypeFacets=news%2Cgallery&articleTypes=news%2Cgallery&searchString=Templecon
  6. ^ http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2011/02/6th-templecon-draws-gaming-hob.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mark_Arsten/Archive_the_sixth&oldid=1204693009"