Jump to content

User talk:Mark Arsten/Archive the fifth

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

Vivek Oberoi

Mark, I actually provided a source for the Personal life edit. Here is the source below. http://www.mid-day.com/photos/b-town-specials/love-affairs-that-went-sour/ash-vivek/ A large part of his career is missing from the time he started acting from the time he got married. The edit I made covers that aspect of his career.

In the edit I reverted, I didn't see any indication that it was sourced. Please remember to cite a source with each addition to a biography, per our WP:BLP guideline. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Femininity

You need to note that the IP has continued to edit-war, inserting his proposed changes without meaningful discussion - he posted something on Talk and then immediately implemented changes without gaining consensus, in the face of three editors who have rejected his claim that "stereotype" is a POV word. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

As soon as somebody other than you reverts me, then I'll be happy to wait. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
So basically you're committed to edit-warring to get your POV in, rather than working to convince other editors that your proposal is acceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
It's more like I'm sick of you reverting me wherever you can so I require somebody else to before leaving it alone. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Grace Sherwood FA

Thank you from PSky and Wehwalt for your comment and review of this recently successful FAC. PumpkinSky talk 20:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, congratulations on the promotion. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Turn-off article feedback tool

Hey mark, I accidently turned-on the article feedback tool on the Senthil Kumar article. Can you please let me know how to turn it off? Thanks -- L o g X

I turned it back off. Not sure how to do it as a non-admin though. I should look into that. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much man! smile -- L o g X 20:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
You disabled it strongly enough that only an admin can re-enable it now. To disable it as a regular user, click "View feedback" in the Toolbox, then the gear in the top right corner, then "Disable feedback." Can you re-enable it through the protection interface and then disable it that way, so that if a regular user wants to re-enable it in the future, they can? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I disabled it that way. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
It ended up super-disabled again. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I used the view feedback -> gear -> disable process, so I'm not sure what to tell you. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Devyn Rose

A page was created for musician Devyn Rose last year and I was asked to provide/establish notability. Her single "Want It All" is in rotation on the following commercial radio stations in the US via reliable tracking source Mediabase

Please advise as I would like to recreate the wiki and add this information.

PinkStaircase (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you reviewed the WP:MUSICBIO criteria? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, yes, I have and it states that the musician must have at least one of the criterias and she has #11: Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. She is currently on rotation on 7 major commerical radio stations in the United States. PinkStaircase (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you can apply to WP:DRV to have the deletion overturned if you like. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I read DRV and it states I should only apply if you and I can't come to a resolution? Is it possible you restore the article to my sandbox and I add the above mentioned for your review before its actually published? Or should I apply anyway? PinkStaircase (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, the page is now at User:PinkStaircase/Devyn Rose for you to work on. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mark, I've made the changes, please review when you have a moment. Will continue to revise in the meantime PinkStaircase (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, looks a little better, but I'm not too familiar with notability guidelines in this area. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there someone/somewhere I should post to, to find out? Or can my article be moved to the public space for one of the Wiki reviewers to determine? PinkStaircase (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Like I said above, if you apply at WP:DRV they'll decide if it is sufficient or not. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

ok, thank you for your help PinkStaircase (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Fairfax

I have opened discussion on the talk page. He makes reverts anyway, then says the article needs reliable sources when it used to have 6 of them. I guess he removed the sources. I resourced it with a Time article citing the incident. Shouldn't that be relevant enough??? It's in the no contact section. You can read the talk page and see there has been a consensus to not remove it but he did anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairfax_County_Public_Schools 01:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.0.1.204 (talk)

Well, you really have to deal with it on the talk page instead of just reverting. See WP:DR for details. You might want to think about an WP:RFC too. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much

Hi Mark. Thanks much for the unprotection of Wikipedia:RefToolbar. I also must thank you again for your work on Church of the SubGenius. That article was WP:OWNed by church members for years and it's really great to finally have a proper article there. Thanks for the great work. 64.40.54.112 (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! I hadn't realized we had met before when I saw the request, but now I remember you. Always good to see helpful IPs around :) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete plea

Hi Mark. I want to ask you to delete my user talk page. I'm planning to retire and I won't need it any more. Thanks in advance.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) User talk pages cannot be deleted at the user's request, because they can contain warnings, etc. posted by other users, and that needs to remain in the public archives (see policy on that here). You can blank it or replace its content with {{retired}}, though. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
That's true. Also, user talk pages can "kind of" be deleted if you use the WP:RTV process (although the history will still exist, just under a different name). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

AFD procedure question

Hi, I notice you closed Intelligent Design (Historical)'s AFD with "Delete". In the future, what does our process say about adding any of that content to Intelligent design. After all, merging was a close runner up in the outcome, and was explicitly before you as an option, but you rejected it. Does wiki process allow, or frown, on going ahead and trying to add that to the other article anyway, i.e., after the "merge" option was rejected by the closing admin? No emotion here, just a genuine question about procedure. I probably won't work on it either way. Just seeking education to be a better informed ed. Thanks. Please include wikilinks in any reply. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's still possible for some of it to be selectively merged. I could undelete the history and leave a redirect if you'd like to take a shot at it. The thing is, though, you'd have to get consensus for your additions first on Talk:Intelligent design since it's a featured article. Might be tough, but there might be a case for working in some content from the 19th century in Intelligent design#Origin of the concept. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for reply, I just wanted procedural edification; I don't have the large amount of time it would take to navigate DR to do that.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN3

Thanks. I was just trying rather helplessly to find the right template for it, but you were quicker. :-) Bishonen | talk 20:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC).

Oops, didn't mean to steal your edit there, I didn't look at the timestamps and assumed it was several hours old for some reason. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
No, no, it's fine. Dividing up the action between doing the block and closing the thread is all to the good IMO, and I never did find the right template. I always get in a tizzy about these things, and worry about making it clear to the bot. (Or is that just on WP:RFPP? I'm more used to that board.) Bishonen | talk 20:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC).
Hmm, to be honest, I'm really not sure if a bot archives AN3 or not. I'll have to look into that. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ganjaprenuer

Hello, Mark Arsten. You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ganjapreneur, noting consensus for soft redirect. Problem is, there is no entry at wikt:ganjapreneur. In fact, I can't find the word mentioned anywhere on Wiktionary. Cnilep (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Huh, I just assumed there was because the people in the Afd wanted it redirected to that. Guess I should have checked. I wonder what to do now. Well, I guess I'll delete it until someone makes an entry for it on Wiktionary then restore the soft redirect. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Syria

Just to let you know, an IP editor (presumably the same person who was vandalizing the Syrian Civil War Timeline article, although he appears to have switched IP yet again) left this profane message on the article's talk page attacking you personally. Might a rangeblock be in order? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

My fan club is growing by the day ;) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a fairly large range, so there might be collateral damage if it's blocked. I don't know though, might want to get a second opinion on it. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Protect the article. PumpkinSky talk 01:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The article's protected, we're just wondering what to do about the talk page now. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your help this evening. Much appreciated. Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Vegetarianism, Part 2

Thanks for this. Before you did that, I was about to state: "Mark, the IP range that led you to protect the Vegetarianism article before (User talk:Mark Arsten/Archive the twelfth#Vegetarianism article) is back. I really think that the IP is a WP:Troll, given what is currently shown on the talk page. Mind semi-protecting this article again until the dispute is over? Well, hopefully, it will be over before whatever date you set for it...if you do semi-protect the article."

I guess that you still have the Vegetarianism article on your watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I guess I timed that pretty well! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Mark Arsten would you mind formally closing this discussion started by the IP? It's decidedly not constructive and pretty much a compendium of attacks directed at Flyer22. Thanks. Gaba (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that really was heavy on the NPA violations. I'd block, but it would have to be a reasonably large rangeblock in this case, so I protected instead and hatted the section. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mark, thanks for your work for Wikipedia. I would like to put my side of story. Flyer22 started personal attack against my good faith editing in the first place. I am not Flyer22's past enemy. I never talked to Flyer22 before. All I want to do is improve the scientific/academic quality of the article. But Flyer22 cannot engage in a scientific debate, just want to fight. 124.149.42.1 (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't like to protect talk pages like that, but some of the comments you directed at Flyer in the Talk:Vegetarianism#Definitions_of_vegetarianism were clear violations of our WP:NPA policy. To be honest, I would have blocked you for them if you weren't on a dynamic IP. If you'd like me to unprotect that page, you'd first have to convince me that you'll adhere to our civility (WP:CIVIL) and no personal attacks policies. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I always aware and adhere (WP:CIVIL). I disagree that I did personal attack. As we can see on the talk page, I did respond to Flyer22, described Flyer22's uncivil conducts. Because Flyer22 attacked me in the first place. I believe that you tried to maintain fairness as much as possible. I think you will equally consider the incivility of Flyer22, which is the cause of the dispute. I look forward to a quality academic debate on the topic of vegetarianism. 124.149.113.10 (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I am also wondering, what kind of evidence you want about I am in good faith editing? I can provide more information.

I wrote ' I think you will equally consider the incivility of Flyer22', because of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith‎ . But apparently, some of the editors I talked to today, did the exactly opposite to me. 124.149.113.10 (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on content, not other contributors. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
'Please comment on content, not other contributors.' Will you or did you ask Flyer22 do so EQUALLY? I hope anyone told Flyer22. Did you somehow block Flyer22 so she cannot attack other editors or edit-warring? Sufficient time has passed, I am going to conclude my conversation on this page. Your intervention on the talk page is very unjust and disappointing. 124.149.166.160 (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I haven't seen any attacks on other editors from her, to be honest. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parents' Worship Day

Hi, how those closed with a "no consensus"? I expected a "speedy keep" or "keep" at least. --Tito☸Dutta 04:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, there was about an equal number of reasonably policy-based people on each side. It didn't seem to be that there was enough numerical superiority or lack of grounding in policy on either side, to me at least. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Policy based argument? Please show me a single valid delete vote argument there. a) the nominator did not give any rationale (he was asked twice, but, he did not write any), b) there is not a single valid argument to delete the article. I am still wondering why this article was nominated for deletion. --Tito☸Dutta 22:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, three participants argued that the article was unfit for inclusion due to its promotional nature, which is a legitimate argument to make. It didn't gain consensus, of course, but it's not so weak as to be disqualified as an argument as it has some basis in policy. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

HI, the reason i nominated this article in the first place is that, its plain ridiculous. 1. it is promotional 2. it lacks anything worth of an encyclopedia article 3. I couldn't find a single govt website or anything official that declared such a thing as recognized. 4. there is no "Parent's worship day", observed/followed/celebrated anywhere in India. It was probably a one time thing, some politicians gave a comment about, amongst 100s of other things they say and not be serious about. 5. there is not a single instance where a well-known newspaper says that some one celebrated it. the only instance to be found is this http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/worship-parents-on-valentines-day-asaram-bapu/1/171080.html and even this reads "Worship parents on Valentine's Day, says Asaram Bapu".

another reference gives a 404 not found http://www.statetimes.in/news/parents-worship-day-celebrated/ another link has nothing related to this article http://www.merinews.com/article/chhattisgarh-makes-parents-worship-day-a-compulsory-observance-in-schools-on-february-14/15881586.shtml&cp

6. only place you find mention of this, is at below promotional website for the same organization. http://www.mppd.ashram.org/ Regards EceNafri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecenafri (talk • contribs) 14:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Explanation request (continued)

Sorry for bringing this up again, but I forgot to ask something that might help me better understand how Wikipedia policy is applied: you explained why you decided not to block in that case, but why did you state that even an administrator warning was not called for? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess I felt that her edits fell into the "normal content disagreement" rather than the "edit warring" spectrum, to put it concisely. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

hey

you dumb. You is will be ban. I is own wiki. I speak good English next year. — ChedZILLA 13:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Will BeWhat? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
lol, I should save all my fan mail so I'll have something to look back on in my declining years. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Remember too, in Soviet Russia, IP blocks you! -- Diannaa (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sunbeam Tiger page status

Hi Mark, I noted you're in some position to be familiar with the Wiki process. The Sunbeam Tiger article page has "Featured Article" status. Unfortunately, in the eyes of most Tiger owners that have visited and read the page, the status is more accurately represented by the "start" rating, because the editors appear to have reached factually (and easily proved to be) incorrect conclusions on most points of detail regarding the origins, development, and production of the Tiger. What is the appropriate process to lodge a dispute with the page content, other than to raise the issue on the corresponding Talkpage? The current editors seem to be loath to make changes because they spent a bunch of time getting to where they are, but they are quick to slam the door on anyone else providing input at this point regardless of how good the source of the information may be.TheoSmit (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, what matters is the sources. Anyone can show up on the talk page and say the page is wrong, so we require arguments about what is the truth of the matter to be verifiable (WP:V). So, to win the argument, you have to come up with reliable sources that confirm your claims (WP:IRS). If you feel that the article is contradicted by reliable sources and thus does not deserve to be featured, you can nominated its featured status for removal at WP:FAR. Note that nominations can only take place 6 months after the article's promotion and one week after concerns are first raised on the talk page. By the way, if you're subjected to personal attacks you're free to raise the issue at WP:ANI. Let me know if you have any more questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sept 14th AfD for National Institue of Fashion (ludhiana)

Could you please help. Tito seems to have clearly taken a dislike to me because of a previous AfD that I argued was closed by him less then 23 hours after posting in which he seemed to me more guided by keeping an India project article up then anything else. It was reopened while I was offline, and closed again. I thought nothing of it till today. I posted an article for AfD that is clearly too soon. A minister in India announced a day or two ago that a fashion institute should be opened in a city. No firm plans are on hand, no money has been provided to fund it, heck no firm commitment to open it. It may or may not happen even. However Tito posts a vote more against the user then anything. When I reply back assuming he misunderstood that the article was about a new institute and not one currently open in a different state he let into a very personal attack. I replied back to give a response to what I see as an attack on the user and not the substance of the AfD. (I might concede it being notable if it wasn't for the only thing about it was an announcement two days ago saying one is needed) Either way it's far from a bad faith nom, and his follow up posting where he drags in my talk page history pointing directly to the section on the AfD I had argued was closed early shows me this is personal and not policy driven. Caffeyw (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble following your comments here, but I see DGG has posted on the page encouraging him to assume good faith. That's probably all that's needed for now. Maybe try to avoid him for a while if you can, as well? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Basically it boils down IMO to Tito wants India projects Kept, not deleted, or even marked no consensus. I believe I got on his bad side where I had asked for a reopening of a IMO bad NAC closing less then 23 hours after opening. Now it's attack the user arguing bad faith, when I've provided a very logical position that it's way too soon for an article. Basically nothing has happened other then two days ago a Minister announced that a city should get a campus of National Institute of Fashion. No money has been earmarked, no legislative approval has been given, there's no building plans, nothing other then a statement that a city should get a campus. I've put that makes it way too soon for a campus article. A mention on the main page of the institute sure, but an article on a campus that may or may not even open no. Caffeyw (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Saying that he just wants every Indian article kept is a bit unfair, isn't it? I'm sure he's operating in good faith himself, even if he should assume more good faith about your actions. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
FYI I was happy to leave this alone, however guy1980 seems to feel bringing an issue to you as admin is vote canvassing. That's a outrageous thing to say when I never asked you to vote at all. I asked you to take a look at an issue. All his post now does is tell people they are not welcome to bring issues to an admin. If anything it almost seems like two people have teamed up together now. I don't mind you choosing to ignore the issue on Tito, but IMO guy1980's actions have crossed a line. Caffeyw (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Generally one should report at ANI and not to an admin and inform the other editor as a "courtesy". The last AFD he is talking about, there his AFD's rational was "film will release after one month, so delete", he also called the film "non-notable", even a simple Google search shows many coverages, and if a film is releasing in few weeks, that is a reason to speedy keep and not to delete.
    I did not mind his "toosoon" point, but, he somehow added a "non-notable" allegation. A central government' national institute — non notable? And it is not he first or second time... see history of his talk page. And, he again feels, I want to "keep" all India articles, though in reality, I regularly give "delete" votes, and very recently I have converted few AFDs to speedy. --Tito☸Dutta 15:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Anyone that's been following what's been going on recently at AfD can see pretty clearly that there's a growing list of editors that are growing tired of cleaning up "Caffeyw's" messes. "Caffeyw" has been mostly ignoring/deleting messages that have been posted to their talk page, by other editors & administrators, that have been, at best, confused by their actions, and I'm trying to be nice here. They either need a mentor, or they need to stop accelerating their behavior at AfD and what appears to be the New Page Patrol. Newcomers to Wikipedia, like "Caffeyw", that end up biting other newcomers is pretty much pointless behavior. Guy1890 (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Finding a mentor sounds like a pretty good solution, actually. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
I hereby award you this barnstar for your help with F5 deletions. Your contributions are noticed and appreciated! Diannaa (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome, glad to help. I figured I'd branch out into some image work since there's plenty to be done! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Agira (Ultra monster)

Please restore this material Agira (Ultra monster) so it can be merged into List_of_Ultra_Seven_monsters or merge it there yourself. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to do so since no one in the deletion discussion supported a merge. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

What a disgrace

I can't believe you were convinced by this biased discussion and deleted the page Samuel Westrop. He was clearly a notable person, with hours of work put on creating his article. A shame to Wikipedia Shalom11111 (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're free to take it to WP:DRV if you like. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Nadine_Dorries_and_accusations_of_nepotism

As you have locked the page please read my comments here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Nadine_Dorries_and_accusations_of_nepotism

and consider reenstating the headline in a form as I suggested — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.88.100 (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I probably won't get involved any further in this, sorry. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You're the one who locked the page - before we'd finished discussing it, to block me out. I provided the link everyone asked for. Now you've decided it doesn't matter what my arguments are - you're going to ignore them.

If you don't want to be involved then would you unlock the page please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.25.102 (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

From what I have read of your arguments at BLPN, I find them very unconvincing. So I'm not sure you'd be well served if I got further involved. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you expand on that? Just the word "Unconvincing" is a cop out. You've gone from saying you're slinging a deaf ear to dismissing everything I've said with one vague word. But you're unwilling to say how or why or to offer an argument that I could counter. You haven't made any argument to date at all. All you've done is lock the page and before you'd even heard what I had to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.25.102 (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, you were trying to put a negative slant on an article about a living person without the use of reliable sources, then all you've done on the BLPN page to back up said negative information is offer unreliable sources. That is totally against our rules. We take a very dim view of people who come here to push their POV, see WP:NPOV for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


No, I was giving a clear concise title. "Nepotism" which is exactly the word for the issue in question. I have moved half way in suggesting that it be changed to "Allegations of Nepotism" or something similar. I do not see how there can be any objection to that. That is what the issue is about - whether employing your daughters as an MP is appropriate. The title as you've put it completely fails to express that her employing her daughter is contentious. A bare statement that she employs her relatives ignore the whole point about why those details appeared in the newspaper at all.

Why is the Mirror article an unreliable source? Its not. I provided exactly what people were asking for - the exact words they asked for "Nepotism" and Dorries in a national newspaper. There are 200 MPs involved in this practice - in the many other articles in which they do not mention Dorries specifically they headline it with the word "Nepotism". I provided a Telegraph link for that. Nepotism is the one word in the English language for employing relatives. The issue of the 200 MPs (including Dorries) is given under Wikipedias own "Nepotism" page.

I happen to think she has practiced Nepotism but the title "Allegations of Nepotism" doesn't have my slant on it in any way at all. It is a totally neutral title saying what the issue is all about. As opposed to that being altogether absent in your title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.25.102 (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The mirror is indeed a poor source to be basing negative BLP information off of. Also, I don't see why we should call it "Allegations of Nepotism" since there are no allegations being made in that section. We would need good sources that discuss the allegations to include that. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"The mirror is indeed a poor source to be basing negative BLP information off of". Its only being used as a source (because others asked for it) to establish that what she was being accused of is "nepotism" specifically. They asked for that exact word - the article does that - so its a perfect source. Its not being used as a source to establish whether or not the allegation is true - only that there is an allegation (there is -its there) so your argument about "basing negative BLP information off" is besides the point. I was asked to provide something specific and I did.

I didn't come up with "Allegations of Nepotism" - someone else did for the discussion title so I accepted that. That she employs her relatives is only of note because it is contentious and because it is regarded as nepotism and a practice that the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life said should be banned

You'll allow a little piece that mentions the fact that she employs her relatives but demand that we omit that it is a matter of controversy. That's the only reason it appears in the source. I'm the one who created the section. I read it in my local newspaper and thought it was significant enough to add to her page.

I took the information from the source without putting any "negative slant" that you accuse me of at all - and chose the simplest most concise title possible "nepotism" to convey that aspect of it. But you've removed it and I can't change the article. So I suggest that you perhaps reintroduce the fact that her employing her daughters is controversial and regarded as nepotism by the Mirror and the Telegraph and most of the general public, rightly or wrongly, in whatever form of words or title you choose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.237.79 (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd consider noting that her actions generated controversy, but I'd have to see a good source stating as much first. Any recommendations? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the objecton to including the fact that it is regarded as nepotism by all those sources? That's what the controversy is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.237.79 (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to bear with me here, I've got a lot of things going on at once. Which sources other than the Mirror describe her actions as nepotism? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6435511/MPs-expenses-let-them-pay-for-nepotism-themselves.html

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/06/in-praise-of-nepotism.html

http://blogs.birminghampost.co.uk/news/2009/08/a-little-nepotism-is-a-good-th.html

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/mps-claim-more-now-than-they-did-before-the-expenses-scandal-8814520.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mp-has-three-family-members-on-his-staff-list-2063316.html

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/iain-macwhirter/goodbye-nepotism-and-tax-evasion-how-will-our-poor-mps-manage-1.929659 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.237.79 (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, none of those sources seem to mention Nadine Dorries. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

No they don't single out Nadine Dorries there are 200 MP's involved so they're not going to mention each one. But as someone who employs her daughters and who is an MP they clearly refer to her.

These mention her:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10307458/MPs-expenses-How-MPs-could-avoid-the-trouble-and-strife.html

http://www.ukwirednews.com/news.php/4154-MPs-second-mortgages-and-nepotism-banned

This is about her: about 9 of the comments on the first page use the word "nepotism".

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/19/nadine-dorries-pays-student-daughter-philippa-39k-_n_1609139.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.31.31.212 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

There are any number of blogs.

http://order-order.com/2010/08/25/keeping-it-in-the-family/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.31.31.212 (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the reliability of ukwirednews, but blogs and the Huffington Post are poor sources for a BLP. The Telegraph piece seems to be an op-ed piece, and we really can't change a header in an article because a phrase is indirectly used in one column like that. It seems like you're twisting and straining the sources to come to a certain conclusion here, so you can use negative language in this BLP. It doesn't seem like reliable sources at support the language you're trying to use here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not twisting and straining - it took me hardly any time to find those. You have an absurd objection to including the word everyone uses for people employing their relatives in public service - nepotism. Not saying she's practised it - but that there is a controversy re nepotism. I've provided a MASS of evidence that that is the case. But I clearly should have taken the more-than-a-hint when you initially said you were going to give a deaf ear to anything I might say.

If you recall, I suggested above that you change the article to reintroduce the fact that employing the daughters is controversial because you removed it, and locked me out. If you're not prepared to do so, then their is nothing I can do about that. And if "nepotism" is a taboo word despite it being THE word for it - then so be it. But your approach which anyone can read above really does you no credit. I've had enough so won't be making any more comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.31.31.212 (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Righdamhna reinstated

See [1] - this editor just doesn't get it, I was about to warn him but I'm leaving it to you if you don't mind - you were the closing Admin and turned it into the redirect, and I've already warned him so many times he may not take me seriously. An IP has changed it back to the redirect. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads' up, protected now. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Gundam article

Please userify the Timelines of Gundam to my user page; I have been greatly distracted with side drama, but whether or not I assert 150-300 primary and secondary sources the page was incomplete and a multi billion dollar franchise comprising hundreds of works far surpassing Lord of the Rings in scope and complexity. The Timeline of Arda page has numerous resources including secondary sources. Gundam's complexity, like Macross and other works have numerous articles about this and NRVE and BEFORE show that the complex work needs to be in appropriate context somewhere and a list of media as they are presented chronologically serves a clear and demonstrated purpose. I feel that this deletion was wrong because it was not "any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info." the biggest difference is that in the thirty years of a consistent timeline comprising hundreds of hours of video and thousands of pages contained in books/mangas and additional supplementary material is important to address the placement of the works themselves because Gundam is one of the few series that spans hundreds of years. Even a page like Dune (franchise) including the inclusion of its chronology on that page helps readers understand the subject and that is why it should be included. At this point, I'd prefer it userified if my arguments alone are not enough to justify its inclusion at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, userfied it. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Continued reversions on femininity

Please note that the IP user has continued to revert-war on femininity. See [2] and [3] - other editors have reverted and the IP user shows no signs of stopping the edit war. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think our IP friend needs to take a break from reverting for a while. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Northkeep Merge

I have just completed the Northkeep merge as per the AFD you closed, but I may not have done it correctly/completely. If you have a few minutes could you make sure it has been merged correctly and fix anything I left out? Thanks.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks good for the most part. The only thing is you should have stated in this edit summary which page you were merging from. It's pretty obvious looking at it, but it's best to include that in the edit summary anyway. Thanks for doing that merge. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Gone Home edit

You cant deny that what i said about it is true though — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.122.18 (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You may be right, yes, but you shouldn't add that to the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Paul Bannon

Hello, in July you protected Paul Bannon for edits made by a sockpuppet. The protection has expired and the vandal is back, could you please revert and protect again? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

How could it possibly be vandalism if links are being ADDED to the page???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.254.167 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mark, IP now reverting Paddy McCourt, could you do the same? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey JMHamo how about answering the question??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.254.26 (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

IP hopping, sigh JMHamo (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, protected that too. IP, I encourage you to propose changes on the talk page instead of edit warring over them. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigh all you want. Struway2 saw your vandalism and reverted because it was ADDING information. For your information a vandal is someone who routinely undoes work. And Mark there is no need to protect pages when information is being added. It does not matter who does it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.254.21 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the merit of your additions, edit warring is considered disruptive (hence why I protected). Please make your case on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Hey Mark, thanks for the quick response to my request at WP:RFPP for Atlantic Records. Before I made the request I was not aware of this as I assume you were not either. Looks like the page had just finished its second year long semi-protection in a row. Judging by the immediate vandalism, looks like we might need a two year protection or maybe indefinite semi-protection. Either way, thanks for taking the time to look over WP:RFPP, it seems like whenever you don't it takes two-three days to get a response just for the reports to go stale. STATic message me! 00:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, I should have checked the log for past protections. You're welcome, I recall that I always hated the wait for a page to be protected, so it's great that I can help now. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Owens hoax AfD

I don't see how you got consensus for delete out of that discussion. The nom's claim that the only mention of it since 2008 was a passing one in 2012 got debunked promptly when an editor pointed out a significant mention in 2011 and I can debunk it further. Another vote said "delete or merge" and another was a delete that essentially argued some sort of "aid and comfort to the enemy" rationale rather than any legitimate policy-based reason. Clearly, no consensus existed in that discussion.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ehh, I guess I could relist it if you feel that strongly about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing AFDs from Wikiprojects

Hello. I've noticed a few articles that you have deleted because of an AFD discussion. While I'm not disputing the lack of notability on those articles, is there any reason that they can't just be redirected to another article, rather than completely being removed from Wikipedia? Specifically, the article for Sharkticon could have easily been redirected to another Transformers article, which would have prevented you from having to remove the link from so many other Transformers articles. It just seems to me that for navigational purposes, it would have been better to point that link somewhere else, rather than remove it from the project entirely. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, deletion doesn't preclude redirection, so you're free to do that now if you wish. I tend to close Afds rather conservatively, so I usually won't redirect if most of the !voters voice support for deletion. There weren't that many participants in this discussion, though, so I grant that it wasn't completely clear what to do. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I understand, but what's the point in creating a redirect now, if the link would have to be re-added to all the articles that would use that link? I know that this was probably better suited for the AfD discussion, but I don't understand why it was necessary to remove all traces of that link from related articles. Wikiprojects have Redirect-Class for a reason, but deleting the article just removes the redirect from those projects, and lessens the possibility of that material being expanded. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the Afd is generally the place for this kind of thing, but anyway: usually when I delete an article I remove backlinks since there isn't any use to having a redlink to a deleted article. In some cases when I redirect I leave the backlinks in. I'm not sure that those links were doing very much good in this case though, since the redirect still doesn't lead to much discussion of the topic. If you feel strongly about it, you can revert my link removals in this case. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, it's nothing personal against you. I personally don't have any problem creating redirects and adding redirect-class to the talk pages, but I don't know that it's worth it to undo all the work that you did just for a redirect. As a member of {{WikiProject Transformers}}, I know that other members would prefer to at least leave a redirect as part of the project for deleted articles. Unfortunately, there is not enough activity on that project for those editors to participate in the AfD discussions...Thanks again for the clarification though! Fortdj33 (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Cheetah hunt

You deleted my article on cheetah hunt.But why?

I didn't delete your article, I just reverted one edit. I think the tone you used here wasn't fit for an encyclopedia. We try to avoid addressing the reader as "you" and telling the user what a "great way to start your day" is not neutral. See WP:NPOV for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Request to have a look at Ready Flower wiki page

Hi, hope you are good. Considering your comments on Ready Flowers page, the page has been redone with an effort to quote secondary references. Altough some IPs keep reverting the page, i would request you to have a look on the changes by CaliforniaSun2013 and myself. Your unbiased opinion on the peer review has led us to believe that you are the best guide for us on this edit. Thanks alot. Ready_Flowers--ThinkDone (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The important thing to do is to discuss the proposed changes on the article's talk page instead of continuing to revert. See WP:BRD for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Note that Chaklalajob/ThinkDone's edits have been based on a gross misrepresentation of a source - I have raised this on the article talk page and made it clear that if this occurs again, I shall ask that Chaklalajob/ThinkDone be blocked from editing. Given the clearly promotional tone of the edits, I suggest that Chaklalajob/ThinkDone familiarises him/herself with WP:COI policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, well, they won't be able to revert for a few days at least. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it OK?

Hello Sir ... ref. Shekhar Gurera, do you feel that User:Gurera/Shekhar Gurera page is OK for submission? regards --Gurera (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks ok, I suggest you apply for undeletion at WP:DRV now, telling them about the draft you've created. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • a) Write the biography in prose (not list) b) don't use Hindi or other Wikipedias as reference, c) The Times of India is very helpful. Mark Arsten, I think their this ToI ref is an excellent one. Is not it? Add at least one-two more refs like that. No problem if its in Hindi. If you do not have online copy, you can refer offline too (a scanned copy of such papers might be helpful, don't upload in Wikipedia), d) I am not sure, how you own copyright of those images. 4) don't put references in a box. That's all for now. --Tito☸Dutta 17:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sir ... thanks a lot for your collective advice ... a) biography is in prose, only Awards and Honors are in lists due to the reason of maximum info in less text b) Hindi wp link already removed c) as like TOI there r more such references with some details Sunday Mail (Hindi), The Hindu-New Delhi, The Statesman, Kolkata d) putting references in a box was just to make them compact; that also been removed! ... Now kindly after having a fresh look at the page, can you please advise if i should Submit the page! (link in the top tag of the page) or WP:DRV If DRV, then can i please get brief technical help how to submit it? Regards --Gurera (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

  • a) actually the article is mainly a list at this moment. See other similar article for help: Category:Indian cartoonists. b) Hindi Wiki —ok c) why did not you provide these links at the AFD? Those are superb. d) no, we don't put references in boxes. +++ e) it depends on you whether you want to DRV (DRV means "deletion review", a place where you can request to undelete your first article), or submit it at AFC/rewrite it. --Tito☸Dutta 08:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • And how do you own copyright of those cartoon images? Are you Shekhar Gurera ? --Tito☸Dutta

ok sir, done ... a) now Awards and Honors is in prose form, c) what is AFD? these links from the prints are already there as S.No: 15, 16 & 17 in References e) as long as DRV is concerned v wont like to undelete the first article coz that might had some mistakes with less contents, v'll like to focus to replace this final edited with a lot efforts to fine tune it with maximum contents at d same name (got deleted, due to some carelessness editing, may b due to d unawareness of DOs & DONTs) but now v don't want to take risk of any wrong decision :D .. better if u please advise us the appropriate way of submission out of these two ways under d name Shekhar Gurera only
No, v r close associates to Mr Gurera, one of us is his younger son, the main photo clicked by him, he himself provided the necessary information to rectify the old one and now even a set of some clippings of his work, and v designed the collage from it for WP. regards --Gurera (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

ok .. v'll do as per the need .. i hv some doubts due to a big confusion, if u can also go thru it, and help us

  • Laxman article has lots of prose content. And it is nice to see you have an article in that category to argue that writing in list is acceptable. You have not fixed the issues mentioned in my last post. In addition, send image permission to commons:Com:OTRS. I do not know what you mean by "Sunday Times" etc references were deleted. Those look fine. --Tito☸Dutta 02:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Morning sir .. tkx! in any case, it also depend upon person to person that how much mentionable matter they have for prose or for lists. To fix the issues from the last post v need little more time. .. abt. commons:Com:OTRS excuse me, v r not exactly aware from the technicalities, was there any needful pending from ourside? .. Yeah, those references were actually attached / related to the one last section Comments with 4 points, which was been deleted / omitted this time, v r not aware what necessary needful v need to do for them. ragds Gurera (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Hello Mark sir, i think, with our best efforts, after fixed all the issues, the job has been completed from our side, you can proceed as per your convinence. Regds Gurera (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It still has few more issues. You were suggested to remove "all" tripod references. I am assuming good faith, but, please send permission to OTRS team as soon as possible, else those images may be deleted. Please remove all Hindi scripts from the article too. Do not use unnecessary bold formatting in the article. The article is in much better condition now. --Tito☸Dutta 15:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

oh sir .. no need to put 'but' after 'good faith' it was just a matter of slip from mind .. in fact, after posting my last message, it immediately striked me in mind abt d tripod links ... they hav already been removed within a few minutes .. hindi text / bold formatting has also been removed ... direct email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org for OTRS permission has also been sent for all the 4 images for this page ... now what else u feel pending?? regds Gurera (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it's back at Shekhar Gurera now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks a lot Mark Arsten sir for your concern & efforts for reactivating d page ... also thanks to Titodutta sir for the same help editorially n technically ... regards ... good night!!! Gurera (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Pierre Fabre

Hi Mark, I had finally gotten the previous editors to delete this misleading information, and, unfortunately, it is here again. There is already a page for the Pierre Fabre of pharmaceutical company note. This page was created as a link from the "LONE SIGNAL" page. I am president of Lone Signal. My name is Pierre Fabre. As I had to explain to the last person who made this same edit, I don't believe the aim of Wikipedia is to spread misinformation; but people are going to get the wrong impression that this, unfortunately deceased, Pierre Fabre is the person who founded Lone Signal. That is not the case. Please let me know how I can be of help. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.46.94 (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, could you explain more clearly what you would like me to do here? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see I reverted your edit here. We try to keep each article focused on one person. If you think the other Pierre is notable, you can create an article on him and add a WP:HATNOTE to the other. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

AfD Close

Mark, you can probably just go ahead and close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Michigan Men's Glee Club. There were only two delete !votes, and I changed mine after the article was significantly expanded. There's now a clear consensus for keep. I'd consider NACing it myself, were I not involved. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 12:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'll take a look at it next time I get to the Afd queue. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mark, i am done editing and adding citations

To recap, you have kindly opened User:0811gv/Gilflo‎ for my to edit since it was deleted due to not having any citations. I have added the citations/references needed. I hope this will allow the article to be revived now that it can be verifiable. Thank you again sincerely for your help in this matter and please let me know if there is anything else needed. 0811gv (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not sure that there is enough coverage of him to demonstrate his notability, but you are free to appeal the deletion to WP:DRV if you think there is. Make sure to mention your draft there. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

a Lot of his stuff is tv related which the "rules and guidelines" are Strict on what can and cant be used, when IMDB is usually the only thing that is used to track these kind of things for people. He was nominated for a grammy, as far as work he has done, I gave direct links to that, I don't understand what else is so needed. Wikipedia isn't even a reliable source to use whilst in school, but yet wiki is extremely strict on what can be used for validity. It doesn't make sense. There are many things that I left out on things he is doing and has done, but there is no direct links that can verify it as per the internet, magazine. 0811gv (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well, if you used all the good sources you could find, you might as well go for WP:DRV. There may just not be enough sources though. BTW, you could ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

can it stay in the state (the purgatory domain) that it is in right now for a bit more? He is about to close a deal with Hasbro Inc. which he is doing a campaign for the twister game/product. Once this closes, it will be another huge source to add to the site, plus I will keep gathering more. Please let me know if this can be done. 0811gv (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah sure, take all the time you need. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com/jqharrison?fref=ts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.188.236 (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Protection of Template:States with limited recognition

Looks like you accidentally move protected this page rather than edit protected it. Could you fix this? Thanks! TDL (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, my bad. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

In Reply to Logan Bartholomew concern

Hello, Mark. If I removed anything, I am not conscious of it. This is what I added, "In 2013, he took over the role of Jason Stevens from Drew Fuller, in the prequel/sequel to 2007's The Ultimate Gift, The Ultimate Life." How do you think I removed anything, and what did I remove? Thanks. Wesbrooks (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It was indeed, a mistake. I thought I was deleting blank space, as it appeared on Beta Edit. What specifically needs to be restored? I don't recall what was there to begin with. Sorry for the trouble. Wes Brooks 02:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I re-added the information you had put in, so it's in there now. The beta editing interface causes that problem a lot, don't worry. Do you have a source to back up the information you wanted added? You should add that to the article now if you would. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

In regards to: [4]

Hi Mark, I understand but the word "emigrated" is linked to [5] maybe it should be linked to this [6] Shellyperlman (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think the latter would be a better link. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

In Regards to [7]

Hi Mark, My name is Sunil and I see that you deleted my name as a famous Wagle. I would like to ask you why did that. My company Greenculture was the first green e-commerce retailer. We were regularly featured in magazines, and newspapers and did lots of business in the United States and overseas. Here are some online stories of me and the company: http://www.internetretailer.com/mobile/2007/04/19/riverwired-com-launches-as-green-web-portal-for-the-eco-co. Also, see here: http://legacy.utsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/mon/business/news_lz1b1ads.html. Also, see here: http://www.sanantonio.gov/clerk/ethics/HB914CIS/200809/SunilWagleGreenCulture.pdf. Also, see here: http://voices.yahoo.com/top-five-eco-friendly-online-furniture-retailers-839073.html?cat=30. Also, see here:http://www.gaithersburgmd.gov/Documents/environment/rainbarrel_handouts.pdf. If you look here we are listed here: http://www.co.ocean.nj.us/solidwaste/.%5C%5CPDFs%5CBackyardCompostingDemoSite.pdf. Anyway, I feel there is a legitimate reason for me to be listed here and ask that you reinclude my name in the list of wagles. As you can see above, we were in the Internet Retailer top 500 for many years. This company did over $50 million in revenue which seems notable. I think I may not be posting this in the correct area so I apologize in advance if I am posting this in the wrong location. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.65.63 (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't believe I've ever deleted your name from that article. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

--Hi Mark, can you please help me and find out who did make this change and deletion. The other admin who could help me just retired and I am still new and do not know how to find out. Thanks so much. Sunil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swagle (talk • contribs) 23:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Someone deleted an article you want restored? What was the name of the article? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

--HI Mark. The article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagle. I was listed as a Notable person on this page. It said. Sunil Wagle, Founder of GREENCulture. This was removed by someone and I thought that person was you. I don't really know who the person is who deleted that but I feel it should be restored. Can you please help me with how this can happen? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swagle (talk • contribs) 06:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Fortress Brookvale

Hi Mark, Just letting you that the change made on Brookvale Oval's Wiki page, regarding 'Fortess Brookvale' is accurate and true. If you could update the page as I did so, it would be very much appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.227.245 (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

So it's this edit we're talking about? My apologies if you weren't vandalizing. It looked to me like you were saying that the stadium's nickname has been "Wallace" since 2005, which seemed like a joke to me. You are free to re-add your change. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen this movie?!

Hi Mark,

The last thing I want is for Wikipedia to contain inaccurate or misleading information. That being said, have you seen "Never Say Never Again"? Because if you have, you'd understand why I made the changes I did to the plot summary. From the breathtaking opening scenes miles above the Earth's surface, to the dynamite climax deep in the heart of a desert oasis, Never Say Never Again keeps the audience on the edge of their seats. This film is a classic hallmark of action cinema, and after reading this script it's easy to see why Sean Connery "never said never again" to playing his most famous role. Kim Bassinger is simply stunning in her role as Domino and has gone down in history as one of the most famous Bond Girls of all time. Especially after comparing this treat to the "official" EON-sanctioned Bond film released that year, the disastrous Octopussy, Never Say Never Again is an enduring testament to sticking to the basics and returning to what made James Bond such a timeless character to begin with. With such a dynamite cast, breakneck pacing, and pitch-perfect direction by Irvin Kershner, I have no choice but to replace all those periods with exclamation marks. The world doesn't deserve anything different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.226.122.44 (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Very funny :) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Who do contributors escalate to beyond administrators?

Who do I escalate my issues with the disrupted behavior of Esoglou to now that you have closed my admin noticeboard posting on Esoglou? If it belongs to a different board I request your assistance on where and how to post. LoveMonkey 22:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Click here and explain your concerns and then some uninvolved admins will take a look at it and weigh in. I closed the previous report since that board is just for edit, and a report about violating editing restrictions is better handled elsewhere. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I have created a notice. Please review it if you have time to confirm if the notice is appropriate. LoveMonkey 00:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
It's Ok, but you have to notify User:Esoglou that you're talking about him. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you I appreciate the help. LoveMonkey 01:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Vandal hitting Emma Pillsbury's been at it for days

Mark, thanks for protecting Emma Pillsbury. It's the latest article to be attacked by a vandal who's been using a string of IP proxies to go after articles, including several Glee-related ones (so far, Glee (TV series), Kurt Hummel, and Chris Colfer have had to be protected, and now Emma).

I've been reporting these incursions to Material scientist at User talk:Materialscientist#IP blocked four hours ago already back?; the latest two, which were used in the vandalism on Emma Pillsbury and should doubtless be blocked are 118.85.208.222 and 118.195.65.250—the former just left a post on my talk page (the second by the vandal) that I'd appreciate being hidden as well. Can you block them, or should I ask someone else? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I've seen this guy before. Ok, I think I've blocked and revdeleted them, let me know if you need anything else. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks. Will do. I rather suspect there will be many more proxy IPs to go; I hope they find a way to close the door on his edits. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Mark, looks like the same person at 182.50.66.67, which you've already given a couple of warnings to, though in some cases just annoying vandalism rather than ugly. I just reverted on Skyfall, which was trending toward the ugly. Time to bring down the hammer? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 Done Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. There was this very odd series of edits to Jane Lynch earlier today—one of the articles that has been hit before by blocked IPs (and was hit by the one just blocked) by 190.79.134.118; it was the similarity in edit summary wording that caught my eye. Is there a way of checking this for being a proxy, or is the point to not do anything until a line has clearly been crossed? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
There probably is a way to check if it's a proxy, but I haven't done anything like that before. User:Materialscientist would probably be a better person to ask about that. Also, Are there any pages that our friend has been hitting that are still unprotected? I think liberal use of semi-protection might be our best bet at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
One of the ones first hit was Glee (TV series), using three separate IP addresses over five hours. Kudpung protected it for three days, but that protection expires in about two and a half hours; I expect this one to be vandalized if protection isn't extended, and it's probably the most frequently viewed article of all these. The only two non-Glee-related ones I can think of from early in the vandal's career were both hit in the past few hours: 90210 (TV series) was protected for three days by Discospinster, and you protected GLAAD. I think for any others, it'll be on a "what's hit" basis, and I'll let you know if I notice anything untoward. I'll drop a note to Materialscientist on that one IP that might be a proxy. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

RevDelete

Thanks for it on my tp! Dan653 (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No prob, let me know if you need anything else revdelted/semi-protected/blocked etc. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Will do, it's been an interesting night, vandal info templates been pretty low, but there's been plenty of vandalism. Dan653 (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

IM SORRY

it was an accident I did not mean to spell bane It was supposed to be banned 72.238.148.204 (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

inspiring a sense of mystery in kids

Hello again, Mark! It was extremely pleasant to hear from you on one of my last additions! Thank you, and I do mean that sincerely. You are far more wise than I am at this time, and I do trust your foresight. I am done editing wikipedia for a while, but I do hope that by my additions I could inspire hope and mystery in at least one person on this earth. I cannot stress enough how much I do appreciate your tireless work to keep the world safe, while promoting virtually-free knowledge. When I do make it, financially, you can be CERTAIN that this encyclopedia will be supported. "It takes a village to raise a child"--one great old manager of mine And yes, in my free time I do read the encyclopaedia wikipedia. Thank you and thank you, because one thing I've learned, is that one can never say "thank you" too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.92.181 (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, what you wrote was very nice. But unfortunately, it was a bit too speculative for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sorry! Mark Arsten (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Dixie Carter (wrestling) Edit about a heel turn

I've been watching wrestling since I was a baby. I've been backstage quite a few times, and got a feel for how the booking works. I added the section about her heel turn based on the YouTube video Impact Wrestling released just a few minutes ago. She made a promo disparaging A.J. Styles, a face character (hero), which turned her into a villain (Heel) due to her being booed heavily by the fans. You may watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQYOLXnbeFM&list=PLcovtt7Bdo9MJhjl3d9xNJ7u095SpiXTS to see what I am talking about, but I have never, and will never vandalize an article or add things that are either a)not in sync with current events, b)not true, or c) have been instructed on the edit page not to do so. Thank you and good night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.17.30 (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it's fine to make that addition to the article if you have a reliable source to back up your claim. Just make sure to cite the source in the article with your addition. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Replaced deleted photo

As you suggested previously, I replaced the verboten image on the cold fusion talk page with a link (but I forgot to sign it so will go back and fix that). --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, non-free images can't be used on talk pages at all. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Yevadu Cd Cover.jpg

Thank you for taking the right Decision sir :) Regards, Raghusri (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Paul (2nd nomination)

Hi - is there any way I can userfy that article. I put some work into it finding sources and might consider redoing it as a book article. I can find the sources again but it would be convenient to have the text. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the history is intact, will that work? Or do you need it in your userspace? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh sorry got it, thanks! -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party debate

Can you please go through the talk page of this article & comment your opinion on 'battery operated ricksha driver protest'

Summary of it is as below.

Topic- Which of the two versions be preferred to go into the protest section of 'Article'

Option A -

ADD - The AAP has supported various regulatory complaints raised by rickshaw operators in Delhi.

KEEP - the rest of the 'protest' section as it is.

Option B -

ADD - On 16 September 2013, Aam Aadmi Party supported e-rickshaw driver's demand in Delhi that there should be a policy on battery operated rickshaws in the capital city to stop their exploitation by Delhi Transport Department. Party also said that a subsidy should be given to manual rickshaw drivers who want to purchase e-rickshaws. Earlier in June 2013, the party had supported agitations of rickshaw drivers against ban on advertisements on auto rickshaws alleging that the ban is imposed because most rickshaw drivers supported Aam Aadmi party & carried their banners.

remove - On 10 June 2013, Kejriwal supported the agitation of Delhi auto rickshaw drivers, who were protesting the Delhi government's ban on advertisements on auto rickshaws. Kejriwal claimed that, auto rickshaw drivers supported his party and they carried AAP's advertisements on their auto rickshaws and this is the reason for Delhi Government's ban and he challenged that volunteers of AAP will put 10,000 advertisements on auto rickshaws as a protest.

There is no conflict over the validity of citations.--ratastro (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I probably won't get involved there any further. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

User talk:222.222.24.146

Please review all this user's User talk:222.222.24.146 contribs if you can and then block indef as a spam only account. For security reasons I am unable to log in with my admin account at the moment because I'm on a very public insecure WiFi hotspot. Cheers, Kudpung. --110.78.157.146 (talk) 09:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up--reverted and blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed section, slyck

In reply to your issue i would very much like to include a link to source material, but much of the material was removed from the site at the time of the incident and the material that put the administrations position in question is no longer available.

The moderator who left the site is also no longer available. I certainly have digital copies of the reasons he gave for leaving, but i would have to upload them to a secondary site in order to link to them. No third party source exists to my knowledge.

That being said, the incident is common knowledge among the site regulars and was an ongoing issue for many months. I would expect there to be no contention that a moderator really did leave the site due to feeling that certain members were being unfairly treated. I suspect that site management is simply removing the reference because they do not want to be reminded of it or have to show it on their wiki, not because they have any dispute over the existence of the issue.

If there is some more correct way to put that information forward i am more than happy to hear your suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.160.106 (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, we generally require sources to be provided with additions to articles, see WP:RS & WP:V for details. If you can't find any sources for the content, it's really best to just not add it. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


Oh, there certainly are sources, i am simply not sure how to reference them correctly.

The main source of course is the message sent from the moderator who left the group in protest....

"...

this message really has nothing to do with the thread in question.

i'd just like to let you know that, although i invariably disagree with the things you post, i can think of nothing worse than someone arbitrarily deciding that someone (you) cannot post what they think.

i very rarely agree with your opinion but i seriously believe that you have the right to state your opinion just like anyone else.

apparently this view of mine is not universal.

it's recently come to my attention there is a movement to have you banned from slyck.

i don't like this, and i have vehemently opposed it.

those in control of these things will say that they're banning you for all sorts of nonsense reasons (in my opinion). you are abusive; you're a troll. etc...

i've done my best to make the powers-that-be see reason, and i will quit as a slyck moderator before i see this happen.

continue to post as you always have done. if i think what you say is full of shit, then i'll say so, without abusing you personally. if you think what i say is full of shit, then you say so, without abusing me personally.

as far as i can tell, this is what we've been doing anyway.

so if you don't see me on slyck again, this is why.

all the best, ...


However the only reference to it has been removed from the forum after the issue.

Yeah, we generally want third-party sources for additions to articles. Looks like it might just be best to leave this out. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No, i am not satisfied with that response.

Reading the rules you pointed me towards it appears the references you are referring to are only for use if the information in question is "challenged or likely to be challenged," In this particular case no challenge has been made, primely as the material in question is entirely factual and not in question. Certainly the wording has been questioned and the section has been removed due to the sites vanity, but you can check back through the talk section if you like. It is clear nobody has challenged the factual basis of the statement. If you read their statements it is actually clear they do believe there to be people of that nature on the site, and the paragraph has been worded to make it clear it concerns the forum staff and not the site management. I see no other dispute, this event is common history for Slyck regulars.


Obviously there will never be third party sources given for material provided by a whistleblower and the copy of the chat conversation will be the only evidence brought forward by any party, and as i see it that evidence supports the facts as stated.

If anybody has a different set of events they believe happened and wish to put it forward i would have thought it would be mentioned in the talk page at some point.

Clearly they did not because they do not have a true dispute with the events, they simply do not want the bad publicity on their page, for this i have no sympathy. If they want to avoid the disgrace of having their dirty laundry aired in public they should make a public statement of apology rather than remove all reference to their past actions.

Long story short, i still see no reason to think this information is in dispute or that it should not be a part of the page, unless you have some further insight i have every intention of adding the section again in some manner.

If you have issue with some aspect of the piece i would greatly appreciate your input on a more diplomatic manner to word the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.160.106 (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


Suggesting instead to use the following, personally i prefer the earlier version, but this one is simply a statement of the moderators words and is more factual if that is a concern.......



After many long conversations on religion one of the long serving members of the forum team sent this message to another menber and then left the forum.

"this message really has nothing to do with the thread in question. i'd just like to let you know that, although i invariably disagree with the things you post, i can think of nothing worse than someone arbitrarily deciding that someone (you) cannot post what they think. i very rarely agree with your opinion but i seriously believe that you have the right to state your opinion just like anyone else. apparently this view of mine is not universal. it's recently come to my attention there is a movement to have you banned from slyck. i don't like this, and i have vehemently opposed it. those in control of these things will say that they're banning you for all sorts of nonsense reasons (in my opinion). you are abusive; you're a troll. etc... i've done my best to make the powers-that-be see reason, and i will quit as a slyck moderator before i see this happen. continue to post as you always have done. if i think what you say is full of s@@@, then i'll say so, without abusing you personally. if you think what i say is full of s@@@, then you say so, without abusing me personally. as far as i can tell, this is what we've been doing anyway. so if you don't see me on slyck again, this is why. all the best "

    • Text recovered from private message**
Sorry, information added to articles really should be supported by reliable sources. If no third party sources exist, we probably shouldn't include the information in the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


LOL. I seriously think you have misinterpreted the medium. The discussion is about a forum community and is not available on other sites. Nor is the site or topic currently popular or significant enough that a conversation on it would ever gain coverage on any other site. This input to this page is added for factual fullness, and not because anybody actually visits or reports upon the four or five regulars at Slyck.com. To be clear, this event happened in 2012 and is still the most current event being discussed on their wiki page.

I realize you are probably used to dealing with secondary and tertiary sources but in this instance wiki has become popular enough that it is being used as the primary source for the news event in this instance.

You have been given the full transcript of the whistleblowers confession, with only the names redacted, his own actions and opinion is what is being reported upon and his testimony is the primary source of that opinion.

There are certainly any number of interesting conversations on various topics that we could link to, but the existence of those conversations is not in any way news, it is simply a number of people conversing on a common topic. The only news event of note is the behind-the-scenes events described in the whistleblowers statement and that is included in full. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.160.106 (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Westgate centre shooting

There are actually now a whole bunch of unsourced edits. Even by known editors. People don't read whats beng written much less discuss. Its hard policing a current ongoing article. Its not that I care about keeping content in or out, its just keeping it straight. For example, there was a talk page discussion that apart for me was unanimous the other side, which I naturally had no qualms when that consensus changes it cause at least there was discussion and reasoning. Point being, how to police these ITN articles. Makes me feel like it shouldn't even go on there.(Lihaas (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

Well, on the bright side, I see that it has been moved to the right title. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Batman Arkham Origins page protection

Hello again Mark. May you please consider protecting Batman: Arkham Origins? Recently, leaked game achievements were released revealing potential characters, and IPs and unconfirmed editors have added this info, and will continue to, without sourcing a reliable news outlet that reports this that does not reference back to the achievement list. If you decide to protect, is it possible to request it be for two months? That would cover the time now, as well as the rampant edits done to the page (as I believe it will be high profile) once the game is released on October 25. Thank you. Also, I hope that I am not bothering or burdening you with these requests directly. If you would prefer I go directly to WP:RPP, I shall, but I see your great work, and know I can get results this way, without the page waiting in RPP. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, a block of User:Mfroggatt is in order, if another admin does not get to them first. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, did both. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Much appreciated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

iPhone 5S

Why did you mark the page for semi-protection? There's only been one or two cases of vandalism, not really anything persistent. Zach Vega (talk to me) 18:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

By my count it's been vandalized more than ten times in the past week, which is inside the range I usually look for when semi-protecting. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Going through the history list, I count one from September 22 and another from September 18, however the latter could have been an accident. I've done that before without realizing it. Zach Vega (talk to me) 21:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
As far as clear vandalism or spam goes, I count an average of one a day over the past week [8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. That's a conservative count, not including the IPs who keep changing the capitalization, which is arguably disruptive editing as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
1 and 6 could've been an accident (previously stated this), 2 and 5 are insignificant, 4 is clearly impacts the reading, and I believe that 3 thought the paragraph was too critical (they should've brought it up on the talk page). So I see only one of any significance. Zach Vega (talk to me) 23:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich

What criteria is needed to identify the criminals in this case? How many reliable sources? Or are you taking the Noticeboard discussion as definitive? Because I think this issue would be treated completely different if these kids had shot someone. But sexual assault? There's an attitude in some media accounts of "Eh, let's not let it ruin their lives" that ignores the violence involved. Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, we rely on the media, so if reliable sources choose not to publish something, our hands are more or less tied. In general though, I think there should be a strong consensus achieved first before accusing someone of crimes in an article. That's not to say they should never be named though. I'd have to look through the sources and discussions before coming to a more specific conclusion though. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
They weren't accused of crimes, they were convicted of crimes. And another Editor has taken it upon himself to rename and edit the article. Liz Read! Talk! 14:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Diocese of Cubao

You have no right to judge if this article has references. All the necessary references have been indicated. I want to protect this page from other users. Please revert MY new additions.

Talk!

User:doctrinology

Yes, I saw you remove a bunch of text and thought it was an editing mistake with the visual editor. If that was intentional, please carry on. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Where is the sandbox of my diocese ?? Pls help me find it.

Talk! —Preceding undated comment added 02:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. But you can create User:Doctrinology/sandbox and use that as your sandbox if you like. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Protecting my User Page

Thank You for protecting my user page. If I'm ready to have my user page, i'll request unprotection at any time! Thanks! Thewikiguru1 (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm ready to add badges to my user page. Is it okay that my user page be unprotected please? Thewikiguru1 (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Your user page doesn't seem to be protected at all, WikiGuru but I question your edits which mostly are warnings to other Editors. This is a strange edit history and focus for a five day old account. Liz Read! Talk! 15:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, new accounts are allowed to issue warnings, as long as they're merited. Besides, there are plenty of WP:CLEANSTART users who are very familiar with Wikipedia. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Gilbert Tuhabonye Protected Page

Hello,

You protected Gilbert Tuhabonye's Wikipedia page last week, and we'd like to request that the page be unprotected so that we can revert it back to its edited form from Friday, Sept. 20.

We represent Mr. Tuhabonye and he requested that we make the updates, as the current page is outdated, missing information, and factually inaccurate. We have full rights and permission to post all content included in the updated page and we can verify it.

Thank you,

Mischa Communications, Inc.

  • From a passer-by: it is clear that you do paid work, writing or adding to Wikipedia articles for your clients. There is zero chance that this particular article will be returned to the status you requested; that version, besides your other edits, indicate that you are not editing according to Wikipedia's guidelines and have no interest but your clients'. I will therefore block your account indefinitely. Mark, hope you don't mind my butting in. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • In addition, I blocked a handful of accounts from that history for obvious reasons: promotion-only, and strong suspicion of socking. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Oooh, that does sound fun. I'll look into that. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Viii007

Hello Mark. Thought to let you know that the oldest confirmed account in this case is Pakithedjay (talk · contribs). --SMS Talk 15:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, good point, I didn't notice that. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Right back at it

Hi Mark, you blocked 76.164.103.108 for a week for edit-warring personal commentary into Insulin glargine; this editor's block just expired (I think 4 hours ago) and the first edit is this. I left a warning, maybe keep an eye on it? Thanks... Zad68 20:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, if he reverts again I'll block again. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Fully professional

Hello Mark. I have a some question here. Can you help me for find answer? Thank you. Beyazmavi (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with that guideline, to be honest. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Virgininfatuation

Virgininfatuation was Viii007's name before the account was renamed. Please update any sockpuppet investigations, blocks, and page-redirects related to Virgininfatuation. Just thought you would want to know. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, just saw the update on the sock investigation page. It turns out vii/virgin wasn't actually the master account. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ahmed Abdul Rahim Al Attar Tower

Hi, i think that AfD was closed incorrectly, as subject meets WP:GNG. It is currently 40th tallest building in the world, some sources were submitted during Afd (for another [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] or [20]). --Jklamo (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Afd was open for one month and no one argued that it should be kept. It would have been grossly inappropriate for me to keep the article under those circumstances, because admins are required to close Afds based on consensus, not their own personal opinions on the matter. So it's unreasonable to expect me to close a discussion a certain way if no one in the discussion supports that outcome. If you'd like to have the article restored, please create a sourced draft in your userspace and we can work from there. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Greg Retallack article

Mark, I see that you very recently closed the WP:AfD for this article as delete keep. I'm dropping by your talk page about this article because I don't know what kind of improvement this (the edit I reverted) is supposed to be. I hope that it is not typical of Xxanthippe to "improve" articles that way. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I closed it as keep actually, not delete. But several people in the Afd supported the idea of stubbing the article, so culling a decent amount of text may be in order. So Xxanthippe probably had the right general idea, but I think he went a bit overboard with that edit. It would be good to leave in some claim of importance, or someone might tag it for A7. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I meant "keep" (the article still exists, after all, LOL) and (as seen) I have struck the word delete/replaced it with keep above. Indeed, Xxanthippe's stubbing the article signaled to me that the article was worth deleting as that version far more than its previous version could be argued as being worth deletion. I am aware of the "absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable" factor with regard to the Wikipedia:Notability#Notability requires verifiable evidence guideline, but many Wikipedia editors (including very experienced ones) are not aware of it; they see a stub with no or barely any sources and often immediately think "deletion" or seek deletion with regard to the article. Sure, I often think "deletion" when I see such an article, but I at least know to first look for WP:Reliable sources/try to determine if the stub needs to be merged. Flyer22 (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose that is one of the problems with stubbing. It would be good to leave some citations as a further reading section at least, if it is stubbed. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree about the need to stub. The article could be gone over sentence by sentence with a scalpel not TNT. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's getting to the heart of a philosophical issue. Is it better to eventually improve things even if that means problems will persist in the short term or immediately do away with flawed content? I don't really have the answer. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. As a contributor to the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Retallack on Greg Retallack I let you know that there is a debate going on the article's talk page Talk:Gregory Retallack about how to implement the findings of the AfD . Xxanthippe (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC).

The Big Bang Theory

Hmm... Considering moderate to high amount of protection this year, is amount of edits too high to consider "indefinite pending changes"? --George Ho (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer to go with semi-protection here, but you could ask for a second opinion if you like. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
If an article is highly edited, then "pending changes" is inappropriate. As I can see in history log, the article could be frequently edit, unless I count the math wrong. --George Ho (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
It's a judgment call I guess, but this is pretty frequently edited. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Eleutherococcus senticosus

Hi, could you offer some advice as an administrator, please? You declined my request for semi-protection for a page that has been the target of a ridiculous addition repeatedly over a period of years. The same thing has happened again, but I believe that my hands are tied because reverting would be considered to be edit warring. Another editor has tried hard to combat this in the past and failed (I'll alert them that I have posted this message here). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

When did I decline the request? If things continue I may be able to reconsider. I wouldn't worry too much about being accused of edit warring here. It isn't happening that frequently so just reverting and explaining your changes should be fine. I would suggest leaving an explanation on the IP's talk page though. That makes it easier for an admin to block if they keep it up. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Another user has stepped in to remove the silliness, which is cheering ... perhaps the nearly invincible Randy in Boise won't win this particular battle :) You declined the request on 17th September. I'm a bit behind on dealing with my watch list, just dealing with the 21 September repeat of the silly addition today. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Mark - this has being going on since maybe February or January. The page had some sort of semi-protection scheme where IPs can edit it but it has to be approved by a registered editor in order for the changes to go into effect, but that seems to have expired. This particular vandal has been adding the exact same sentence, without a citation, for at least 6 months. It has used numerous IP addresses, so a ban (and I'm pretty sure one did happen at one point - I remember leaving messages at the IP's talk page and requesting it; in fact I'm pretty sure it was user:Bbb23 that carried it out) is meaningless. The page should go back to semi-protection, this time permanently, because it doesn't seem that this particular vandal is going to quit. I was the other user that reverted the IP, by the way.
Thanks for your help MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, protected it for a while. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Malik Noureed Awan

Please goto gulfnews.com and search mma forex you see list of from where i edi thte page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khanokhanokhan (talk • contribs) 15:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but per WP:BLP all negative information about living people must be directly cited to a reliable source. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Article for Deletion/ John Kissinger

Hi Mark: I wanted to submit an appeal in regard to your deletion of John Kissinger's Wikipedia page. It's my understanding this page was tagged as not meeting the notability requirements. For your reconsideration, I feel the following information does warrant John Kissinger to meet these requirements:

John Kissinger has experience with many notable projects, the most notable of which is the Milwaukee Art Museum addition. This addition to the Milwaukee Art Museum, designed by Santiago Calatrava, has become a Milwaukee landmark. John worked on the project almost from its inception. The project was named the Number One Design of 2001 by TIME magazine, and has won State, National and International engineering awards.

As the leader of the GRAEF team, John’s vision, collaboration and commitment to innovation resulted in John being named one of Engineering News-Record Magazine’s “Top 25 Newsmakers for 2001.” Other notable projects include The Wisconsin Center in downtown Milwaukee, the McCormick Place West Expansion in Chicago, and the Lambeau Field renovation in Green Bay. Kissinger is also active in the local community, acting as chairman of the Milwaukee Area Workforce Investment Board. John was appointed by Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett to lead the agency in 2010.

Are you able to offer any feedback/ recommendations? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sullivm (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It does sound like he has been involved in some interesting projects, but are there media outlets that have given him significant coverage? (WP:GNG) Mark Arsten (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Malik Noureed Awan

http://gulfnews.com/advanced-search/search-results?action=search&submitted=true&freeText=mma+forex&site=gulfnews&search=Search

visit there and see i edited the page but you changed these again. there is also other references search online yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khanokhanokhan (talk • contribs) 21:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the page is protected from editing by new editors now. To have the information added to the page, please go to Talk:Malik Noureed Awan and propose a specific change to the article. Then paste {{edit semi-protected}} on the page and someone will come along to evaluate whether the change should be made. You have to include a specific source with your addition though, see WP:CITE for details. Let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

156.34.152.68

thank you for blocking 156.34.152.68, it appears the edit pattern of User:Iftot is the same. Frietjes (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the heads up. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Bidisha

I noticed you've changed the settings for Bidisha. I'm one of the people who has been trying to revert the ongoing disruptive edits regarding the subject's surname.

Note 6 needs to be updated to point to http://web.archive.org/web/20080923130727/http://www.seh.ox.ac.uk/index.php?section=16 and cited after Bidisha's birth name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.120.69 (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's only pending changes protected, so you can still edit the article. You just have to wait for someone to review your change before readers can see it. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

relist instead of just closing two of them?

At Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mario_Bros._II you relisted it for more input. Two said to keep two of the four things listed, and the nominator said he planned to relist without those two in the AFD. So everyone that is participating said to keep Kart Fighter and Super Mario War. Can you just close those as keep? Then the AFD will just focus on two unrelated things instead of four. Dream Focus 01:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to remember to take a look at it next time I go through the Afd queue. But this is a very good example of why bundling is a bad idea and people should stop doing it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki!

The Bronze STiki Barnstar of Merit
Congratulations, Mark Arsten! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using STiki.

We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool.

We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Pratyya (Hello!) 05:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Trap Music

I have noticed that you keep removing grime as the genre origins for Trap Music. I will provide additional references if required, but the fact is that all recent electronic music in the USA owes it origins to UK electronic genres like Grime and Dubstep, both of which predate Trap and Brostep by at least a decade. It is infuriating to see Americans be disengenuous about the origins of relabeled musical genres, when both RL Grime and Baauer have cited the UK bass scenes are a major source of inspiration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.178.88.84 (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. Did you mean to leave this message on another user's talk page? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You are cited in the list of edits as changing the Trap Music genre origins description, citing Vandalism. I attempted to include references to Grime and Dubstep as the musical influences, but yourself and others all mainly American in origin have removed these references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.178.88.84 (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I protected the article so that only established users could edit, but I haven't changed the content of the article or removed any information. Your best bet is to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Charles Manson

You said "pending changes" seven minutes ago. What gives? --George Ho (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you had to wait, but I think it's protected now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sam Branson

Hello. I see you deleted Sam Branson's page. I believe that is a mistake, and I'm not sure sufficient people have voted for this. Besides being an heir to a billionaire fortune, he is a filmmaker and author.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, there seemed to be a pretty solid consensus for deletion in the Afd. If you feel strongly about this issue, you can appeal the matter to WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to appeal. On the talkpage of WP:DRV, or somewhere else? BTW, can you please reply on my talkpage so I can see your reply more easily? Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Viii007

As the editor who applies the blocks, you might want to see this and my reply. A strong note from an admin directly answering Viii007's question to me "Will this be okay [to create one account and edit with only one account]?" that is independent of my reply may carry some weight. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I don't believe anyone is beyond redemption, even on Wikipedia. I hope Viii007 can come back someday. But it will have to be long enough that editors could credibly believe he has had a change of heart and his attitude would have to show that he is committed to following the same rules everyone else has to follow. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I'll look into it later this afternoon. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, there really isn't anything to look into unless he tries to "come back too early" or additional evidence of additional past or future bad behavior shows up. Your link to "standard offer" was spot-on. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good. Let's see how this goes. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
I'm constantly impressed by how you help keep things running smoothly here, and that you do it with humility, grace and expedience. Thanks so much for all you do. - MrX 19:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
You're very welcome, thanks a lot for the barnstar and kind remarks! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Article protection

Hi Mark,

You made this edit: [21], where you protected the article in question from being edited by non-logged-in users. Why so? I don't see much evidence of vandalism apart from a small number of daft edits, which might be expected on any high profile article. 86.23.124.249 (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue at the time was that a number of IPs and new users were making unsourced changes, which is problematic for a frequently edited high profile topic like this. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Robin Thicke

This article is highly edited. Shall there be a greater protection? --George Ho (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it, and since there haven't been many good edits lately I switched to semi. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
You've beat me to reverting vandalism four times in the last 60 seconds. Have a barnstar for being so quick! Sophus Bie (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
lol, thanks for the barnstar... hope you get to revert the next vandal. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome! I did get to revert the next vandal, but you then beat me to the click for the next five... :D Sophus Bie (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry! :) Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You're quick

youre a quick mother fucker aren't you seriously you must hold the record for edit reversion or is that just some Huggle shit whatever keep on setting records bro :)

Thanks :) It's really the Huggle software that allows me to do it though. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well good work regardless 108.34.218.189 (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Quick question for you/perspective requested

Hi Mark. I have been pondering something that I would very much like your opinion - as an experienced user, and an admin - and to know if my thought process is warranted and my idea possible. Is it possible to request a group of articles under one category/topic to all get semi-protected indefinitely? What I am specifically referring to are all film, list of, and TV series articles related to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (which itself is semi-protected indefinitely). As info is getting released for the new films, and the new Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. show, every bit of it reported on by third party sources, even if just a rumor, attracts unregistered users to these articles who feel the need to add this info. I don't foresee this level of attraction lowering anytime soon. A prime example includes on the Guardians of the Galaxy page, when Vin Diesel hinted he may be voicing Groot, many IPs added this info, while editors like myself, TriiipleThreat and Rusted AutoParts (to name a few), had to constantly revert them. Also, on the Age of Ultron page (which you added its current protection), IPs were adding actors for characters they assumed would be back, when no clear confirmation was given. As for articles on films that have already been released, IPs still come to those pages and add vandalism, plot bloat or WP:OR material.

I guess my main reason for approaching you with this, is I feel over the past few weeks, I've spent more time reverting IPs and non-auto users, or seeing others doing the same, then actually trying to contribute to improving these articles, if possible. And I know that we should not be punitive to new or first time users, especially if done, to say the Ant-Man article, which was recently started, and has not gotten into the bulk of its creating process. However, I feel that by doing this, it will allow any legitimate IP or non-auto users who wants to make a change to an article, to use the Edit Request function, and have their edit approved and done by editors who improve said articles positively. I know that I probably don't have much of a chance getting so many pages all to be indefinitely semi-protected, but figured I might as well ask. The worst think to happen is you say it can't be done, and we just continue going on as we have been. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I can look into this, sure. If a group of articles are routinely getting hit with a bunch of disruption, it does make sense to semi-protect them. I'd be hesitant to protect anything that hasn't seen much disruption yet though. I probably wouldn't go straight to indefinite protection either. Usually I'll just start off with a month or two then reassess. But if you want, just leave a list of the pages you're thinking about on my talk page here and I'll look through them with the history in mind and work from there. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. The pages I was thinking about are: Iron Man (2008 film), The Incredible Hulk (film), Iron Man 2, Thor (film), Captain America: The First Avenger, The Avengers (2012 film), Iron Man 3, Thor: The Dark World, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Guardians of the Galaxy (film), and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. And I understand your hesitation with little disruption and not going straight to indefinite. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I'll look into it. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I protected most of them for a month. Ping me in 5 weeks or so and I'll look at longer protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Will do! If this conversation has not been archived, I'll just readd here. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Just quickly, may you consider extending Thor: The Dark World's protect for an additional month or two? By doing so, that will cover the film being released, which always attracts a high number of page visits (and vandal edits), and this would prevent a user requesting the protection again, right after the current period you added, ended. The rest are fine for what you did, and will proceed further once they are unprotected. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. Done. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Wikipedia is lucky to have great admin like yourself! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Mark, thank you for protecting the page Czechia - the name dispute. It was deleted 8 times during one day without any warning. There was an excellent page Czechia that was deleted repeatedly and continuously without any discussion or any arguments so it is not on Wikipedia anymore. This vandalism went on without any repercussions for those who kept doing it. Thanks again.Geog25 (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection of the pageAskave (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Cat

Hi Mark. Would you please consider switching this back to semi? The number of edit requests was easily manageable under that protection scheme, and the only effect of PC has been watchlist bloat; there have been no constructive edits from newbies or IPs. Rivertorch (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like PC wasn't a good idea. Well, now we know at least! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! You're a prince among admins. Rivertorch (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
LOL, you're welcome. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the civil response, and sorry for blanking an article. It was dumb and I won't do it again. 86.149.153.74 (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, glad to hear that. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Mark. With this edit you removed a report about IP 86.151.229.75. I had been tracking what was going on and was trying to add this message to the initial report.

*CommentThis report is flawed. First, you went directly to a level four warning without giving a level one through three ones. Next, the warning your gave was for disruption which has not occurred. Next, in the edits the IP performed that I was able to check were correct but unsourced. Thus any admin who looks at this should note the lack of WP:AGF. Perhaps the IP could be directed to the Teahouse or at least directed to the WP:RS guideline. Jamesx12345 I appreciate your attempts to protect our articles but, in this case, IMO you have jumped the gun.

I don't know if you removed the report in error or on purpose so I wanted to pass this on to you in case anything comes up about the original report by James. The other thing is I am about to go a barbecue at some friends and won't be able to follow up on things for several hours. If my post makes things more confusing or is irrelevant to what you did please feel free to remove it and carry on with your editing. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Update. I have struck through one inaccurate statement. James had made previous posts on the talk page though they weren't warnings it does show that J did try and find out what was going on. Again apologies for the intrusion. MarnetteD | Talk 22:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Just so we're clear, in this edit I declined the report and then removed it an hour later in this edit. I agree that it was inappropriate of User:Jamesx12345 to report the user to AIV, which is supposed to be reserved for obvious vandals. Accurate but unreferenced content isn't ideal, but it certainly isn't vandalism. It's a good reminder that admins need to check each report in detail before blocking. In my limited experience at AIV, though, I've usually found James' reports to be pretty good, as best as I can recall. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for filling in the items that I had missed. Glad to know that about the reports James files. In my early years here I could file a report too quickly. I do appreciate your taking the time to reply. Happy editing and have a good weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 04:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll try as best as I can to explain myself. I was under the impression until reading here that the changes made were factual errors, as a bit of researching had given contradictory dates, so I contacted the the user on their talk page explaining I had reverted them. After not responding to two messages, I filed a premature report at AIV, as trolls often fail to respond to messages. That report was declined, so I waited a while, before seeing they had made further edits, so I gave first a message and then a 4im with an explanation at the end. When that message was removed, I reported them to AIV again, which was declined for a second time. Other than perhaps not giving them quite enough notice the first time around, I don't think I did anything unjustifiable. Jamesx12345 14:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I hadn't realized there were two reports. Good to hear that you did research the changes though. In the future, that type of situation may be better handled at ANI instead. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Upon hitting revert in Huggle, I also filed a report at AIV, about this edit which seems to be vandalism]. The report is still there, I'm not sure whether to remove it or not. Go ahead and decline it if need be. Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 15:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, I see he's been blocked for block evasion now. I guess that settles it! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I only just got back online and have seen how events have progressed. It seems this IP was a bigger problem then I had a chance to discover. For the record I want to apologize to Jamesx12345 for any offense that I have caused in my previous statement and I want to thank everyone for their vigilance. Regards to all. MarnetteD | Talk 20:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No offense taken. I didn't put much thought into reporting them in the first place, thinking it was most likely somebody just testing whether vandalism gets fixed here. There's a few other addresses which seem to be doing much the same thing, but I think the identical edit summary is this particular vandal's signature. Jamesx12345 23:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

phoneblocks

hi marc seems you have tagged my input as vandalism? For completeness I added proof that I came up with the concept of a click together computer one year earlier then this bloke. In those 2 links from the g+ site im spelling out the concept, a computer made up outof blocks like lego for easy upgrading! Dont you agree with me that a smartphone is just another form of computer or do you think the links are bogus? If you look closer at whats being discussed at the g+ site you see i'm right. If you see you were in error please put back the info and links on the phoneblocks page. Im a bit dislectick so if you see any obvious typos feel free to change those. ;)

regards, michel prins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ysvry (talk • contribs) 18:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see what your were saying on the page now. I thought you were pasting random e-mails in at the time. Unfortunately, we try to stick to published sources when adding information to articles, so unless a reliable source has confirmed that you came up with the idea in question, we can't attribute it to you. Sorry! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

A need for a block

Hello Mark, User: MrColonelCortez has been harassing, trolling me an frequently throwing around personal attacks for many months. If you see his contributions the majority of them have been to my talk page, harrasing and bugging me. Edits like this, this, this, This, blanking, and this are all either personal attacks, trolling or vandalism. Obviously this user is not here to contribute, and nearly every single edit they have made has been reverted for going against the guidelines and policies. Not to mention they were already blocked for WP:NPA/harassing me. STATic message me! 20:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I saw the AIV report and just blocked him. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah haha, I saw that you blocked him literally right after I finished posting this. Thank you, but I do not think three days is going to effect him at all, if you see the contributions he goes away for awhile, but when he comes back the first edit is always some nonsense on my talk page. STATic message me! 20:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, three days might have been too lenient. Let me know if he bugs you again and I'll give him a long block. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I saw your post on his talk, and I will make sure to. Thanks again! STATic message me! 20:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Protecting RDH

I notice you just protected RDH. Is it for this guy? Because if so, I have rangeblocked him here a few hours before you've protected. I don't see that the rangeblock hasn't worked. Since the rangeblock I did before seems to be working, I'm not sure we need to stop all of the hundreds of other good-faith IP users from editing. --Jayron32 20:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake then. I saw the request on RFPP and hadn't realized that a range block had handled it. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
It's all good. I hadn't realized someone had reported it up to RFPP. I just went and rangeblocked the guy after he hopped IP addresses for the second time. Thanks though for staying on top of it. --Jayron32 03:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Wight (Disambiguation) User talk:86.10.132.142

I've no idea how to do this, but as you wrote to me Mark here's my attempt at answering.

I do the crossword with my Mum most every other Sunday and my main source of reference is Wikipedia. I was annoyed last week that although the "Shipping Forecast" wikipedia page lists "Wight" as the forecast region between "Dover" and "Portland" the hypertext link just took me to the Isle of Wight page which made no reference to the forecast zone. There was no mention of Wight the shipping forecast region under Wight (Disambiguation). Thus I attempted to add it, only to get a note on my Mum's netbook from you saying that I appear "to have added the name of a non-notable entity".

Wikipedia has an entry for the "Isle of Wight", Wikipedia also has an entry for "Shipping Forecast" which lists Wight as one of the regions. Wikipedia has nothing linking the two.

That the name of the region was felt to be general knowledge by the Telegraph's crossword writer suggested to me that it should hae a place in an encyclopaedia. Brighton is in Sussex, Southampton is in Hampshire and Poole is in Dorset, but all 3 are covered by the "Wight" shipping forecast.

Please re-add the Shipping Forecast region covering the English Channel between Dover and Weymouth/Portland to the Wight (disambiguation) page. Rob Sprack =;-)X

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.132.142 (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the issue was that entries on disambiguation pages need to have links. You can re-add the mention to the page, but make sure you link to its coverage on the Shipping Forecast article. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Czechia - the name dispute

How do I go about proposing this page for deletion as a POV fork? --Khajidha (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like to nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD (as opposed to redirecting it without a deletion discussion) I'll be glad to unprotect so you can add the deletion tags to the article. Feel free to nominate it any time. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that process works. --Khajidha (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hi Mark Arsten, after your block, that user added the same text agein. I dont want to revert his edits, please warm him.--Δαβίδ (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

DRV

FYI, you were involved in the AFD now at DRV. You weren't the closer but did relist the discussion, seeking further consensus. Your recollection of the discussion may be helpful. Warden (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"Person to Bunny" vandal

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:TweetiePie1947_reported_by_User:Trivialist_.28Result:_24_hours.29 The user who insists that certain Looney Tunes shorts were cancelled appears to be back, as User:Garrejones44444777; see The Jet Cage, where the editor added unsourced claims, and then changed sourced information back to the unsourced version. Trivialist (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we know who the master is here? It looks like User:TweetiePie1947 isn't blocked, which complicates things somewhat. I'm usually hesitant to block quickly from unsourced content concerns, I would recommend opening an ANI thread. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Goh YiLing

Hello, Just wondering. Why did you delete the page before the dateline 10 october? I believe that more sources would have been added to it. Could you undo the page so that sources can be added? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summergirl999 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I deleted because there was a clear consensus to do so. Can you offer any new reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I see. I thought that sources have to added before 10 october as stated before the page could be deleted? Why was it deleted before that? Just wondering, how is consensus based on? Is it based on the number of people against or supporting it ? Cos it's quite hard to tell how many accounts a certain person has created.

Yes, I have notable sources to back it up. I noted that the previous one only had one source so it is not reliable. Could you undo it so that I may add more sources? It would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help. Do allow the addition of sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hastywarrior123 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, the new page that has been created was contested for speedy deletion although it has notable sources now. Could you undo that? For both the sources as the new one has reliable sources so I do not know why it has been marked under deletion. Please address. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hastywarrior123 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

First, please only use one account. If you use multiple accounts, you may be blocked for sockpupptry (WP:SOCK). Second, there was a consensus to delete the article and the participants used reasonable arguements, so I deleted it. Deletion discussion run seven days usually. If you disagree with the discussion you have to contest it at WP:DRV. You can't just restore the article. We need to see significant coverage, see WP:GNG. Merely having sources isn't enough, there has to be significant coverage. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, why was the page being deleted? I noted that the page was deleted only after 5 days because it is 7 days usually. Please assist. The person was awarded with an award known internationally in asia. Why is there no significant coverage. Please undo. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hastywarrior123 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there is no significant coverage in this case, but if there isn't, we can't have an article on her. Which award did she win? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mark. Given what's happening at the article I've requested page protection, and deletion with a serving of salt. JNW (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Mark, I have deleted YiLing Goh per WP:CSD#G4. You can check it and restore/userfy if you disagree, but the "extra refs" were her Facebook page and two which as far as I could see didn't mention her, and there were claims of one minor title and various runner-up/finalist results; I saw nothing there which overcame the conclusions of the AfD, or made a second AfD anything but a waste of time. JohnCD (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot JNW and John. I've opened a relevant SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Immaculatefancy. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Mark and John. I can add two cents to the SPI, but think it would be gratuitous. The closing administrator will be able to discern the merits of the report. Cheers, JNW (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

The changes by Miles Money should be reverted as that specific phrase is under an RfC which he is participating. He has basically had you protect his preferred version and he actions directly work against WP norms and procedures folling RfC's. Arzel (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I usually try to avoid reverting to a specific version after protecting unless there's a clear consensus supporting it. Do you think that's the case here? I can look into it more. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm actually not a big fan of the version you froze it to, but almost any qualifier is better than the bare term, which is inaccurate. As for consensus, the problem we're having is that Rand is very popular, which is to say she has many fans who are apparently more interested in the article making her look perfect than being accurate. We're flooded with these POV-pushers who are ignoring both policy and our sources. MilesMoney (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
What a load of BS. The version frozen definately does not have any concensus regardless of the lack of good faith illustrated by MM. Arzel (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd need to use the fingers of both hands to count up all the behavioral policies you just violated here, but the most basic problem is that what you said isn't accurate. MilesMoney (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Please see WP:BLUDGEON. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the second time that I see the Ayn Rand article is locked with a POV characterization for a month, I know it is not an endorsement, I don't ask this time to be locked with the NPOV description without adjectives but at least there should be a dispute-inline on the "untrained" characterization which is disputed in the talk page. Could you add it until we resolve this issue? --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't actually want it to say "untrained"; it was a compromise that I attempted, but it pleases nobody. However, we can't just remove the qualifier so that it sounds as if Rand was a regular philosopher. MilesMoney (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what to do here. I suggest asking another admin for a second opinion. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Mark, I'm not sure if you saw, but there's an RFC here discussing the issue specifically. It's due to close in about 2 days, so perhaps your best past forward might be to do nothing for that time, close the RfC, then do whatever is needed to the article (if anything) to reflect the close. (In any case, I think an uninvolved admin will be needed to close that RfC, and I think most would agree that you fit the bill :-P ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, that is good advice. I'll probably unprotect when the Rfc closes to implement the consensus over the current version, which no one seems to like. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Problem is that there's a non-consensus majority that's going to edit-war to remove all qualifiers. The RFC is invalid due to the dishonest opening statement, and there hasn't been a single persuasive argument for why we should ignore our best sources. MilesMoney (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Very! MilesMoney (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong about the 7 days to close an RfC, though an argument could be made for closing it earlier than that. (30 days is a long time to have the article locked down.) Perhaps you'd be willing to intervene a bit at Murray Rothbard‎‎. I had previously protected the article for edit warring, and there's another request for intervention on my talk page, but I'd rather not take any action myself because I currently have a SPI open on one of the recent participants, and would rather not get any more involved at the moment. (Or feel free to do nothing and somebody will probably make a request at RPP or something...up to you.) Thanks ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like protection is definitely merited on Rothbard. These libertarian articles are become such hotbeds of conflict lately. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Just a helpful suggestion: Instead of protecting it, you could ask Rich and Bink to stop edit-warring. Or even block them. MilesMoney (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
No one broke 3RR, so I'm very hesitant to block in that situation. User:Srich32977 came the closest, I suppose, making 3 reverts on two separate days this week on the article. Hopefully he will stay further from the line in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
No one has to. WP:3RR states:
"While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block."
You would clearly be within your rights as an admin in blocking Srich32977 for tiptoeing near the bright line. Barring that, absolutely no one would question it if you gave Srich32977 an official warning reminding him that he's not entitled to edit-war slowly. Would he listen? We can hope so. But if he doesn't, then he can't claim to be surprised by the block. I'd sooner dissuade him than block him, but I'm pretty sure blocking would reliably dissuade him.
Now, I'm going to stop telling you how to do your job and go back to doing mine. Carry on, good sir. :-) MilesMoney (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


Factors involved in decision

Hello, Mark

I was hoping you could explain something to me. I am curious; what exactly made you come up with this decision?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is a bit of a difficult Afd to close. Some of the Keep !votes certainly were fairly week, though they had a clear numerical advantage. The delete !votes were pretty consistent in saying that it failed the guideline on not publishing changelogs, but several keep !votes disputed this, arguing that it was or had the potential to be more than just a changelog article. It's difficult for me to say which side is right about its changelog-ness because I'm supposed to close based on consensus rather than my own opinion. Looking over it again though, it seems more like a "no consensus" close than a "Keep" close. I'll adjust my closing comment to reflect that. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi.
Thanks for clarification. It is a sound explanation, one that can impact the article and its future. Could you please add it in front of your decision in the deletion discussion?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Megan Young New Section

Hi Mark. I would like to ask your opinion if I can add a section for Megan Young's article about her stint in Miss World Philippines 2013. I hope I can hear from you soon.

greenmarktea78 07:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktanoja78 (talk • contribs)

Yes, you're free to do so. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mark Arsten. You have new messages at talk:PrankvsPrank.
Message added 18:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ross Hill18:29 30 Sep 2013 (UTC) 18:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

HMCS Preserver

Sir, you deleted facts which were added to the HMCS Preserver. If you would like to put what I wrote back up I will be more than happy to add citations or weblinks to each of the facts that I added. For her service history you can see a few new notes that I added. People should know about how dangerous this ship and command team are to the sailors that try to serve our country.

Feel free to re-add the information, but please make sure you include references so your changes are verifiable, per WP:V. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok I added links to stories written that show what I had written is accurate. If you delete this a third time then I give up. First hand accounts should mean something. I served on board during the times I referenced. Should personal experience not be able to serve as a reference.

No, personal experience cannot serve as a reference, see WP:OR for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok so once it is written by a newspaper then refs are credible. Ok more to follow on this one. A member of her crew is about to be court martialled for refusing to be quiet.

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For making sure WP:RPP doesn't ever get backlogged ever again. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 21:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
lol, thanks. It's a good feeling to clear out a backlog :) Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: vandalism/libel against Jorge Erdely Graham

Hello, I was wondering if you can help me with a series of edits made by a user named Ajaxfiore, which are libelous and constitute vandalism against Jorge Erdely Graham. I made a noticeboard entry at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jorge_Erdely_Graham

Thank you for your consideration.AbuRuud (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can be of much help here. Since I can't read Spanish I can't really understand whether the references support the text. You might ask User:Thelmadatter for advice, she edits a lot of Mexican topics. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Czechia - the name dispute

Hi Mark, who can vote on the deletion of this article? Anyone? If yes, why don't you put a link on the discussion page so everyone can vote? Can I vote? Are you following the discussion? My point is this: First, the article has problems but it could be worked on collectively to be improved. I have suggested ways to deal with it in the discussion. Second, and more importantly, there is very little information on the term "Czechia" in Wikipedia and I believe that people who want to find out more about the term should be able to find it here. It should be neutral and non-partisan but almost all attempts to put any information on Wikipedia have been vandalized or deleted. I also think that Wikipedia should not discriminate against non-native speakers and use their less than perfect English as an excuse to delete the information they are trying to put in. It should be a collective effort and they should get help. I am relatively new here as a contributor so I do not have my page set up. I have to find time to learn how to do it. Sorry.Geog25 (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark, I found the link on the page, I was looking on the discussion page. Sorry to bother you.Geog25 (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Anyone is free to participate in the discussion, as long as your arguments are based in Wikipedia policy, see WP:ATA for details. There is usually just a link to the discussion on the article itself, but you're free to add links to it on other talk pages as long as you don't ask people to !vote a certain way. Let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Afghanistan Semi-Protection

Hello Mark. Sorry to interrupt the useful work you are doing (or always keep doing). You semi-protected Afghanistan for a week. Will it revert back to PC-1 after one week or will it be a no protection? --SMS Talk 03:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

After one week is up it will automatically revert back to pending changes as usual. User:George Ho requested temporary semi-protection due a recent spurt in vandalism, so I agreed to temporarily provide that as well. Permanent semi-protection might actually make more sense than pending changes though, now that I think about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Sock question

Hello, Mark Arsten! SPI is not my strong point, and I'm not sure if you can do anything, but maybe you can point in the right direction. A user you just blocked is a WP:DUCK of another user who was just blocked. I (as a dynamic IP) reverted the latter's wikilove on Jimbo's page, and noticed the former's wikilove also on Jimbo's talk page, and they both edited User talk:24.246.104.98. I know they are both blocked, so it is worth it to file an SPI to check for a master, or is whack-a-mole the way to go? Rgrds. --64.85.216.33 (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I hadn't connected the two. I'll check with a CU. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (1 October)

The Admin's Barnstar
I thereby award you with this Admin's Barnstar for your continued work at the Requests for protection noticeboard. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, glad to help! Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
x2 make it two. Thanks for the work at RPP. Sohambanerjee1998 18:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure. I don't know why most other admins don't get involved there. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
This the pleasure is all yours, to be true Ged of Britain also works hard. Occasionally I've seen some other administrators too. Sohambanerjee1998 06:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, Ged and I are in different timezones so it works out pretty well that way. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Both of you never disappoint me. Sohambanerjee1998 14:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Exari

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Exari. 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.

vandal

Hi Mark,
I noted that you made an advisory comment on the talk page for this IP user: Special:Contributions/71.55.154.102. I myself had just fixed a mess this account left on another article (which I doubt was a simple mistake). A look at the contribs shows a total of only 7 edits, all recent. Aside from the edit you commented on and the edit I repaired, all 5 of the remaining edits were clearly vandalism. As an admin, I though I would bring this to your attention. Thanks. - thewolfchild 20:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note. He hasn't edited in over a week though, so I probably won't block. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark S. Gold‎

Thanks for the Semi on Mark S. Gold‎. I wasn't thinking, and should have requested PC1 - especially given that Copyvio is one of the key reasons for it. Will you change it to PC1, or should I wait and see if Semi covers it? Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, we might stick with semi for now and maybe revisit in a week. I don't have strong feelings either way. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Province of Georgia

I am fully aware of the fact that you are very busy, but I do ask that you protect this article because of ongoing vandalism by IPs. I kindly suggest semi protection. One look at the view history will tell you the story. Personally, I have no idea why this article is being vandalized, but it's happened multiple times now. Thank you Avenzhang (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll check it out. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for semi-protecting. --Avenzhang (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Westwood High School (Austin, Texas)

Hi. I am going to ask you to reconsider my request you just denied at RPP regarding the above article. The reason is that the problem is still the same one from when you protected it in August. Same edits, same IP range. If you have a better solution, by all means let me know; but this is a continuation of the prior problem exactly, and not a new issue. The material being put back in is just garbage; I would find it poorly written as a sports story if I were the high school's newspaper editor. It certainly has no place here. They just edit warred it back every time I tried to tone it down before and I have no reason to think it just won't be the same story again. Thanks. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a problem, but since the protection expired a couple weeks ago they've only added it back in once. I usually look for more frequent disruption when protecting. I guess you could get a second opinion from another admin if you like. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Handedness

Hi Mark Re Catholics being called "Leftfooters" or "lefthanders". You gave no reason for undoing my edit. Is it disputed or is it against some guidelines to include this fact? Timlynch22 (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Tim

Which edit of yours did I revert? Could you link to it? I probably reverted because you did not include a source with your change, see WP:V for the guideline. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark, er well I left you some clues: "lefthanders", "leftfooters" being a slang term for Catholics. It was on the "handedness" page. Raised as a Catholic I can vouch for this first hand. Wikipedia also references it on page: "Left-hand path and right-hand path". I am new to editing so please forgive i didn't link to that article. should i just put it back in or have you some doubts? Tim Timlynch22 (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You can re-add the information, but you should include a link to a reliable source (WP:RS) when you add the information. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Fringe-y thing you may be able to help with

Hey, Mark. Been a while since we worked on anything together. I, perhaps foolishly, recently decided to try and improve the article on the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. There were some talk page complaints, valid in my view, that the article had become a WP:COATRACK for the evolution vs. creationism debate. I think I've done a pretty good job of improving the article, especially considering that I don't hold the mainstream view of the museum, but now it's come down to issues of how much and what kind of criticism to include. Since you've done work on some pretty WP:FRINGE-y topics before, I thought your experience might be valuable in helping us sort through things. The presently-open discussion is here, although you may want to review all the talk page conversations from 2013 for background. On the other hand, you may not think this is worth your time or effort, and that's fine, too. I've had you in mind as a possible peer reviewer if we ever got to that point, but I think that if we can't resolve the open issues cleanly, it'll never get to that point.

BTW, I don't know (or necessarily care to know) your views on the subject of the article. I just know you've done good work on fringe-y articles before, and that's the reason I'm pinging you. Hope this isn't seen as WP:CANVASSing. If it is, I'll own up to it and try to rectify it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That does sound interesting, I'll try to take a look at it. I think I've heard of that before, but I thought it was in a different city. Is there more than one creation museum? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but this one is by far the biggest, most expensive, and best-known. Petersburg is right outside Cincinnati, so you may have heard someone say it was in Cincinnati, Ohio. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, yes, that was it. Back to geography class for me! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Malik Noureed Awan - which version should stand?

You have recently edited Malik Noureed Awan. Please see Talk:Malik Noureed Awan#Call for reasons why the NPOV/poorly-referenced version should stand and contribute your thoughts. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"Fixed refs" from multiple IP addresses?

I wonder what's going on here. The edits looked benign, but seem to come from many different IP addresses. Is this some kind of sockpuppet attack? Anyway, thanks for your cleanup efforts. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Very odd situation here. Some details at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sophisticated_mass_vandalism_from_IP_ranges.3F and Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC. Basically someone was running an unapproved bot to add links to his archive site and when it got blocked he started using a huge network of IPs to evade the block. Since those edits were technically block evasion I rolled them back. I haven't seen anything like this before. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Protection of 2013-14 UEFA Champions League page.

Hello, Thank you for protected the page from the disruptive editors. I can still edit on that page when the matches are finished though right? Skyblueshaun (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, established accounts (more than ten edits over four days) can still edit the page. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Richard Huggett

Hello thank you for your genuine reply, i must admit the comment about the monkey was in jest however you will find Richard Huggett was in fact born on the 18th. Yours sincerely a fruit monkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.59.190 (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio-revdel

Hi! Thank you for dealing with those revdeletes. I'm afraid I screwed up at Susan C. Aldridge: I identified and removed a further copyvio, but failed to update the template. Is it OK to ask you to deal with that too, or should I re-add the template with the later revision?

By the way, do you have any advice on what to do about Emergy, where there is, despite various efforts on my part to remove it, again a massive and impenetrable screed posted by " MT Brown and S Ulgiati according to a mandate received from the International Society for the Advancement of Emergy Research (ISAER) during the most recent Biennial Emergy Conference (16-18 January 2010)"? It doesn't seem to me that that is how things are done round here, but I don't know what the next step should be. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, revdeleted the rest. I haven't looked a the Emergy thing in too much detail, but maybe try holding a talk page RFC about whether to keep the content or not? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for handling these blocks. It's the same person who's been harassing me for a while under different IPs, but I'm looking into avenues to deal with that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to let me know if you spot any more socks. I can semi any pages he's targeting as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Macgyver

Seriously, re-read the Macgyver edit and tell me again how it's not constructive. Is there a region on this planet that isn't represented there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.255.96 (talk) 02:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Your most recent edits look fine to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Somatics

Hi - following a suggestion at WP:FT/N I'm contacting you about the Somatics article, which was the subject of an AfD earlier this year[22] which you closed with a result of delete. Since then the article has re-appeared. Could you clarify what has happened? it seems to me the article is still as worthy as deletion as it was before. Thanks, Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Will reply there. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - WP:SOFTDELETE is a new thing to me ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a tricky situation when an Afd is open for three weeks but no one wants to vote on it. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Some of these fringe articles don't fit very well into the AfD categories, I think that's part of the problem. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

In recognition of your great work at Requests for Page Protection. Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 16:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but it's a little early in the day for that! Mark Arsten (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
It's always 5 pm, somewhere -- Diannaa (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
LOL, I guess so. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Makers/ someone using wiki to promote besharam, manipulating with stats

Makers of besharam or someone else is trying to create false impression that the film is doing well. The film's actual budget is rs 80 cr. Somebody tampering with it, changing to 50 sometimes, 20 sometimes. Real budget is 80 cr.

Public opinion is completely negative. They are trying to make it mixed.

Collection figures are under 19 cr... showing 21.65..etc...

What is this ? Is wiki a place to present fake stats, false opinions ? Are there no controlling authority to present the true facts and figures of bollywood movies ?

And this is a new tactics. Lock the page and show whatever suitable for the makers....

this cant be the reputation of wiki....a site presenting misleading facts favorable for makers of the film.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.4.37 (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The best thing you can do is to explain your concerns at Talk:Besharam (2013 film). Then other editors can observe and weigh in on the issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sam Gagner article

Mark, there is what appears to be a vandal at the Sam Gagner article: User:Henrietta8. The editor has already violated WP:3RR. Flyer22 (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, blocked for 3RR. Not sure if it was actually vandalism since that does appear to be a real nickname for the guy. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Note that User:DSF99 attempted to remove this comment - possibly a sock. ~Charmlet -talk- 21:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I semi-d the article since it looks like a lot of new users have been hitting it lately. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
This is the revert Charmlet is referring to. User:Henrietta8 and User:DSF99 are obvious WP:Sockpuppets of User:Snowpants89 (already indefinitely blocked). Use:DSF99 was registered after I left this message on User:Henrietta8's talk page, then followed me here to revert me. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, blocked. That doesn't look like a coincidence. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
LOL, no. Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
That mess has been going on at that article for several months, sporadically. I came across the older Schutzstaffel89 (indefinitely blocked) account and saw that it was used to make the same addition. That article is clearly going to need long-term semi-protection, since, going by this edit by Leech44, perhaps there is no WP:Reliable source referring to Gagner by that name. And even if there is, it shouldn't be in the lead unless it is a nickname that he is significantly known/well-known by. Flyer22 (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

SkyTeam

Hello there, Mark Arsten. Do you think this edit warrants your reversion? I think the IP provided two valid links for sources that otherwise are dead. Regards.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I reverted as the IP was engaged in block evasion. After his main account was blocked he used a network of IPs to continue editing. Edits made in evasion of a block are free to be reverted by any editor. But, if you think the edit was helpful, you're free to re-add the links. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I did so. Thanks for your explanation.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

A tip for you

Since I see your recent activity with Huggle, not sure if you know this, but since your an admin, on Huggle you could use Ctrl+B to block a user. Just a tip! ///EuroCarGT 02:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Huh, to be honest, I had no idea about that keyboard shortcut. Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting Indira Samarasekera

Just wanted to thank you for protecting Indira Samarasekera. Hopefully I can work with some of these editors and we can get it up to snuff. --Rawlangs (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Berzerk

Hey again Mark, I saw your decision on WP:ANEW, but as I suspected no discussion occurred in the slightest, and now the page is completely unprotected. The only reason I reported the one user (Hometown Kid), is that he had made five reverts, and had blatantly reverted again after given the 3rr warning, which Iknow32 had not done. I think that kind of gives Kid the impression that he can now edit war, after recieving a clear final warning and nothing will happen. Frankly I think it would have been more fair to block both of them, rather than fully protect the article, but I respected your decision, and it is kind of pointless to do anything now. The only reason I am commenting here is that Berzerk (song) was already semi-protected for another 10 days, so if you could restore that I would appreciate it, because the IPs are already nibbling. STATic message me! 05:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the feedback. I'll take another look at how I handled it. I re-enabled the semi for now, since it was in effect before. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Sharlin Class Warcruiser AfD

Hi. I don't agree with your consensus assessment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharlin Class Warcruiser and I wonder if you could provide clarification, and possibly amend your closing rationale.

The way I see it, there are 4 keep !votes and 2 delete !votes (3 if you count the nomination). If the situation was straightforward, I'd agree with you, but DGG's keep !vote is entirely based on a rejection of WP:NOTPLOT, and I see no other argument in it. As I've indicated in my own !vote, per WP:AFDFORMAT, comments based on policy denial should not have any weight. Deathlibrarian's !vote that the article is "reasonable" doesn't appear to refer to any applicable policy, and resorts to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, an argument to avoid at AfD. As such it should also be given no weight in the final count.

That leaves us with only 2 valid keep !votes against 2 delete !votes. I consider that I have provided a solid enough argumentation well grounded in policy that the sources recently added do not allow for GNG to be met, contrary to the non argumentated assertion that they do from Jclemens and Mark viking. There are examples (such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Siege_Perilous_(comics)) of arguments more in line with policy outweighing others even when comments are equally divided.

In my view, there is enough to justify a "delete" outcome, but I'd say a "no consensus to keep" outcome clearly stating that some keep !votes have been discarded, would be an acceptable compromise if you can't bring yourself to call it a delete. What do you think about it ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it was closed correctly. Basically, as User:Jclemens pointed out, everyone other than the nominator was supportive of keeping or merging the article. Two of the three deletion supporters noted that a merge would be acceptable, and merging is still an option after my close. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but my aim was to draw your attention on two of the keep supporters (especially DGG) whose comments were not in line with acceptable arguments at AfD per WP:AFDFORMAT. I think your closing rationale could have elaborated more on that, and that there was probably room for a "no consensus to delete" outcome rather than undisputed keep, which doesn't consider enough the arguments from merge supporters that the article doesn't meet GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Please don't feel bad, Mark. Folken de Fanel has a history of challenging administrator decisions where his view does not prevail. My interactions in the past have... left something to be desired, so don't take it personally. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I won't take it personally. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Discussing an AfD outcome with the closing admin in case of questions or concern is regular practice per WP:CLOSEAFD, and I can't see anything worth "feeling bad" over or "taking personally" in my request for clarification. Jclemens, as usual, exaggerates.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Almor

Mark,

Would you mind if I undeleted the history on this article underneath the redirect? Not interested in contesting the redirect, just want non-admins to be able to see the article history there if anyone's interested in merging any content into the target of the new redirect. I think the outcome is entirely consistent with WP:ATD. Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Done, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark. You reverted numerous edits (e.g. [23]) where an editor replaced a broken link to the 2008 Olympics website with a valid archived one. What was the purpose of this? SFB 19:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I reverted as the IP was engaged in block evasion. After his main account was blocked he used a network of IPs to continue editing. Edits made in evasion of a block are free to be reverted by any editor. But, if you think the edit was helpful, you're free to re-add the links. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks! SFB 19:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Ideally I would have used an edit summary explaining that, but it wasn't feasible as I reverted about 700-800 of them. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

OperatorBot

You blocked OperatorBot as a vandal-only account. Why? Looking at his contribs, the only thing that could be considered vandalism is his message on the talk page of Ross Hill, which he removed, apologized for, and was forgiven. Were his vandalism contribs deleted? I don't want to accuse or attack you, just curious. Thanks, theonesean 21:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I blocked per this diff, where he posted a picture of an erect penis on Jimbo Wales' talk page. I added it to the image blacklist afterwards, so it doesn't show up now if you look at the diff. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Liam Patton AfD

Hello Mark, you deleted Liam Patton but not the other three articles listed in the AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liam Patton (2nd nomination) JMHamo (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, got it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Coming Soon (french band)

The English page of this french band has been deleted because there are no reference. I saw them this summer and would like to read about them on Wikipedia. one reference is here http://www.last.fm/music/Coming+Soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.192.176.76 (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but we need more than one reference to have a page on a band. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

More references: https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/coming-soon/id280405410 and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_Soon :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.192.176.76 (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, sorry, but I'm not sure those fit the definition of reliable sources. See WP:RS. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Taelon pages AFD

Good morning, I saw that you closed this AFD but I wonder if you saw that there were additional pages included in the same nomination? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, got it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mark, sorry to bug you again, but I was wondering if there was some issue with the article Zo'or included as part of this AFD that keeps it from being deleted? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I got it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Candacrox

Hi Mark, I saw your ban for Candacrox just as I posted this up: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Canadacrox

I suspect it is no longer required and can be removed. Thanks :) KiraChinmoku 17:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it might be best to leave it open so they can check for other accounts. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


peer review

Hi Mark:

Could you please help work up science article Fluorine (peer review)? Pick a section maybe? 98.117.75.177 (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

P.s. I still miss Mbz and her pretty pictures.

I don't really do too much science work, but sure, I'll try to help out a bit with some of the wording at least. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks kindly for hitting the article and upgrading it. (Minor grammar thing, per AP style guide, "U.S." should be not be used as a noun, only as a modifier.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.44.194 (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Glad to help, and sorry about the mistake! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Sock

109.155.171.251 appears to a sock of the banned editor discussed about a week ago. Could you please have a look as they're pretty quick and effective. Many thanks. Jamesx12345 18:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you jog my memory a little? Who was the master here? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
No specified master, as far as know (dynamic I.P.) I left a note for Materialscientist, which leads on to another investigation. It actually looks pretty serious, as this is the third time I've come across them. I'm currently rollbacking all their edits to artificially increase my edit count. (If only...) Jamesx12345 18:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, did I block one of the past IPs? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I think you actually denied it (here) but somebody was complaining about my premature report. It was eventually revealed to be a case of block evasion, and somebody else stepped in and blocked them. The edits seem to be characterised by changing dates in British media, and using Fixed as every edit summary, which makes them easy enough to follow. Hope that helps. Jamesx12345 18:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, now I finally understand what you're talking about. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. You're fabulous. Jamesx12345 18:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ashley Tisdale needs some copy-editing

Hi Mark, fancy something a bit different from all the RFPP work? Not a gruesome article, I'm afraid (unless one thinks of the subject that way), but may be interesting anyway...

Ashley Tisdale reached GA back in 2008. It recently failed its third FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ashley Tisdale/archive3, largely due to prose concerns. (The nominator asked for copy-edits after concerns about the prose were raised in the FAC, which of course usually doesn't end well.) It's actually quite a short article, albeit extensively referenced, and I've been through the prose myself and brought it to what I consider a solid GA+ level. However, it obviously needs a fair bit more work on the prose to be ready to bring back to FAC. Would you be able to look at it?

(There's also a peer review open at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ashley Tisdale/archive2).

Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be a lot easier than the Fluorine request that I got earlier today! I think I should be able to help a bit, maybe later this week. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Mark. What happened to the helper bots? Tiderolls 22:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a very good question. Archive bots seem to be missing in action on a number of pages. I have no idea what's going on. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

User page protection

Hi, thanks for protecting this user page, however it looks like autoconfirmed users would still be able to vandalize it? This page is under attack by conspiracy nuts who are already autoconfirmed on Wikipedia, and the act of removing conspiracy vandalism will only heighten the craziness. vzaak (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so you want it fully protected, even though you won't be able to edit it then? Mark Arsten (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, please. vzaak (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi, Mark, I noticed you manually archived AN3 - thanks. Perhaps you know more about bot archiving than I do, but there's a real problem at ANI as no archiving is taking place. Apparently the owner of MiszaBot is not responding, so NE Ent took it upon himself to change ANI to ClueBot. However, for whatever reason, ClueBot hasn't archived, so my assumption is there's something wrong with what NE Ent did. I have e-mailed the owner of ClueBot, but they haven't responded. Meanwhile, every save at ANI takes forever because it's so large. Is there anything you can do to help? If not, is there someone else who understands these things whom I could contact? Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It's very strange that no archive bots seem to be working. I don't know much about the technical details though. This could be to blame: Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#You_may_need_to_reset_your_bot.27s_password. Cyberpower mentioned something the other day about pywiki, whatever that is. I might just ask on ANI, actually. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I read that discussion, but that was about MiszaBot. ClueBot is working, just not at ANI based on a probably incorrect configuration.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I just started a section at ANI. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
You wanna make it even bigger, huh? :-) I have this mental image of ANI exploding like an overinflated balloon and all that drivel/drama scattering all over Wikipedia like ashes from a volcano.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
lol, that would be quite the mess! Mark Arsten (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Question / Advise

Hi - you recently suspended a 7-identity sockpuppet editing Ronan Farrow. In a new RfC on Ronan Farrow, the first non-party comment came, almost immediately after the RfC was posted, from a first-time IP editor. Considering the immediacy of this post (and the fact Ronan Farrow is a very lightly edited entry that only attracts two regular editors]]), I strongly suspect this IP-editor is the same sock who has been aggressively inserting promotional language into Ronan Farrow but I do not believe I have enough of a case to request a CheckUser. I was wondering if you could advise me as to a proper course of action if, indeed, I should request a CheckUser or simply ignore it and move on? Thanks, kindly, in advance. BlueSalix (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Checkuser won't connect an IP to a named account, unfortunately, so I don't think they'd be able to do anything here. I'll semi-protect the talk page though if it keeps being targeted by socks. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
That would be much appreciated, thanks. We have a RfC that appears to be going off the rails really fast and to have likely sock IP editors begin inundating it is going to make accomplishing anything nearly impossible. BlueSalix (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Explanation needed - unlocking pH article

Hi!

Could you explain the need to lock pH article, where is the so-called persist vandalism? The history of the article does not record any vandalism from my last edit there. Or perhaps has it been made invisible?--188.26.22.131 (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to add some details, but I'noticed it is locked and I don't appreciate being forced to register. I see that vandalism was more than 10 days ago before my last edit when it was not locked.--188.26.22.131 (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the vandalism was pretty persistent throughout August and September, at a glance. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yours Truly (Ariana Grande album)

This article is frequently edited. Is "pending changes" appropriate? --George Ho (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sure, I've semi'd it. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Reinstating of the page "Federer–Murray rivalry"

I would like to request that the aforementioned page is re-listed on Wikipedia, as I feel it is a noteworthy rivalry. The two men have now played 20 matches against each other, 4 of these coming in Grand Slam tournaments, 3 in finals, and this total is more than the total of Djokovic-Federer who have only ever contested one GS final in their careers; also the two have contested 8 finals in total, which is exactly the same number of finals as the aforementioned Djokovic-Federer rivalry. In addition, it is a much more competitive and equally balanced rivalry than that of Federer and Roddick, who played 24 times however Roddick only won thrice, however that merits it's own page. Furthermore, this has had a good amount of media coverage, more so than other "rivalry" pages that have been deleted, especially over the last few years, and I have definitely heard Federer vs Murray referred to as a rivalry multiple times. thetradge (talk) - 00:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence of the media coverage? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I found several articles that I think will answer your question, including one from the official ATP website.............. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2063741/Andy-Murray-stokes-rivalry-Roger-Federer.html - http://www.atpworldtour.com/news/tennis/2012/11/features/rivalries-federer-murray.aspx - http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/370454/20120805/olympics-federer-murray-final-watch-live-stream.htm - http://blog.wimbledonticketsonline.co.uk/2012/12/one-of-tennis-great-rivalries-murray-vs.html ................Please let me know if you need any further proof
I think the best thing to do would be to create a sourced draft in your userspace and then we can work from there. See WP:USERSPACEDRAFT for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Does the original version of the article not still exist somewhere, or has it been deleted? If there still exists a draft of the article, maybe it would make more sense to draw on that, seeing as all of the relevant information was right there. thetradge (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it does, and looking at it, it does have some sources. I've changed my mind: instead of working on a draft I suggest you just request the deletion be overturned at WP:DRV. Good luck, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The re-listing request has now been submitted at WP:DRV, I'm assuming admin will take it from there? thetradge (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Everyone can comment at a WP:DRV, so it's not just admins who will comment. Once complete, it is normally an admin who will close the DRV. You are also free to comment on the comments made by others at the DRV, although in general it's recommended to comment briefly, concisely, and not excessively. (In other words, if you reply to every single comment at the DRV, you will annoy people. Equally, if you post five hundred words in one comment with no paragraph breaks, you will annoy people. And so on.) I haven't read the AfD or DRV or the original article, so my comments are general ones that may or may not be useful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

List of Cardiology Trials

It's a shame you removed such a well made wiki article.

A disappointed cardiology fellow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.160.216 (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but some content just isn't right for Wikipedia. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

BCG

I don't think static salary information from 2012 really belongs on a company page (especially for one that is apparently in 43 countries and I assume pays different everywhere). It felt odd reading that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.202.13 (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you're free to remove it again, but please explain your reason in an edit summary so your change isn't mistaken for vandalism. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Alfred Apps

Hi Mark;

Thanks for you prompt response to the accuracy of Mr. Apps' Bio.

You're welcome, glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

91.232.101.32 (talk · contribs)

When protecting articles based on sock abuse, it is best to revert the sock first. Otherwise it just makes cleaning up after them harder. Werieth (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry about that. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your work at WP:RFPP. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. And that you for your help, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Blond article

Mark, mind semi-protecting the Blond article? There is a persistent sockpuppetry problem going on there (and at other hair color articles); see here and here for details if you haven't already seen those sections on my talk page. In addition to stopping that IP range, semi-protecting the article will draw out that IP range's registered account and that can be used as further evidence that these accounts are being operated by the same person. I'm not sure if SQGibbon is still watching that article or is simply tired of dealing with this person. Flyer22 (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm still watching. I just missed the last couple of days of edits. And I support Flyer22's request. This sock refuses to engage in discussion and is able to jump around pretty easily. I didn't get around to reporting one of their most recent sockpuppets but it is a persistent problem. Semi-protecting the article would provide a nice break and might provide additional evidence as to their sock identities. SQGibbon (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I gave it some semi. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
As predicted. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
This looks like it may be the problem. We might be butting up against the competence issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, a competence issue (which is also no doubt in part due to the English barrier, the broken English; the broken English aspect was also noted on my talk page in the aforementioned first discussion linked above), but, as has been noted, that user was already indefinitely blocked under a different account. He or she shouldn't be here based on that alone. Time for another sockpuppet case against him or her. Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, Ok. What was the previous account? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
It's shown and explained in the first discussion linked above in this section, Mark. User:محبةالكتب is the previous account. Flyer22 (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, got it, sorry for being so slow. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
LOL. Thanks for blocking that user and for extending protection of that article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
In case you didn't get the "thank thank thank thank thank thank thank" message, thanks for housekeeping at WP:RFPP. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
LOL, thanks a lot. I saw 13 notifications and figured I had done something really good or was in a ton of trouble! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
You are racking up barnstars these days. All well-deserved, obviously. Flyer22 (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Well apparently I'm terribly unoriginal. I came here to pop an admin's barnstar on your talk as well but I see others have beaten me to it! The sentiment remains; thank you for all of the work you do in keeping the backlogs down at AIV and RFPP. You're a star!--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I appreciate the work you three do as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I am also terribly unoriginal, I don't pop barnstars but said once and for all that you are precious. I miss PumpkinSky who told me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes you did :) I hope PS ends his wikibreak soon, there are altogether too many good Wikipedians missing these days. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: George Went Hensley

This is a note to let the main editors of George Went Hensley know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 27, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 27, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Barnstar

George Went Hensley (c. 1880 – 1955) was an American Pentecostal minister. He experienced a religious conversion around 1910 and came to believe that the New Testament commanded all Christians to handle venomous snakes. Although illiterate, he was a licensed minister of the Church of God from 1915 to 1922. He was arrested on moonshine-related charges and sentenced to a term in a workhouse, from which he escaped. He then held revival services in Ohio, and established churches, known as the Church of God with Signs Following, in Tennessee and Kentucky. His services ranged from small meetings in houses to gatherings with hundreds of attendees and media attention. He was arrested for violating laws against snake handling at least twice. He claimed to have survived more than 400 snake bites, but fell ill after being bitten during a service in 1955. He refused medical attention and died the next day. Despite his personal failings—he had conflicts with his family because of his drunkenness, frequent travels, and lack of steady income—Hensley convinced many residents of rural Appalachia that snake handling was commanded by God, and his followers continued the practice after his death. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for reverting Mathgenious989's changes to my talk page Eggishorn (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome, glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Kohs AfD

Might you consider restoring the revision history to the redirect? It did include material and sourcing about MyWikiBiz that is not in that article and it would be easier for someone to merge that material over there.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, comparing the bio article before deletion with the company article I'm not sure there was much to merge over. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Showing that you're neutral

I'm asking you to get involved in this, in the capacity of an admin. MilesMoney (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Please do. Both the edits before & after the diff that Miles has supplied. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I've commented there. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Everyone loves kittens, so this is one just for you!

KiraChinmoku 08:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Nefarious: Merchant of Souls

Hi Mark,

Thank you for encouragement with respect to the Nefarious: Merchant of Souls article. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide at its featured article candidacy would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm glad we have people working on our Human trafficking articles. I'll see if I have time to make some edits on the article or post a review, but I've been keeping fairly busy lately. See you around, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi mark, you reverted one of my changes a moment ago, and I would like to discuss something with you

Hi mark, you reverted one of my changes a moment ago, and I would like to discuss something with you

Sure, what would you like to discuss? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Thanks if you reply to me Kevin syria (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Why was my page deleted

Hi Mark, just wondering why you deleted my page "Lake County Captains Managers" on 00:39, 27 August 2013. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill3490 (talk • contribs)

Did I? I'm not seeing any deleted revisions at Lake County Captains Managers. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment from interfering visitor Yes, you did. It was a category that was blanked by the creator. Peridon (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see now, I deleted Category:Lake County Captains managers as G7, because he created it and then blanked it a minute later. @Bill3490: You're free to recreate the category if you like. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

My Recent Longboarding Edits

Hello there, I recently made several adjustments to the Longboarding page and they were quickly revoked due to lack of sources. I am a professional longboarder and am very active in the community. The edits I made were from my own experiences and knowledge and most of those facts have not been documented anywhere since the sport has such a tiny community. What should I do about not having any sources? I suppose I could write an article on a blog or something and then source myself? Thanks Kmg1434 (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.31.57 (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

We generally require additions to be backed by a third-party reliable source, see WP:IRS. Although you may be an expert on the topic, we have a policy of not accepting information based on personal experience, see WP:OR. You would have to get the information published in a magazine or a paper or something for it to be usable in Wikipedia. Sorry! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

How important social media and web 2.0 are today in modern communication

I was just tagging that as a copyvio - but you'd deleted it already. Don't know if this might be another nail in someone's coffin... Peridon (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I stumbled across it after seeing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LumCel actually. Apparently he keeps making pages like this with similar accounts... but at least he makes it clear who he is! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Sock puppet Mirtchev - KazakhBT claims

Hey Mark, I don't control those editors, but I guess they will have to appeal that process, nor affiliated with any subjects. But if anything the editor who is making these accusations has only ever contributed to the page in question, which I think is the traditional definition of what a sock puppet actual is. I believe the article is more neutral now and less promotional and defaming as it once was. I guess I'm just asking for your thoughts on this. Thanks --Monstermike99 (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies if a mistake has been made. But given the evidence it would seem to be quite a coincidence. Have you coordinated your editing with them somehow? I suggest you post your feelings on the matter at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monstermike99. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. It wasn't coordinated and I feel if the board/council looks at this closer it was just editors agreeing. Like I mentioned, I'm wary about the other editors intent since he hasn't contributed to a single Wiki article except this one, and not one neutral contribution. Thanks for getting back to me quickly Mark, I appreciate it and will reply on that board. --Monstermike99 (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Mark Arsten. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:03, 10 October 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.

--    L o g  X   20:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You can ignore this mail. It has been done by another sysop! Thanks. --    L o g  X   20:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok. BTW, I usually have gmail open in a tab next to Wikipedia when I'm online, so a YGM notice isn't really needed unless I'm on wikibreak or something. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Got that! --    L o g  X   20:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

SPI closing

I'm not familiar with how to fully close these SPI things, but it looks like unless {{archive top}} is in place and the SPI gets removed from the "open" category the discussion will go on. On the other hand, maybe the closed SPI is a good place for frustrated editors (moi? ) to expend energy re-plowing the same ground. – S. Rich (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit new to this, but I think someone marks it closed first and then a clerk archives it. I guess I am technically a clerk now though, but I haven't learned how to archive yet. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I see it has been archived. Happy Happy Joy Joy! – S. Rich (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Systems of measurement

Hi Mark,

On 22 September you saw fit to place a lock on Template:Systems of measurement as a result of edit-warring between between a newcomer EzEdit and myself. Two weeks ago a discussion concerning the template was opened by a third party - User:Michael Glass. I have stated my position, EzEdit [knows] that a discussion is open, but so far he has not made any contributions. Since eleven days have elapsed since he acknowledged the existence of the discussion and he has made no contribution, will you please assume that he has lost interest and as per the current discussion (which has been static for 16 days) revert his last change to make mine the current version. Martinvl (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be best to wait for the protection to expire here. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Premature close of an SPI

Why did you close this SPI? A CU user declined Johnny Au's request for a CU, but the case has yet to be addressed on behavioural evidence. The IP is still actively socking and causing disruption. TDL (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't totally convinced that a duck block was in order, but I think the IP's behavior in and of itself merited a block, so I've just imposed one. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for helping me find my sea legs this week, my first week as an admin. You've been knowledgeable, helpful, forgiving and patient. Much appreciated! Zad68 18:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure, looks like you'll be an expert in no time! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

1 out of 3

See here for the other two. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, got the other two. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mark Arsten. You have new messages at Racerx11's talk page.
Message added 01:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe pages - protection

Hello Mark. Our previous conversation was archived so I am restarting here. Asking you to readd protection to The Avengers: Age of Ultron. Before bringing my thought in that archived post to you, you had protected the page until December 10. However, an edit war between some editors occurred, causing another admin to fully protect the page, here, which overrode your protection. As such, the page is now unprotected, and as I was trying to state in my archived post, the disruptive editing, in the form of adding unconfirmed actors to the page, has returned. So in any event, I would ask you to please reinstate the semi protection until December as previously was on the page, or reevaluate if you feel necessary, but those two edits may not be enough for a new decision. Thank you as always. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I've restored the protection. This happens pretty regularly, frustrating how semi and full can't run concurrently. It's a flaw in the software, really, since we're able to have concurrent semi and PC. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
No problem. As well, the other pages I asked you about will be unprotecting at the end of the month, so I will ping you again if I feel they warrant a re-look. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, please do. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: 50.122.87.219

Hello, Mark Arsten. You have new messages at Racerx11's talk page.
Message added 03:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you

Thank you for your level head. Per your suggestion at the drama page, note: [24] Montanabw(talk) 17:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem, we all lose our tempers from time to time, so Admins need to be understanding when someone has a bad day. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Margarita Moran-Floirendo

I recently added new references for this article. Is there somebody tasked to evaluate biographies if it is a stub or not? greenmarktea78 20:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktanoja78 (talk • contribs)

If you feel it's not a stub, you're free to remove the stub tag yourself, actually. That kind of thing is seldom contentious. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark, thank you for that insight.greenmarktea78 04:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktanoja78 (talk • contribs)

relist?

Hi Mark. I don't think I've ever questioned a relist, but this one has me confused. Could you explain why you relisted this? Given that even the nominator was neutral, I don't think there was one person who felt we shouldn't have the article. Further, the current article seems fine and I don't think anyone was objecting to it. Hobit (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, normally I wouldn't have relisted in that situation. In this case I wanted to see a strong consensus before closing in case of possible BLP concerns. I'll probably close it in a few days anyway if no one else shows up. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional films (2nd nomination)

I'm curious why you closed this AFD as a keep. While there were more votes to keep then delete, it did not seem like there was really a consensus to do so. Both TTN and I supported our delete opinions with good reasoning. Meanwhile, one of the keep votes was basically WP:LIKEIT, two were to improve it, even though nobody made any attempt at all to improve it since the last AFD, and nothing suggests that is going to change, and Warden's comments went pretty far off topic. It seemed to me that the AFD should have been relisted at least once to get some more discussion. Now I'm not trying to tell you how to be an admin; you obviously have way more expierence with that than me. I just want an explanation of why you felt that it should be closed as keep. Thank you. JDDJS (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

While some weren't perfect Keep rationales, I think that Warden and Jclemens they were sufficiently policy-based to justify keeping the article. Cas's was reasonable as well. Overall, I think a Keep was supported, but maybe a no consensus would have been reasonable as well, I'll think about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for being open-minded. Even if you don't end up changing your mind, at least you considered it. JDDJS (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

For Mark Arsten.

Hello Mark Arsten, I saw Ayaan Chawla page through the Facebook link Ayaan Chawla's page which is deleted by you months ago, It is blocked I think, I wanna know can I create that article again or it is being created? AdamCharles89 (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Since there has been a strong consensus to delete the article, I don't think you should recreate it. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
If it's possible may I know what is the reason, that I should not recreate Ayaan Chawla's article. AdamCharles89 (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I believe there was a lack of independent third party sources in reliable publications. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I have some info which can be added to Wikipedia as, I found some good resources. AdamCharles89 (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Really? Could you give me some examples? Also, have you edited Wikipedia under another username before? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I've edited some articles but I am reading Wikipedia from around 8 years. And What I know is that we can have only 1 username. What should I do now? AdamCharles89 (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
You should probably get some more experience writing Wikipedia articles before you work on Ayaan Chawla. Just my advice though, you can ask at WP:DRV for Chawla to be undeleted if you want. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I have done what you said for enable to create Ayaan Chawla article. AdamCharles89 (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Revdel

I noticed you revdel'd a revision on User talk:Bbb23, but you didn't revert the changes made in that revision, so his edit is now in all of the future revisions as well. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

My bad, fixed now. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

SPI script

Not sure if anyone pointed this out, but User:Timotheus Canens/spihelper.js. --Rschen7754 23:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Good point, I think I added it to my js page but I haven't remembered to use it yet! Mark Arsten (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

More vandalism from 209.65.48.3

This edit to Haines City High School shows the IP 209.65.48.3 at it again, after his block from a couple weeks ago. I thought I'd bring it to you, since you blocked him last time. Simplebutpowerful 03:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

AfD for Most weeks ranked number 1 (NCAA football)

Hi Mark, I think Most weeks ranked number 1 (NCAA football) is up for a decision, and I just wanted to point out that the reasons it was tagged in the first place (WP:OR, WP:NOTABILITY, etc) were all resolved in the discussion, even if the original assertions have not been recanted. This is the first time I've been part of this process, but I'd guess this is not an unusual situation (some editors making "proofs by assertion", and never returning.) There is a summary near the bottom where evidence is presented for these assertions. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.254.239.1 (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the update. I don't know if I'll be the one to close it or not, but I'll keep that in mind. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Mark Arsten, it seems that user Vahram Mekhitaryan who has been blocked for 2 weeks, used IP adresses and edit the same article in which he was engaged in edit war.--Δαβίδ (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Which article is this? I don't recall what he was editing. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
this, this or this. I think that it is the same user with different IPs.--Δαβίδ (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, semi-d the page. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that edit must be reverted.--Δαβίδ (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, go ahead. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman

I've declined to unblock him - partly because he's claiming to have shared his password with some 'professional' to get some edits done to his sandbox. Do you want to up to an indef for compromised account or is he just trolling? Peridon (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Reaper has weighed in there now, so I'll let him handle it. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi

First thanks for your attention to my report here. but I clearly reported that user is reverting my edits without giving a reason, and without answering me or giving a reason in his talk page. what you did ? you protected the page while his edit was the last one on the page. It's funny I think you just punished me with this, I'm ok with that but you didn't even warn him !! It just will courage him to continue his work. Mohsen1248 (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to punish you, no. I think his behavior is more of a problem than yours, since he isn't communicating. I suggest you post on the talk page of the article and explain your viewpoint. You could also ask for more input on the talk page of a relevant Wikiproject, to try and build consensus. Let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I know you didn't mean to punish me but if you look at the outcome, it looks like that (now I see your warning and thanks for that), after the 3-day period I will explain my viewpoint in article's talk page before reverting back those vandal edits even though I think it's already very clear (so I Have to explain I'm correcting the names and sorting them by alphabet ? OK I will) I will do that but I highly doubt it works with this user even though that warning might work, thanks for your attention. Mohsen1248 (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Block request

Hi, Mark, would you block Special:Contributions/82.35.218.9 with an expiry set of one year, because the user permanently and currently revert vandalism.

I'll keep my eye on that IP, but their recent contribs don't look like vandalism to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ayaan Chawla

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ayaan Chawla. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. AdamCharles89 (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

For Mark Arsten

Hello Mark Arsten, you have deleted Ayaan C. article which was created by me as I informed you before creating article. So, what I have to do? AdamCharles89 (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You need permission from DRV to create the article. Wait until the discussion ends and if it's closed as "overturn" then you can create it. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't get where to request? AdamCharles89 (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by that. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I want to know what is the process to create a deleted article as you said. AdamCharles89 (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The process is: wait until the discussion at deletion review is closed. If the closer gives you permission, you can recreate it. Until then, just wait. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Where is this deletion review is going on? That I have to wait for. AdamCharles89 (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hint: you've posted there twice today. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I go it where the deletion review is going on. AdamCharles89 (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

But what is the status and what is going on? AdamCharles89 (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It's awaiting review from community members. I wouldn't count on people being very inclined to recreate it though. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong version

You should have reverted to a consensus version, before edit-protecting the page. Apart from the fact that a warning not to edit-war would have been more logical than protection in this case. Debresser (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Which page are we talking about here? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I am so sorry. I was referring to Template_talk:Infobox_Jews#Protection. Debresser (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Let's talk about it there, please. I'll unfollow your talkpage. Debresser (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
You have visited that talkpage, but not yet answered my questions in the Protection section. Do you plan to do so? Debresser (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

IP block

I see you blocked the 186.159.112.126 IP user for a month. The last block of that IP was for three months and I have not seen a single edit from the IP that was not blatant vandalism. A much more lengthy block would be a good idea, I think.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

A4A

A4A page. Explain? --50.128.155.168 (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

What would you like me to explain? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Disregard. I thought I'd clicked on User:Intermittentgardener Talk Page. My apologies. --50.128.155.168 (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Unable to edit my own user page

Hi Mark, I just put forward a request to make my user page User:Deejawwad protected. The reason for this was to unable any outsider to edit the content. Since it's been protected, I'm also unable to edit it even it's my own page. Kindly tell me the reason why it's happening and since I'm a new wikipedian, I'm not much familiar with the rules associated. I just want myself to be able to edit my user page. Deejawwad (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I can unprotect the page if you like, or we can wait four days and you'll be able to edit it as is (since you'll be WP:AUTOCONFIRMED). Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Well I'll go for the second option and will wait for four days as now I understand the rules. Thanks again! Deejawwad (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Rousseau Metal deleted

Hi, You deleted the english version of Rousseau Metal's wikipedia. We would like it to be back online and are wondering what can we do to do so. Thanks for your help! RousseauM (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If you can provide evidence that it meets the WP:CORP guideline it may be possible to have it restored. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I updated the links from the french version if you wanna take a look (most of the links are available in french only unfortunately. I found these in english that can be of interest: http://www.ic.gc.ca/app/ccc/srch/nvgt.do?prtl=1&estblmntNo=104585450000&profile=cmpltPrfl&profileId=1801&app=sold&lang=eng http://www.hydroquebec.com/business/energy-efficiency/hydro-affaires/rousseau-metal/

Thanks RousseauM (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Are you with the company? If so, you should really read our conflict of interest policy: WP:COI. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all I changed my username because another admin asked me to because it seemed weird, so my username is no longer RousseauM (even if Rousseau is a very common last name here). I have to say that if your are looking for someone that has zero conflict of interest with any business in this town, you're looking for a tourist. We are a 3,000 people town and Rousseau is undoubtedly the biggest employer (300 something people). Everyone here has a brother, sister, mother, uncle working there or used to work there (plant or office). I used to work there also but I'm a regular citizen as everyone else. Isabellelf (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've replied on your talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm done with the changes, added some links and references. Thank you 206.162.159.82 (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now you can apply for undeletion at WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sam Branson

Hi again. I just don't understand where exactly to bring up the fact that I think there should be a page for him, and try to get a new vote. I've read what you gave me but still don't understand. Can you please help?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there something specific you're having trouble with? I'm not really sure how I can help you at this point other than linking to the page with the DRV instructions: Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the instructions. I don't know where exactly to bring up the issue. Is there a specific talkpage?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, click here, and then paste the below code in, replacing my text in the "reason field" with your own reasoning. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
{{subst:drv2
|page=Sam Branson
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Branson
|reason=I think this guy should have an article.
}} ~~~~
Thanks. I did it.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice; input requested

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Please see here ANI

Nathaniel Raymond's vanity page

Hi,

I was under the impression that discussions such as these [[25]] were to last seven days. Why is this one closed already? There are four comments that make sense, two in favor and three against.0Juan234 (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Usually they do run seven days, but it seemed like a strong consensus was developing, so I closed it early per the snowball rule. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Is this a joke? I mean, score one for the tyranny of the majority - and it's an uninformed majority at that, as it's clear in the remarks that all but three or four editors read the references. Did you read them?0Juan234 (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you feel the discussion was wrongly closed, you're free to open a deletion review of it, see WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Did you read the references?0Juan234 (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, they seem fine to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
They "seem fine" and they "are fine" are different concepts. Which sources "seem" to establish notability and why? 0Juan234 (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I think this was explained pretty well in the deletion discussion, and I see now reason to repeat what's already been said other than that I judged there to be a consensus that the references demonstrated notability by way of significant coverage. I believe I've explained my closure adequately, if you think it should be overturned you can open a discussion at DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, sorry, but this response only contributes to the ambiguity of what is going on with this Raymond page. The problem is, very little has been said about the page. Let's look at the "votes" one-by-one:

Blander Remove; says references weak
DavidinNJ Keep; notes which references establish notability; explains why.
Quadell Keep; does not mention sources
Colonell Henry - Keep; notes which references establish notability; explains why.
Green Cardamom - Keep; does not mention sources
NinjaRobotPirate - Keep; does not mention sources, says that his vote is influenced by dislike of my posts (not the sources)
Khazar - Keep; does not mention sources
Randykitty - keep; notes which references establish notability; explains why.
Juan - Remove; references weak

I'm sure you'll agree that an uninformed vote, or one from an editor who demonstrates that he/she does not understand notability, or one from an editor who states he/she is voting as such out of spite and not due to the actual topic, should be invalid.
So, we have:

Remove 2 (note references are weak)
Keep 3 (note which references establish notability; explains why)

Keep 2 (explain nothing; I requested clarification from both, none was provided)
Keep 1 (explains nothing and says he/she is voting "keep" due to spite)

I do not understand your last remark: "I think this was explained pretty well in the deletion discussion" - the question I asked twice was whether or not you (not the editors in the deletion discussion) had read the references, and, if so, I would like to know which you feel establish notability and why. Whether or not you had read the references was not covered in the deletion discussion. So, for a third time, have you read the references? If so, which do you feel establish notability and why? 0Juan234 (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I've reviewed the sources and found them sufficient, but I'm not inclined to provide a detailed summary of my feelings about each reference (nor am I obligated to). I disagree with your characterization of several of the Keep !voters, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Stale

Mark, re your closing. Slow motion edit warring appears to continue, see diff. Do you think it is still stale? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like it is continuing. Looks like User:Sepsis II has reverted about five times in five weeks. That could justify a block for slow motion edit warring, theoretically. I think WP:AE would be a better venue than WP:AN3 for this though. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a clear case of battleground mentality by Agada, he continually complains about editors which stand up against Israeli extremists in hopes of getting these editors banned. Anyone who looks at the history of the article would see that most of the recent edits, and most of the recent accounts have been run by two banned editors, Soosim and NoCal100. The reverts are obviously covered under wp:3rrno as I have pointed out before to the willfully deaf Agada. I have made but a single revert of a non-banned editor; the edit was unexplained removal of sourced information, perhaps meatpuppetry. I would welcome a case at AE. Sepsis II (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Reverting banned editors is indeed an exception to our edit warring rules, so it's good to hear your explanation. Note that only one of the four editors you've reverted is currently blocked as a sock though. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Mark, do you think it might be beneficial to warn User:Sepsis II? It appears she/he believes there is nothing wrong in his actions, and this might not be the case. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I think my comments here should be enough warning. Use your best judgment about going to AE though. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure Mark, thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like another respectable acount has joined this edit war on the enemy's side; User:Blue Duck T, I vow to win, no matter how many editors try to revert me!!!!! LOL. Can you please protect the page from all these socks? Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't say I never did anything for you ;) Mark Arsten (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
So you know how you never do anything for me right? Well apparently an admin finally came through for NoCal and put me under sanctions for battling his socks. If you could take part in the discussion at User talk:Magog the Ogre that would be great. Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
You did wonderfully! Thanks! Sepsis II (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

TVCatchup

Thanks for responding to my request for semi protection, I am wondering how would I re-add the bit about forum posts being deleted, as I suspect when I re-add it, it will go into edit war from that new user, Fkmd (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest opening a discussion on the article's talk page to try to build consensus on the issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sock question

Hi, an admin said the Tumbleman (talk · contribs) account has been WP:COMPROMISED due to his story about giving away his password, and "can therefore not be unblocked". So is the issue whether or when he'll come back as a new account? Also, FYI I added more evidence to the SPI. vzaak (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit new to this, I suggest checking with Reaper. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice it, a sock walked into its own AE case, which is now closed with indef block. This active sock seems like a loose end in the affair. vzaak (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Robert B. Rheault

I was notified by a fraternal organization, to which I belong, of Colonel Rheault's passing on Oct 16, 2013. COL Rheault was a member of the organization as well. I believe the obituary will come out Oct 17 or Oct 18 at which time somebody may perhaps take up the task of updating the page. - pk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.236.22.34 (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mark Arsten. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 19:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower OfflineTrick or Treat 19:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Syrian Emergency Task Force

Hey there Mark, my name is Evan and I work for the Syrian Emergency Task Force. Over the past few weeks, I had been editing and questioning the neutrality of an article on our organization, as some of the information is incorrect, while other facts are simply outdated. I edited the page in an effort to make it more accurate, but now the page has been locked. I understand we are a controversial political organization, and I understand the use of having a page that reflects our history accurately.

I would like to work with the creator of the page, user BlueSalix, to clarify a few points, and perhaps arrive at a consensus about what information should be included. For example, there is a reference to an employee who has not worked here for some time, and the fact that she used to work at a restaurant is listed in a sort of insulting manner. Perhaps some of us deserve to be mocked, but I would hope it would be limited to actual SETF employees!

In any event, I've tried to reach out to BlueSalix to hash some of this out, but I'm not sure I'm using the talk pages correctly, as I'm new to all this. If you could work with me on this I'd greatly appreciate it.

Evan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setfevan (talk • contribs) 19:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Evan, the first thing you should do is explain your concerns with the article here. There are a couple other things you can do, but that should be the first step. Let me know when you've done so. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Mises ANI

Hello Mark. I'm writing to suggest you reconsider this remark: [26] which appears to condemn User:MilesMoney and can be expected to encourage various other editors to join in doing the same. It seems to be problematic to discuss editors' behavior without diffs or very specific evidence, because there are all too many editors waiting to pile on others whom they dislike. With respect to MM, although his tone is often curt and occasionally snide, he is one of the brightest and most knowledgeable editors in these contentious Mises/Libertarian articles. He has the virtue of being very direct and straightforward, so everyone knows where he stands on content and editorial issues. The same could be said of Steeletrap and a few others. Anyway, just a note to suggest you not light up next to the gasoline pump. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to condemn MM at all, I was just trying to say that site bans are a last resort and all options should be considered before that. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mark. No, I know that was not your intention. That's why I wrote it "appears to.." -- I just feared that certain others would take that mention of Miles as a dog whistle to pile on. Sure enough the lynchmob is forming. Anyway... Thanks for your efforts. SPECIFICO talk 21:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hemmebrand17

Are you going to ban 166.82.70.107 as well? Hauntingwhisper admitted to using that IP on my talk page and you have banned him for being a sock of Hemmebrand17.LM2000 (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If that's the IP he's been editing from it will be blocked automatically by the software if he tries to edit with it logged out. See Wikipedia:Autoblock for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Reprotect Convert subtemplates

Some of us, with template-editor right, diagnose 2,000 subtemplates of Template:Convert. Recently, I have noted problems in:

Those, so far, will keep me busy 2 weeks to discuss consensus to update them. Can wait a few days, reply here. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think all of those are set to "protected template" now. There may still be issues with cascading protection on some of them though. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Still Template:Convert/LonAonSon is locked as a redirect; no hurry, while updating others. -Wikid77 19:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

TE

I admit it has been a while since I made some but probably WikiProject templates amongst others. I don't have any specific requests at the moment but I will inform you or any other admin on any I may want to edit in the future when needed. I will honestly just use this tool for maintenance and hopefully non-controversial edits (WikiGnoming is a large part of my edits). I hope this is okay and thank you. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 10:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi again

Hi again Mark, if you remember we had a short discussion here, I edited the page once again and explained my reason in talk page but that user still just reverted my edit without giving a reason, and without communicating. all I gave from him was a personal attack in my talk page you unfortunately can't understand because it's in another language. what I have to in this case with ? Mohsen1248 (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, if personal attacks are involved, I suggest posting on WP:ANI about him. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not in English, it's in Fingilish and no online translator can translate it. so I think it's useless to report it. OK I will edit the page once again even though this user won't change his behavior. Mohsen1248 (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mark once again, I did a little research on this user and apparently he has a long history of making troubles. I have no doubt he is the same person as User:پارسا آملی who had a history of making multiple accounts, he also had other multiple accounts still active like User:Asianleag and User:Elisaeslami and User:Elham.Esmaili and probably much more. This user previously had at least 19 accounts in Persian wikipedia and all of them are blocked now and still most of his edits are sourceless. he is still breaking copyright rules by repeatedly adding copyrighted pictures in wikicommons. I don't know if your talk page is a good place or not but I thought I had to report him somewhere. 11:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, it may be best to report them to WP:ANI. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you please page protect List of Mayday episodes?

IP editors are putting in things that are either totally unreferenced or made up[27]....William 18:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Bill Green (hammer thrower)

I don't understand your edit today.

Are you confirming I am correct in this ongoing dispute with editor "NielN" who appears to have a bias regarding my editing content? I have read the prohibition discussion on Yahoo Contributor Network, but the section used as a reference for "Bill Green (hammer thrower)" is itself bibliographied with six actual book publication sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.6.126.88 (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't taken a side in the dispute, actually. It's important that you avoid edit warring though, please discuss on the talk page instead. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have engaged in extensive talking with "NielN", who ignores my position and forces me to reverse his edits which are made with a clear bias. His opening comments in editing this page a few months ago cited "inflated' and "bloated" "grand" commentary, and he has not let up since using technicalities to quash my content. This current dispute is a classic example, he cites the Wikipedia prohibition on the use of Yahoo Contributor Network, while ignoring that the contributor lists six published sources for his listing of the Olympic Games results back to 1900. This is not editorial opinion, it is undisputed historical fact-these are simply the Track and Field results from the Olympic Games! Please advise me as to mechanism for redress of editor bias, and how to reverse the mechanics which make my editing now subject to "submission for approval" (I am fairly new to Wikipedia)

I have no bias against the subject but I am biased toward following one of our core guidelines, using reliable sources. These "technicalities" prevent editors with a conflict of interest such as yourself [28] from inserting unreferenced information like "Some of these were formal product endorsement agreements, unprecedented for American hammer throwers at the time." and misrepresenting what sources actually say (Talk:Bill_Green_(hammer_thrower)#Track_and_Field_appeal). As to the latest dispute, instead of edit warring, you need to make your case that you are indeed using a reliable source (not the source you're linking to merely lists reliable sources). --NeilN talk to me 22:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, in a situation where we have accurate text sourced to unreliable sources, we must remove it or add reliable sources in its place. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Imtitanium

Hi Mark. Do you think you might have a minute to do some quick duck culling at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imtitanium? The most recently reported sock is at this very moment causing trouble again at Bigg Boss 7. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sure, I took them both out. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Hopefully he'll lose interest soon. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we can only hope! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Photos

Hi Mark! I want to upload a photo of Mr. McMahon in the article which I've written for him in my own language. But for uploading photos of a person I think I should have a license for it which I am not able to do it from where I am, I mean I can't get license from WWE! What can I do?Wikitranser (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It all depends, did you personally take the picture you want to add? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No, It's impossible for me. I looked for his photos in Commons but photos were not new and not like his now-old face! Is there any way except what you said? I can't upload it any way?Wikitranser (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You could e-mail the WWE and ask them to release an image under a license that fits with our image use policy. Kind of a longshot, but some people have had it work in the past. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok! I'm going to take my chance! Could you please tell me which license I should exactly use for photo of a person if I'm successful getting the license from them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitranser (talk • contribs) 20:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd request {{cc-by-3.0}}, but I'm hardly an expert about image licenses. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Wikitranser (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you so much for unblocking me! This means a lot! Do you need anything from me? I owe you one. Just name it and it will be done. I am dead serious. I am so grateful!  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 01:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you must now revert 10 vandals and vote in five article for deletion discussions (just kidding!) Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Lol that's a nice one. Thanks again! By the way, I am kid but not that young.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 01:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
You really shouldn't tell people which grade you're in, if I may give some more advice. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Ooops, Thanks!  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 02:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Probable Tumbleman socks

Adding disruptive nonsense at User talk:Tumbleman. 67.164.137.8 highlights usernames before the text of their comment [29] in exactly the same manner as Tumbleman's habitual practice [30]. My guess is it's being done via proxy IP's. Should I file a new report at SPI, or reopen the old one? LuckyLouie (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I think semi protecting their targets might be a better idea here. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Declines

Just so you know, a decline only refers to the CU request, not to the SPI itself. If there's no CU being requested, you don't need to decline. --Rschen7754 03:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latrelle

Could you take another look at your close here? The nominators argument was basically that no coverage exists, which the three delete !votes simply agreed with, but then I provided evidence that coverage does exist, which prompted the nominator to apparently agree that it should be kept: "but a page in Vibe (magazine) is generally sufficient for me". Given that the delete arguments have been shown to be incorrect, I don't see how this can be closed as delete without explanation. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess I could let it run another week. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. --Michig (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kleine–Levin syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spinal tap (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Question re: AIV

Hi Mark, and thanks for all your good work at AIV and NPP, its really appreciated. In recent months I have been doing a lot of reviewing and some vandal patrol. I have brought several IP accounts to AIV. At first most of my 'nominations' were acted upon by Admins but on my last three submissions no action was taken. I believe the last case was examined by you and your feedback was something like 'not enough recent vandalism'. I don't want to waste anyone's time so I thought to ask you what criteria I should use before bringing an IP (or account) to AIV. The criteria I've been using is that the IP had long history of vandalism and had received progressively more stern warnings including a final warning. But it seems there is more that I should be considering in the process. Can you advance my understanding a bit? Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for working on AIV, we really appreciate it. Basically, the criteria to use is: 1. they've been engaged in obvious vandalism, obvious enough that an admin patrolling AIV can tell it's vandalism just by looking at it. 2. They've been warned, usually we prefer them to have two warnings at minimum, if not more. We can relax that rule if it's really blatant obnoxious vandalism though. 3. Usually, we only block IPs if they have been recently active. How recent is usually a judgment call, but within a few hours is best. In cases of schools or shared IPs that put up a lot of vandalism over time, it may be worth blocking even if it's been a day or two since the last edit.
If you can show me your reports that were declined I can probably explain in more detail why they were declined. Or it could have been a mistake on my part, actually. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark, thanks for your willingness to walk through this with me. Here are the ones I'd like feedback on:

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like only the first one wasn't blocked. It doesn't seem like it engaged in any vandalism after getting your final warning on the 14th, so the report probably was declined as it appears the IP heeded the message. As to why the others were blocked, I guess you'd have to ask the blocking admins to be sure, but I suppose they probably felt it was very likely that disruption would increase since it was a school account. When there are only one recent problematic edit it's possible to block the IP, but a lot of admins, such as myself, are generally hesitant to do so. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Indiasummer95

Thanks. I don't know why I forgot to actually block the sock puppet account. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

No, it's all right. Thank you for reverting it back. I may be an anonymous user here on Wikipedia, but I'm quite experienced in editing, I assure you. I defiantly know what I'm doing, so please don't worry.--70.171.81.8 (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. I would recommend you use edit summaries in the future though. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
All right. I don't edit a lot on Wikipedia, and I never expected that someone was going to revert my edits since the article was pretty much deserted.--70.171.81.8 (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother you, but can you please block/ban User:50.150.142.87 for trolling the characters page at the Black Butler? He or she is using idiotic reasoning to justify the change. They source that user placed in the article, which was linked to tumblr, holds no absolute meaning and is a contradiction to the reasoning the user is offering. Please assist with the situation.--70.171.81.8 (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like he has stopped, so I probably won't take action for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparent sock

The editor you just blocked may well be back. Figured you'd want to know. MilesMoney (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, ping me if he comes back again. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Noelia

Hello Mark, This is Marcela I want take the opportunity to thank for the contribution by placing a Lock on Noelia's page, I wanted to ask you if possible to Place a Lock again at less for another 15 days, I was review the Article that many people we been working on, and definitely the user " lulusi9" Change and edit several articles, I did as much as could to restore general important information, but is needed please that you can Lock and protect the page again before the vandalize this. Many thanks, ~~Marcela~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicexpert1970 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think further protection is warranted for now, let me know if disruption continues. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Julius Caesar

Hi Mark look like Julius Caesar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) does not semi-protection. It's only one edit, but since it's right after the protection was lifted it shows that semi is probably going to be the best option. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, we might give it some more time on PC and see how it goes. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks pretty clear now... Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Suhani Pittie

Hello, Mark. I have noticed that you deleted the article about Suhani Pittie, a popular jewellery designer from India. I love her works. She is a definitely notable person according to Wikipedia:Notable_people, so I would like to write and publish a good article about her. Could you send me the deleted content of this page. I hope it will be useful for me. I want to check whether it is possible to rewrite it in compliance with the Wikipedia guideline. Alexandra Goncharik -sms- 13:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted because of notability, but because a blocked or banned editor had created it in violation of their restriction. Since you'd like to work on it, I've restored the article for you. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I have finished my work on this article. I believe that it looks much better now. Thank you very much for your help, Mark. Alexandra Goncharik -sms- 15:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit War at The Avengers: Age of Ultron

Hello Mark, I was wondering if you could look into a situation involving the addition of Jeremy Renner at The Avengers: Age of Ultron. The page was recently locked due a edit war between Locke Cole (talk · contribs) and myself. Discussion seems to have result in a consensus not to add Renner at this time. However since the lock has been lifted, Cole has resumed trying to add the disputed content. If not WP:3RR, this seems like violation of WP:1RR due to previous warnings and edit war. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:1RR is not a policy, one does not "violate" it. Having said that, since the page lock and the debate, I'm going to try and hold myself to a WP:1RR on that page (note that on one day I tried adding it three different ways to appease those opposing it, and all three times instead of collaboratively editing, you guys chose reverting instead). Since then I've decided to back off a bit and stick to the talk page, where you guys insist on telling me "it's over" and I've "lost". —Locke Cole • t • c 19:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

So far most uninvolved editors seem to be split on the issue when they read the arguments. The regulars on that article though are unanimously against the addition, but on grounds that violate WP:NOR. There are plenty of sources supporting the case that this actor is cast in this role, and so far there are zero sources saying he is not cast (with only a few sources, all gossip/rumor sources, saying the actor had a falling out with the studio). Some of the sources supporting the addition are already in use in the article for other cast members. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, while you technically didn't break 3RR I would suggest you stay further from the line in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I didn't revert at all, IMO. I tried to appease other editors by providing different ways of stating the situation, and each time I was reverted by a group of regulars at the page (in one edit I even tried moving it down into the production section, so it would be clear that it wasn't being reported by every source). How is simple reversion conducive to resolving the issue (which is all TriiipleThreat (talk · contribs) has brought to the table so far, besides stonewalling the issue on the talk page)? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Mark, it appears we have settled on a compromise in Talk:The Avengers: Age of Ultron#Option 1. Would you mind verifying the consensus and closing the discussion? The straw poll has now ran for a week. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

missing sock notices

Hi, per this SPI it seems that User:Oh boy chicken again and User talk:Oh boy chicken again should have notices like User:KateGompert and User talk:KateGompert. (It may not be appropriate for a non-admin to do this.) vzaak (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added them, but you were free to do so, actually. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed Tumbleman's pages also lack tags. I guess Template:sockpuppeteer is for User:Tumbleman, but I'm not sure what goes in the talk page -- or maybe nothing should go there? (Feel free to do this one too :) vzaak (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure the tags are needed because he wasn't indefed just for socking. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Zahran

1. See the sock puppetry between anon & Zahran80 - are you supporting it? 2. Read WP:MOSDAB and explain how the proposed edits comply with it? I will unprotect it, if you request, but if edits are made such as were before that are not compliant with WP:MOSDAB, I will hold you responsible for them; OK?? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I see you've gone ahead and taken the resposibility youself; good luck. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Indefinite full protection was, and still is, grossly inappropriate there, and I strongly suggest you don't protect pages like that in the future. We aren't supposed to protect articles to keep unhelpful edits from ever being made unless there is a history of problems. I'm only seeing a five IP edits this year before your protection, and while they may have violated the MOS, they weren't vandalism either. So even semi-protection seems like a bit of a stretch given that the dab page is rarely edited and hasn't been vandalized recently. Nor do I see any evidence of sockpuppetry, but if you know of any, please do file a report at WP:SPI. As to accusing me of supporting sockpuppetry and threatening to hold me responsible, I suggest you adjust your attitude. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Page reviewing help

Does this page USB Data Link Cable API meet criteria for speedy deletion or one of the things at WP:ISNOT? I'm confused. ///EuroCarGT 01:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, it definitely should be deleted, but I'm not sure that it falls under any of the CSD criteria. There's a chance someone would delete it under G11, but I think PRODing would be the way to do it "by the book". Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Another user already placed a PROD tag, so it's fine now. Thanks! ///EuroCarGT 01:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Ahh, it was deleted as copyvio. That's funny, because I plugged a line into google and didn't show any other hits. Guess I need to sharpen my skills there. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Eleking

Hi.

You closed an RfD on the above article. There was a single vote, to merge. The article is rather large, The character appears in a large number of episodes across various different shows. Merging it while retaining mention of these shows would be quite awkward, and in truth merit separating out again. Please reconsider the closure and repost. I suggest these deletion/merger discussions would garner a lot more attention had there been a notice at the main articles. I certainly would have known of this andcommented a lot sooner.

Thanksμηδείς (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, an article being closed as merge doesn't mean the whole article has to be merged. Whoever is maintaining the merge target still gets to exercise editorial judgment. So selective/limited merges are fine. Or I could re-open the Afd so you can comment there, I suppose. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
My assumption is reopening the AfD without wider notification will end up as my keep versus the existing merge. Given the especial prominence of this monster in various different TV shows over quite a period of time I think a merger is a mistake, since that will associate it with only one show. I would like this re-opened, but I think all the shows in which the creature appears should be templated for the discussion, and I do not know how to do that. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've re-opened it and relisted it so it will run another week. If you like, you can post messages about the Afd on relevant talk pages, as long as your message is neutrally worded. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there a way actually to template the target page of a merger? I.e., not the talk, but the article itself? μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, {{Merge from}} exists for that reason, but it's usually just used in merge discussions, not Afds. You could IAR and add it in this case though, I suppose. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll explain on the various talk pages the overall situation. I appreciate the help. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
No prob, let me know if anything else comes up. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Gauntlett‎ Deletion

Hi Mark,

Would it be allowed for me to gain access to the info in the deleted article Daniel Gauntlett‎ so I can merge some of it with the LASPO article, as discussed in Afd? Perhaps the article could be restored on my user page? Thanks PhilMacD (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've restored the history. You can merge any of it over if you want, just note what you're doing in your edit summary. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks muchly. PhilMacD (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Jeeva Samadhi

Can you take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeeva Samadhi, for which you suggested more discussion to reach a clearer consensus? It seems there is more consensus now. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look at it next time I go through Afds. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Janoris Jenkins

But Janoris Jenkins' father IS Steve Smith and he DID get beat like a red-headed step child on 10/20/2013. Why is this locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mleezy53 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Please try to gain consensus for your proposed changes on the article's talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Why did you delete my post on the International Journal of Learning

Hi Mark. Can you tell me why you deleted the entry on The International Journal of Learning on 22 August 2013? I didn't author the page, but I went to update it and couldn't find it anymore. Thanks, Jamie — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBCGP (talk • contribs) 20:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you can see the reasons for the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The International Journal of Learning. Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox: Jews

Dear Mark Arsten,

I hope you are doing well. Do you have any advice for me as this edit dispute continues? I do not want to engage in an edit war or violate Wikipedia rules or policies. However, I am finding it increasingly difficult to engage in meaningful discussion with User:Debresser. While I understand many of my comments were long, I kept them all to the point of discussion--either addressing the content or addressing an editor's concern--and continued to add reliable sources. On the other hand, Debresser kept responding to me with original research and personal experiences. As this continued, it became more frustrating. Is there a better way for me to engage in discussion so that this dispute can be resolved? I appreciate your advice and remind you that I am a new editor still looking for ways to improve. --Precision123 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the important thing is to discuss the matter and use reliable sources (and stop reverting). You could open an WP:RFC on the talk page to get more input, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

WeldNeck/No Gun Ri Massacre at Edit War Noticeboard

Thank you, Mark, for your quick attention to this complaint (Declined: This type of dispute is better suited to WP:ANI. Mark Arsten.) But I'm afraid I don't understand how WeldNeck's flood of edits rejecting efforts to restore accuracy to what he has changed, and reverting repeatedly to his error-filled new text, doesn't amount to an edit war. As I read it, an edit war can be something other than a violation of the three-revert-in-24-hours rule. It would seem that scores of edits suddenly done rapid-fire on a well-established article, and that then resist every attempt to correct errors, would qualify.Charles J. Hanley 21:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Well, we're dealing with a flurry of edits in August and then a flurry of edits in October. I may have misjudged the issue. Could you make this a little more clear to me which edits were reverts of which edits? Kind of like how I laid out Ryulong's edits here would be great. And of course I invite User:WeldNeck to do the same. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Mark. Missed your reply for a couple of days. It will take me a bit to match up fixes with reversals of fixes etc. I had hoped the sheer weight of edits to a solid, well-established article, and the resulting number of objections (in Talk and in counter-edits), would have demonstrated a serious edit-warring problem. Will get back to you. Charles J. Hanley 23:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
Mark, I have better organized this appeal for help in protecting a very important article. As you'll see, it's not a simple matter of citing "four reverts" and matching them up with the previous texts, to win automatic censure, but instead we're dealing with a major, broad attack via dozens of destructive edits, heedless of efforts to point out the facts. I'd much appreciate your taking a look at my better-organized appeal and advising me on how to proceed. Thanks very much. Charles J. Hanley 14:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
I'm curious, would you say you have a conflict of interest here? I mean, obviously you're a very distinguished writer, and I appreciate that you're taking the time to edit Wikipedia. But when you're writing about a Wikipedia subject that you've written about professionally (and I believe you're mentioned in the article in question), there is always the risk of COI. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

On COI, no. It seems clear to me the best people to build a solid Wikipedia article are those in the footnotes, whether academic or media types, who have done professional work on the subject, who know all the sources and understand the facts. Otherwise, WP –- no news to you, I’m sure -- is open to manipulation by zealots, advocates, obsessives whose goal is simply to load articles with their half-truths and imaginings. It's ironic that in this case, it's just such a "loading," by WeldNeck, of a totally immaterial paragraph attacking our Associated Press team (third paragraph under "Associated Press story" at No Gun Ri Massacre) that leads you to even raise the question ("I believe you're mentioned in the article..."). Those old, debunked allegations, a nasty revival of a vendetta against the media for exposing No Gun Ri, add nothing to the article, nothing to our knowledge of the massacre. The story has moved more than a decade beyond that, with hundreds of pages of official reporting and countless media developments. It should be deleted. But it's telling that even when I tried to meet him more than halfway, by leaving the pointless paragraph in the article and instead inserting links to the debunking, he rushed to eliminate those. See [[31]]. It's beyond outrageous.

His behavior and disregard for the truth have been intolerable. Will something be done? Charles J. Hanley 14:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Ok, thanks for the info. Maybe an WP:RFC/U would be a good way forward. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
My ears are burning. WeldNeck (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Seriously though, I responded to Hanley's litany of my supposed transgressions ... a fair chunk of what he is complaining about doesn't even apply because its back in the article! WeldNeck (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, I'll try to check it out when I have time. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Mark. But now, are you suggesting I try yet another page, WP:RFC/U, for help? Or will you refer this there, or are you still considering the problem? As you can tell, I'm not immersed in the WP protocols, but merely interested in ensuring the truthfulness of an important WP article. I would have thought any number of WeldNeck's actions at No Gun Ri Massacre would have been prima facie evidence for an admin of a bad-faith actor, requiring immediate action. Charles J. Hanley 20:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
You WP:COI with respect to this issue is prima facie evidence that you should really moderate yourself. WeldNeck (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Surprised

Hello again. I was surprised by your quick closing of my edit warring complaint in this edit. Your conclusion says, "If we're dealing with slow edit warring on multiple pages". You seem to have missed the point that since the template was merged into the article, this is one and the same. Also you mention that "I don't see a 3RR violation", which completely ignores that WP:3RR/N is for any edit warring, including such that does not involve the 3RR rule. Your conclusion that "it seems WP:ANI would be a better place for this discussion" seems in view of all this quite the opposite of the purpose of this noticeboard.

This is the second time in a short time span that you have taken action in a way that in my humble opinion shows a lack of knowledge of the pertaining Wikipedia rules. The first time I wrote you here at #Wrong_version, and at Jews/infobox#Protection. I may be wrong completely, so as an editor to an admin, in the spirit of your well chosen words, I would like to ask you to explain your decisions. I admit that I am biased in my own favor in these two cases, so please be so kind to explain to me the things I might not be seeing correctly because of my bias. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Disregarding 3RR, I'm still not sure I see the edit warring. In your report you listed five diffs, but only three of them were from the editor you were reporting. Were you suggesting that he's engaged in sockpuppetry? If not, looking at both pages as one I only see 3 reverts over 11 days. I don't think that's enough to justify an edit warring block. But if you disagree with my judgment, feel free to open a report on ANI to ask for another admin or admins to evaluate the situation. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for making errors in the diffs. Please see the fixed diffs on WP:3RR/N. In light of that mistake of mine (in part a copy&paste error), please reopen the complaint. Debresser (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Disengagement

I had and still have no intention of saying anything further on that talk page, from which the owner has banned at least four people in recent weeks. The consequence is that they have yet again got away with shoddy behaviour based on a misreading of others' comments and a misunderstanding of policy. This is something that will eventually be added to the indefinite block proposal. Because that is the way it is going with that person unless someone can get a grip: their attitude has been almost consistently appalling and it has to stop. - Sitush (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I just didn't want to see more arguing on his talk page, I wasn't trying to interaction ban you from him. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Practically all they seem to do is argue: there's some sort of kneejerk "must support my mates" thing going on. That's how they got involved with me at User_talk:Srich32977#Behaviour_at_ANI, butting in with a completely screwed-up and combative comment and then having another go at me when I pointed out that they had the wrong end of the stick. I think that was my first interaction with them and they initiated it. Thankfully, I've no great interest in libertarianism or economics but unless they gain some clue fairly quickly I doubt that this will be the last that they see of me, even though I'll keep off their talk page. (At the rate that they are progressing, everyone will be banned from it before too much longer). - Sitush (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this whole situation is a real mess. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It's telling that I know who you are talking about and there is not even a name mentioned. What gets me is the arrogance and entitlement...Editors don't seem to get very far on Wikipedia with that attitude unless they have a long track record of article contributions (work that isn't TP comments). Liz Read! Talk! 21:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI revdel

Hey, thanks for cleaning up--don't know why I didn't do the other two. Listen, have a look at the editor's talk page, please; note their response and my edit. Perhaps that needs to be scrubbed as well. And while you're at it, read the article, if you will, and tell me if I'm missing something. Appreciate it, Drmies (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I've posted on his talk page. From what I understand of the saga, this individual was basically known for posting highly offensive, yet legal, content. I don't think it's fair to describe him as a pedophile. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW

If I could find the edit easily, I would have thanked you for your unblock (and block) of Locke. Both were, IMHO, spot on ES&L 09:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm glad to hear that. Hope to see you doing some blocking and unblocking soon! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Avengers

Didn't you see the comment was changed? Rusted AutoParts 18:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I didn't notice that. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This Edit

Someone seems to hate you? ///EuroCarGT 01:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've just given him one more reason to hate me... See also Special:Contributions/Markartsen. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Just saying thanks in response to my request for page protection. As always, keep it up! :) MrScorch6200 (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Brayton Purcell

You chose to interpret the reversion of blatantly promotional edits to this article as edit warring. There's nothing I can do to enforce neutrality with such a lack of admin support, so I wash my hands of it and would ask that you deal with the current state of the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The reason I declined to protect was because it was only one IP adding the promotional content. So I thought it would make more sense to seek sanctions against that IP than protect the page. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Then why did you say, as I linked above, that this was a case of edit warring, which implies that the person reverting the edits in question is equally at fault with the spammer? When a good-faith editor raises such an issue for admin attention then is is incumbent on the admin dealing with it to take whatever action is necessary, not to fob people off with a boilerplate rationale that doesn't address the issue raised. You are responsible for the current state of this article. Are you proud of it? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I did not mean to imply that you were at fault there, and I apologize if I wasn't clear. I do think the IP is disruptive and I would suggest seeking sanctions against it on a noticeboard. I generally decline to protect if one IP is causing problems on an article, because I think it is better to take out the disruptive IP and leave the page open for others. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

CIGNEX Datamatics Page

Hi Mark,

I was creating a fresh page titled CIGNEX Datamatics. The submission process suggests you had rejected a similar post earlier. Would you be interested in reviewing the fresh one I am drafting? Rahultheinvader (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Interstellar

Hello Mr. Arsten. I've seen that you have been very accommodating to one of my friends, Favre1fan93. I wanted to ask you if you could evaluate the situation going on at this talk page, regarding the authenticity of this file? The title tells the story, as a few users have boldly reverted the addition of the poster being used in the article. Thanks in advance! - Mainstreammark (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a pretty tricky issue. I'm not sure I can be of much help here, but I'd generally suggest erring on the side of caution unless there's a reliable source as to its authenticity. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The poster comes from a site that is considered to be a reliable source, the thing is that some users still like to think that the poster is fan-made, one user even thought that I made the poster. Lol. Thanks for trying though. - Mainstreammark (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, well, if you do have a reliable source confirming it, I think you could keep it in. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Dancpublisher

Hi Mark I am new to editing Wkipedia's and have only worked on a few but the few I've done I've put a ton of work into them and would hate for them to be deleted. So thank you for your input. I'm doing my best to keep up with the demands of wikipedia and keep updating but I feel as if I always run into the same user trying to decline and report all of my work and before I can fix it they just delete it before I can find the proper sources. I know there are better sources out there for the subjects I'm writing about but it takes me longer to find them because of my disabilities. i don't know if this is just someone out to delete all my content on purpouse or am I really doing something that's wikipedia illeagal. Let me know if there is a way to fix this. I would gladly take any tips and suggestions you have. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danwardpublisher (talk • contribs) 22:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

What topics are you writing about? I might be able to point you in the direction of another Wikipedian who works on them. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Garrett Thief DS.jpg

Please restore. --Niemti (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For blocking User:Küñall, who, as a long-time user, ought to know better, about a lot of things. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Oooh, I just realized who that was... I hadn't noticed the username change last year. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The Glover Park Group

Mark, why did you semi-protect The Glover Park Group? You said it was for sockpuppetry, but that article has had less than 10 edits in the last year, all of them were gnomish, and none of them were done by a sock. Was that an error (like the wrong article)? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at it again, that was a mistake. I was protecting pages recently edited by that IP since it was used by a very persistent sockmaster this week and I got the timestamps confused and did an unrelated page. Thanks for pointing that out. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Cool beans. It probably doesn't matter so much either way given the low level of interest there. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

NOJA Power Page

Honest question: did you hire someone to write an article for you? It was deleted because it seemed to have been made by a paid-editor/sockpuppet network, which is generally against our rules. If this was a mistake on our part, I apologize. If you would like to have an article on your company, please submit one to the articles for creation project (disclosing your relationship with the company) and it can probably be published after being reviewed for compliance with our WP:COI guideline. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mark for the response. We are quite new to the world of wiki. The editor was suggested from a forum. I have made a article request for NOJA Power. Would you or others be interested in co writing about NOJA Power? Thanks (JeremyDavis03 (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)).

I probably won't be able to, but you could probably ask for help at a relevant Wikiproject. What industry is the company in and where is it based? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

We have been around for some time. since 2004. Our HQ Factory Office is in Australia Brisbane, we have Factory Office in Brazil and offices around the world. We are in the electrical transmission and distribution industry. We manufacture, research and develops switchgear products and export them around the world. (JeremyDavis03 (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)) www.nojapower.com.au — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremyDavis03 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, try asking at WT:WikiProject Australia, WT:WikiProject Electrical engineering. and maybe WT:WikiProject Cooperation. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mark! Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremyDavis03 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Your reply to Friend7241998's unblock request was just plain funny. It made me laugh, so cheers, relax, and have a beer! MrScorch6200 (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Glad you liked it :) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy Mayfield

Hey Mark. I noticed you popped up on my Wikipedia page when I was trying to write the correct information about MY life. I don't need resources. I think I am more qualified to speak about my life and experiences, so if you need a resource. It is me. If you have any questions, let me know. JM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremyamayfield (talk • contribs) 01:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we generally discourage people from writing about themselves actually, see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Mark, recently a obvious promotional/COI account User: RashaadGold, had been making very promotional and not WP:NPOV edits to the Kokane article, of course without providing any sources at all. For very obvious reasons I reverted the edits, and if you see by this edit the user is now making legal threats against me. I am pretty sure Wikipedia has a no tolerance policy when it comes to these type of things, so I am not sure what actions to take against the user. Also not sure if a block is warranted, but the account is clearly a COI. STATic message me! 04:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that qualifies for an WP:NLT block. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Mark, glad I can always count on you for quick help in these situations. STATic message me! 04:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Worldedixor again

At this point, all I can do is refer you both to WP:ANI if you'd like to seek sanctions against the other user. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Could you do me a favour and take a look at Talk:Aida Nikolaychuk. User:Worldedixor, who you recently blocked and then unblocked regarding edit warring, seems incapable of actually discussing article content without personalising the discussion, and has been making endless accusations of my acting in bad faith - apparently triggered by me pointing out that the article needs sourcing. S/he seems to display severe ownership issues, and seems intent on intentionally misrepresenting policy (including bizarrely citing WP:3RR as a justification for edit-warring material into the article), and on adding unsourced trivia so other people can source it later. I only got involved with this article in the first place because it needed attention from someone familiar with policy, and frankly, regret doing so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Ukrainian reality TV is far from my area of expertise, but I'll take a look at it tomorrow. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mark, to correct inaccurate "verifiable" facts stated above. I placed the name of Aida's "non-notable" minor child in the article. AndyTheGrump reverted it. I reverted it and initiated discussion in the Talk section after thoroughly verifying that "non-notable" children of notable people are indeed allowed on Wikipedia. Examples: Adam Sandler's children , Jessica Alba's children and many more. AndyTheGrump did a 3RR and willfully ignored ANY discussion with me on the subject and even went as far as flagrantly violate Wikepedia's policy by deleting my question on his wall and calling me a patronizing and inflammatory name [32]. He has been blocked more times than most yet the same pattern of his seems to be systematically repeated. Only when I explained 3RR to him did he respond to one of my discussions and has been evasive about the INCONSISTENCY in his edits. For your verification and guidance, I discussed with him "You removed Maksim's name alleging it violated Wikepdia policy, otherwise you would have been in the wrong removing it in the first place. The burden is obviously on you since you know policy more than me, and you based your action on policy. So, please take a moment to explain to me what exact provision of policy did this and the other articles (Sandler's children , Jessica Alba's children, President Obama's children, Shakira's child) violate in stating the names of minor non-notable children of notable persons." If he has done nothing wrong, and ALL minor children of notable persons should be removed, then please guide me and I will be the first to applaud him, and I will simply accept his behavior or just avoid editing Wikepedia as it is not worth dealing with his attitude. Worldedixor (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The above has little connection with reality, as the discussion on the talk page makes entirely clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I've finally lost my temper with this prime exhibit of passive-aggressive infantile cluelessness. [33] It seems obvious to me that despite editing Wikipedia since 2006, Worldedixor doesn't have the faintest concept of Wikipedia policy, and is self-evidently a net liability to the project. Even ignoring this current nonsense over Aida Nikolaychuk, it is obvious that Worldedixor has no regard for proper sourcing, for NPOV, or for anything else. The last article that Worldedixor edited in any detail prior to recent events is DHgate.com - I'll leave you to have a look yourself, and decide whether someone who has been around as long as Worldedixor can be trusted within 100 yards of a keyboard. Feel free to block me for calling this infantile jerk an infantile jerk - but please take a good look at what s/he has been up to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I too have had enough but I did not break policy, I did not react nor cursed nor called you names, and I continued to act in good faith pending review by the admin. You do not know me. I am a human being with emotions after all, and emotions are fragile and you have no idea how your badgering and nitpicking in everything I do affects me? After all you did and said about me, it is unbearably hard to be civil but I will not break policy. You have obviously "singled me out" and removed more of my edits in the DhGate article even though it was all well sourced and there are thousands of documented complaints. But, I will NOT revert them until I have the time to check the policy since you already stated that this was not consistent with policy. What else do you want from me? I will leave it in the hands of Wikipedia administration to address your actions against me. Worldedixor (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mark, I sincerely apologize that you have to review all this including the name calling, the cursing and the insults against me. I will NOT reciprocate and will not edit any of AndyTheGrump's edits in retaliation. Per policy, I tried to discuss his behavior in an appropriate forum on his talk page. He did not respond, he even deleted my message. I also avoided becoming hostile, cursing and insulting, even in the face of abuse, as per policy. A quick glance at his history reveals an unmistakable pattern of him using his superior knowledge of policy as a pretext to do to many other editors, what he did to me. Also he has been blocked more times than most, and he still did the same thing to me, and will do it to more unsuspecting editors in the future. To make a correction, I have only been editing here and there a little bit on Wikipedia since 2006 not full time. Not every editor will be familiar with all the intricate details of every provision of Wikipedia policy, and not many will be as knowledgeable as AndyTheGrump. He should use his superior knowledge to mentor editors who are decent people from respected, well known, families and deserve respect not insults when they come to edit in good faith by using words that help not words that hurt. I can assure you that he would behave completely differently, probably like a gentleman, if he was talking to me in person. Worldedixor (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump Hindering Progress

At this point, all I can do is refer you both to WP:ANI if you'd like to seek sanctions against the other user. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi again Mark. There is something that I just cannot define, and I need your help. I am working very hard on an article about a notable Ukrainian singer but I do not speak Ukrainian. I work very hard on it and it is not easy as is.

The user AndyTheGrump, who has been blocked more times than most (please refer to his block history), is "selectively" using Wikipedia policy as a pretext to hinder my progress with warring edits and baiting me in a patronizing, passive aggressive manner knowing that I do not know policy well and he has the edge. I followed your advice in discussing everything with him, and as hard as makes it, I am still being civil and employing patience. He ignores my discussions, is never responsive to my questions, and when I post a question on his wall, he deletes it with nasty remarks.

I would appreciate if you can take a look at my attempt to plead my case with him and discuss things with him in good faith at [34].

Is it right what he is doing in demoralizing me and forcing me to waste so much time to try to explain everything to him? and should I just close Wikepedia and forget about editing all together?... I do not have free time. I just want to be able to edit in a few minutes and go back to my real life...

Thank you in advance for your adjudication, advice and guidance. Take care. Worldedixor (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It's getting late here, so I can't do too much research on the issue for now. Some general advice though: pick your battles wisely. Don't make too big a deal out of the inclusion or exclusion of small details from the article. Does it really matter if the name of her son is included? Mark Arsten (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
First, let me wish you a good night, Mark. It is not only about the inclusion of her son, and you can say to him the same thing, especially that on this one point, policy and "case law" support inclusion of her son's name. If policy is not 100% uniformly CONSISTENT throughout Wikipedia, it is no longer a policy. AndyTheGrump has not added ANY content to the article... nothing... yet he is "selectively" using policy to hinder progress and "selectively" ignoring other policy requirements which shows bad faith. I am sure you will be unbiased and fair in assessing what is happening correctly with a clear mind tomorrow after you see what my good faith intention is (including my thinking out of the box), the hard work I put in, and the policy pretexts used by AndyTheGrump to make a hard task much harder. But, if AndyTheGrump has done nothing wrong, and if everything that he is doing, that in my opinion, is demoralizing, is allowed, then I will respectfully recuse myself from editing Wikipedia. Worldedixor (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Worldedixor: Mark is, of course, right that whether to include the son's name is a small thing, and it's simply not worth getting upset about it. That said, Andy is not behaving well in this matter. I haven't carefully reviewed the history here, but I can see there've been some problems that precede the name dispute. I wouldn't continue the discussion with Andy on the talk page as it's not going to go anywhere. I've removed Andy's personal attack against you as it was truly nasty. If the son's name matters that much to you, one thing you can do is to take it to WP:BLPN to get a wider audience. But you might consider spending your time on more important issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much Bbb23. I knew that Wikipedia administration would never allow all that AndyTheGrump has subjected me to over the last 24 hours. Please take your time to read all the communication between me and him, and take the appropriate action against his inappropriate behavior, considering his history of patronizing and intimidating editors. In brief, I worked extremely hard to build content and consent in this article about a notable Ukraianian singer. AndyTheGrump did not add any useful content, yet he used his superior policy knowledge as a pretext and a license to hinder the article progress, stalk me, patronize me, call me names, and leave me nasty insults, sometimes reverting my edits seconds after I made them. Please I do not want AndyTheGrump to ever stalk me, single me out, call me names or curse me again, and I will continue to act in good faith. I will also follow your advice and cut all commination with that man and respectfully ask for a type of restraining order. As for the insertion of Aida's child's name, it is my strong opinion that WP:BLP expressly authorizes me to insert it. This is strongly evidenced by many pertinent articles including those of Adam Sandler, Shakira, etc.... However, I have already put my opinion to vote to seek consensus, and I will just wait and let other contributing editors guide me before I make a decision. Thank you very much for doing what is right... I sincerely appreciate it! Worldedixor (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Weird ANI archiving

Please see this comment. I'm not very well and am unlikely to be active for a fair few hours yet. - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the problem has been solved, hope you feel better soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Thanks for blocking every single user who was reported at AIV, but one was in fact an account and not an IP. Ginsuloft (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh God, what's worse is that this isn't the first time I've done that recently... Mark Arsten (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Doubt

What is the standard process to deal with an user after the ANI leads to nothing?

Right now I'm finding a hard time with an editor who (according to himself) has little knowledge of Portuguese but has added guides on how to pronounce names in Portuguese on several articles.

I reported him at the ANI[35] but he has friends who create an artificial appearance of support to him. Is this allowed to happen? I mean, can someone who doesn't even know how to speak Portuguese add pronunciation guides on that language? --Lecen (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I would tend to agree that one should know how to speak a language before telling others how to do so. Other than ANI you could post on relevant WikiProjects or hold a talk page Rfc. If it's an IPA problem, Help talk:IPA might be a good place to find someone who knows what he's talking about. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
This is not content dispute. It's user conduct. If he doesn't speak Portuguese he shouldn't be adding IPA all over Wikipedia. What can I do to stop him? --Lecen (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, usually ANI is the place for that. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

About 2009–10 Iranian election protests

According to HumanRightsWatch link "Neda Agha was several kilometers away from protests, she was struck in a traffic jam, and there were no Basij forces when she was killed" According to FoxNews,CNN etc. "Neda Agha was going to protest and she was killed by Basij". Why Rezashah4 (talk) is removing HumanRightsWatch report and posting FoxNews lies in this artice?
According to FoxNews,CNN etc. "Sarin gas was used by Assad Govt." According to United Nations report "It was rebels who used Sarin gas". Why shouldn't we add news from UnitedNations,HumanRightsWatch reports instead of FoxNews,CNN etc.??
Why Rezashah4 (talk) is removing Russian/Iranian point of view which I mentioned in 2lines with citation of rt.com & BBC Farsi links. whole article is Pro American. I am not removing American point of view I just mentioned Russia/Iran point of view but he is removing Russian/Iranian point of view. Please make this article neutral by mentioning both(USA & Russia/Iran) point of views.Thank you SpidErxD (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm probably not going to get involved in the details, but the first thing to do is to stop edit warring. Then the best advice I can give is to follow the procedures laid out at WP:DR for how to solve disputes. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Please help, this issue cannot be solved through discussion. I am posting HumanRightsWatch report but he is posting FoxNews,CNN report.
Please tell me HumanRightsWatch report is more authentic than FoxNews,CNN,BBC etc. reports or not? If FoxNews,CNN reports are more authentic then HumanRightWatch report I wont edit this article. Thank You SpidErxD (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Please Answer my question.Thank you SpidErxD (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response. I'm not familiar with the reliability of Human Rights Watch, to be honest. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The VeggieTales Vandal

Hey, thanks for that string of protects you slapped onto the various articles affected by The VeggieTales vandal. Now if we could only figure out what to do about this dude... I know that @Bonusballs: would probably see to it that there was a hamburger in your future.  :) I'd buy the fries. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Lol, I'll take a look. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Block for edit warring

Hello Mark,

the day before yesterday you blocked 158.58.234.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours because of edit warring. As soon as the block expired, the anonymous user resumed edit warring at Attack (political party). It seems like here are other consequences necessary. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Scary Editor

This editor is placing edits and undoing them. It's making me scared. Does this count as disruptive editing? ///EuroCarGT 00:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Now that is a weird way to waste your time... I left a final warning and will block if he keeps messing around. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I was looking at Special:RecentChanges, I keep my eyes on high traffic edits, mass editing and etc. this one caught me. ///EuroCarGT 00:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I meant that the IP was wasting his time, not that you were wasting your time by watching him... people do come up with some sneaky vandalism strategies. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and that is true! ///EuroCarGT 01:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you so much for reverting vandalism on my talk page! Very appreciated. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 02:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Glad to help. That was sure some strange vandalism! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you! ProudGamecock (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Please...

Dear Mark, hope you are doing good. I have a huge favor to ask you. This article is currently at FAC and it is almost ready. It has two supports and according to one reviewer who is still reluctant to support, the article passes all criteria except the prose which he thinks could be improved by a quick copy-editing. Could you please have a look as soon as possible? Best Regards, Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look, probably won't be until Monday though. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
It's okay. I will wait. Thank you. Regards, Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the PROD on Lauren Schnipper

Hey Mark Arsten. Just wanted to let you know that I added a reference to the Lauren Schnipper article. In effect, I removed your posted {{proposed deletion}} request. Steel1943 (talk) 07:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Hi. I need a second opinion on the nature of this: Special:Contributions/2601:D:380:B5:A9D0:49CD:553:41C2 (don't worry, it's not long). Looks like we've got a wee bit of trouble here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, it doesn't seem like obvious vandalism. Are the changes it's been making incorrect? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, yeah; very wrong. He has added SkyDrive, Outlook.com and Windows Azure to Category:Companies based in Palo Alto, California; they are not companies at all and their producer, Microsoft, is based on Redmond, WA. Same goes for Microsoft Studios edit. California seems to be a theme here. As for obviousness, well, WP:SNEAKY! But I can't say I am convinced. I'd love to check adjacent IP addresses... except it is an IPv6 address; I'm not sure I can do this manually in the whole time of one lifetime. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, Ok. Let me know if it starts up with the changes again. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Just adding my two bits. I'd supply this editor some WP:ROPE first before blocking him as a vandal. He or she may just be mistaken. So I think Mark is taking the right course....William 14:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I spoke too soon. Here's another edit[36] that had to be reverted. It was done twelve minutes before my previous post.
Alright, I left him a final warning. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
He's still doing it[37]....William 01:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Capitol shooting incident (2013)

Can you please elaborate on the close on this; specifically which of the !vote keeps successfully addressed the lack of any demonstrated "enduring notability" as per NOT ? LGA talkedits 01:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

To clarify my close: several of the Keep supporters made reasonable arguments, noting the depth of sourcing and the highly unusual circumstances around the event. While most events do not receive articles, it is the longstanding practice to have articles on highly covered, exceptional events. Whether this was such an event is debatable, and I don't feel a consensus was reached on that point. It's not my place as the closing admin to select which side of the argument I agree with and cast a supervote, I'm limited to enforcing consensus, or noting a lack thereof. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Sanctions

Since you're the admin who officially warned me about Ayn Rand discretionary sanctions, I thought this might be relevant. MilesMoney (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I notified him of DS. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Please advise: Are responding comments or explanations on the DS log permitted or advised? I hate having my name posted as the very first item :-( Truly, my effort was to get the 3 different but related discussions somewhat consolidated. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand that you were acting in good faith, but I would be very careful about closing discussions on topics that you've been involved with in the future. All that the note in the log means is that you were notified that the area is under sanctions. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mark. The following is a message that I posted with Bbb23. I had posted an explanation on the Sanctions notice page and Bbb23 understandably removed it.

Hello: Forgive me for being a little frustrated. I hope you know that the notice I got from Mark Arsten was posted because I had closed a third discussion on issues already under discussion on two other notice boards. But here are the results of that notice (not in chronological order):

  • [38] Steeletrap mentions
  • [39] Sitush mentions, quoting Specifico. (I'm not clear why Sitshi posted this. It seems to be a rebuttal to Specifico.)
  • [40] Specifico mentions that Steeletrap had pointed out the notice
  • [41] Specifico says "Apparently no Admin saw fit to warn Miles, because only Srich has received a warning under the General Sanctions thus far."

None of these had any relevance to the topics at hand, e.g., a topic ban for MilesMoney or the editing taking place on Robert P. Murphy. But I hope you see how the notice is being misused. I'm going to post a copy of this message with Mark as well. I ask both of you – can anything be done? I prefer and ask that the "notice" be removed. It has served its purpose with me (about the hatting the discussion), but it is being misused by others. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 has replied to me. No interference with your action. I await your reply. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
And now, in the guise of "friendly advice", Specifico says I am forum shopping: [42]. – S. Rich (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The notice was given in regards to a minor transgression, and shouldn't be used against you in the future. You're free to use this diff to rebut claims that you were warned for a serious violation. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello gents. Just to be clear about this, having seen Srich's diffs. Nobody said he was warned for a serious violation and the diffs really show me nothing that would warrant the level of concern he apparently feels about this. Over and out. SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
SPECIFICO is correct. We just used the word that the page used: "notice", and Rich is misrepresenting us as having distorted the context or blew it out of proportion. I would however support another notice based on his misrepresenting our remarks about the first notice. (ONLY KIDDING RICH!) Steeletrap (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to protect subpages of userpages?

For example User:EuroCarGT/____(red link, just using it as an example)? ///EuroCarGT 19:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I don't see why not. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
So is it possible to protect User:EuroCarGT/Terms? Or will it protect the main userpage? ///EuroCarGT 19:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

TheREALCableGuy

Seems instead of just giving up they waited out the clock to continue their removals of content on the September semi-protect targets after the periods were lifted, also persisting on KTUD-CD under various open proxies. I really wish I knew what to do; other LTA socks have just given up after months of their block but this one just won't stop digging around for new hole-filled numbers to edit under. Nate • (chatter) 02:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking into it now. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, protected thirty or so of his recent targets. Let me know if he hits any others and I'll get them too. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Maum Meditation

I tried to find the discussion on the deletion of the Maum Meditation entry, but I couldn't find any-thing beyond the comment by Gbawden and you note that it was deleted on the [[43]] page. Was there no discussion? Since this organization allegedly has over 320 branches (brochure put out by the organization), it seems it meets notability at least at first blush. A quick look at hits for the term in scholar.google.com shows what at least look like reputable second-party sources. I don't know any-thing about the organization and its method of meditation, so I don't feel up to editing, but I don't see why the article was deleted instead of modified.Kdammers (talk) 05:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, could you provide some of the reliable secondary sources for me to look at? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
As I said, I don't know any-thing about the organization. I just picked up a brochure and then tried to find out about it by looking in Wik. Using scholar.google.com, I get, e.g.,

[CITATION] The effects of MAUM meditation on hwa-byung symptoms, medical health condition, self esteem and anger, stress coping methods JY Jeong - A dissertation for master degree in counseling …, 2005 Cited by 2 Related articles Cite

Transforming Leadership to Achieve a Culture of Oneness through Maum Meditation B Yu - Leadership Forum, 2012 - stti.confex.com It is well understood that organizational culture can drive performance, success, and sustainability of health care systems (Kane-Urrabazo, 2006). American Organization of Nurse Executives (2007) Guiding Principles statement on Culture of Mutual Respect and ... All 2 versions Cite More

[PDF] from ccsenet.org The Effects of School-Based Maum Meditation Program on the Self-Esteem and School Adjustment in Primary School Students YG Yoo, IS Lee - Global journal of health science, 2013 - ccsenet.org Abstract Self-esteem and school adjustment of children in the lower grades of primary school, the beginning stage of school life, have a close relationship with development of personality, mental health and characters of children. Therefore, the present study aimed ... Related articles All 6 versions Cite [CITATION] Consciousness and bodily interrelationship research2: Analysis of Psychosomatic Medicine Effects and Principle of MAUM Meditation SY Lee - 한국정신과학학회지, 2001 - 한국정신과학학회 Cite

마음수련 프로그램이 초등학교 저학년 아동의 학교생활에 미치는 효과 유영경， 이은진， 정광영 - 아동교육, 2013 - papersearch.net ... Home>학술논문>검색결과. 마음수련 프로그램이 초등학교 저학년 아동의 학교생활에 미치는 효과 The Effects of Maum Meditation program on their School Life in the lower grades in Primary School Children. - 발행기관, 한국아동교육학회. ... Cite More Kdammers (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like there are some sources. I'd suggest created a sourced draft in your userspace then I'll consider moving it to articlespace. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Cory Booker

Someone requested the unprotection of Cory Booker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a page you protected, at WP:RFUP. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 06:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark, I'm not sure it's a good faith request. I almost declined it myself but decided to wait for you. The requesting editor made 12 edits to RFPP in less than five hours on Sunday, none of which were necessary. I gave him a little warning on his talk page about disruption – maybe more than one of us should keep an eye on him. KrakatoaKatie 07:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've declined it there. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Unilateral major deletion of content from MV Seaman Guard Ohio page

Hi, can you do something about the major deletion of content [44] from the MV Seaman Guard Ohio page by a user called TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom. This was done with total disregard to the comments left by several users including yourself on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident. Thanks. 109.128.150.134 (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest discussing the matter on the talk page and then possibly opening an WP:RFC if you're unable to reach an agreement. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Robert Andrew Johnson

Hi, could you possibly explain why this page was deleted? There were as many comments to keep the page as to delete it so I don't understand? Isn't the system supposed to be democratic? Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.209.138 (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a common misconception actually, Afd is not a vote, what matters is the strength of the arguments. In this case, I felt that the supporters of deletion made stronger arguments. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing this up. I am happy to make changes to the original page (which currently has the User Name Edward Miller in front of Dominic Johnson) but I could not work out how which is why I made this new page in the first place - this page is hard to find with this username in front. In order to assist with this, could you possibly advise me how I could make it into a real page rather than a username/ page?

Could you link me to the page you're talking about? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Edwardmillerwiki/DominicJohnson many thanks for your assistance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvpars (talk • contribs) 18:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

My advice is to edit the draft and add citations to more reliable third-party sources, i.e. books, magazines, newspapers, that have written about this individual. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again

Thanks for helping out with the Mohammed Ali Khalid / Just A Common Guy / Jacob Pabst problem. We make a little difference every day... bobrayner (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, let me know if I can help in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops

No intention of starting a wheel war, but I fully protected while you were semi-protecting. diff. Feel free to reverse my decision if you think semi is preferable. --GraemeL (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Time for a WHEEL WAR... err, maybe not actually. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Pofka (talk · contribs)

Ive filed a ANI and 3RR notice and am getting no admin help, can you please step in and inform the user about WP:NFCC? Werieth (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Jojhutton

There has to be some kind of violation to that user's edits, because it kept removing the Under construction tags from the two articles I described for no apparent reason, and it hasn't been several days since the last edit, which is clearly that the user is vandalizing the articles. Blurred Lines 19:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is just such a trivial issue. Why does it matter if you do or do not have under construction tags on the article? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Well for starters, the devices hasn't even been released yet, and I don't think that there is enough information about them, and it hasn't been several days since the last edit. That's why I recommend leaving the tag until the device has been released, there is enough info about the devices, and that after a last edit in several days has been made. Blurred Lines 19:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, but why is it worth fighting about? Is the article really being harmed by the removal of the tag? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, clearly the template said unless that an edit wasn't made after several days, remove it. That user didn't even care what the template said, and just remove it, and the last edit that was made before he removed it was yesterday. That means that the user is ignoring what the template says. Blurred Lines 19:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
That's actually a good application of WP:IAR. A couple of small edits should not prevent removal of that template on an article which will see substantial editing by many users this week. --NeilN talk to me 20:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I see it the same way. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
So, are you guys suggesting that we should add the template back to the articles, and tell the user not to remove it again? Blurred Lines 20:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The article is not under construction, so the template doesn't belong on it. --GraemeL (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
It is under construction, because for starters, the devices didn't even release yet, and there is barely enough information about the products from Apple. Blurred Lines 20:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the template is intended to stop editors having to deal with edit conflicts while performing major work on articles, not as a form of protection. My advice is to leave the template off and enter a request af WP:RFPP if there is too much vandalism or speculation going on. If the article needs it, I'll be happy to protect it until the release date of the gizmo.

Anyway, Mark seems disinterested in this discussion, so this will be my last input here. --GraemeL (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the deleted comment at ANI

I got notified that there was an edit conflict but didn't see the new text in the diffs, like the edit interface is supposed to. —C.Fred (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No prob, it seems to be happening to everyone lately. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

The Helping Hand Barnstar
Thank you so much for your kind help which i have requested you to perform at large quantity. And i am Sorry if i have caused some troubles on these time! You deserve this. Thank you so much! --    L o g  X   19:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Glad to help :) Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of IRV to other systems

I used the chart at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_instant_runoff_voting_to_other_voting_systems for a class I teach every semester. When I sent my students to it over the weekend, however, they told me it had been deleted. Is there a place where that information can still be found? The page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_was_the_page_I_created_deleted%3F says that the information is not gone, but I cannot seem to find it. I had decided to save a copy of it just in case, but of course it was deleted before I could do so. Any help you can give me?

I can give you a copy, but you'll have to register an account for me to do so. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've done that. Thank you!

Your help...

I was just about to post to you before you intervened. Thank you. Is there any more you can do? I went to oversight to ask for suppression of those posts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the OS got there pretty quick. I blocked him and semi-d your page for the night. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very very much. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

So CheckUser confirmed that User:Mainstreammark was behind the user who gave me trouble last night, which was my suspicion. Is there anything additionally that can be done in terms of blocking them (beyond the month block that was given to them), based on what was done? I had recently suspected Mainstreammark of either being a sock, or having multiple people run the account, because there was a parity in the style they used when responding and editing as of late. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just indef blocked Mainstreammark for harassing you with a sockpuppet. Let me know if you see any block evasion. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I will be on the look out for any suspicious activity. Hopefully this is all over with. I appreciate you coming to aid in the reverts on my talk page so quickly. Also, would the IP (99.227.161.131) need the same type of block, as they are also associated with the two accounts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

And here is a barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for not only being a great administrator on Wikipedia, but for helping me recently with my issue and for assisting myself and others that approach you directly, or through the request sites you monitor. Your work does not go unnoticed! Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm glad to help, especially when it comes to dealing with harassment. I think the IP should be caught up in the autoblock, but I'll take a look. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Partido da Imprensa Golpista

This article was blocked for 3 days and the user Al Lemos simply ignored the talk page. I therefore believe that my version is completely valid, since he not even tried to argue. I want to warn you, however, something very serious: Al Lemos fled to Portuguese Wikipedia, began to create the same partial articles he created here (after ten months without editing NOTHING at Pt-Wiki), and he still calling an administrator of Wiki PT to chase me, look this: https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Lord_Mota&diff=prev&oldid=37200825. And in his words, I'm doing cyberbullying and harassment... He is so angry with me, that is trying to block me anyway, by cross-wiki harassment. He is mocking your request to talk on the talk page of the articles, and trying to prove a point of view. I pray earnestly that user need to be blocked in all Wikipedias, by cross-wiki vandalism. This is totally unacceptable. Rauzaruku (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't do anything about what happens on pt.wiki, only what happens on en.wiki matters here. Is there anything specific you'd like me to do here? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
And about this abusive and imperative behavior of this user? He reverts my edits without justification, begins to insult me ​​and accuse me of a lot of things, then he doesn't answer anything on the talk page (proving that he has nothing to argue, just want to impose viewpoint) and still goes to Wikipedias in other languages ​​to make the same kind of abuse (impose his point of view). And yet commented on ironic, "the administrator told me to discuss on the talk page, see if you can go there in Wiki-en influence the administrator to block this guy." This is a very great abuse. Rauzaruku (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Can you provide links to the edits where he insulted you? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=578628615 - Offending me by accuse me of being account for "promotional purposes"-he did not even try to see my contributions during months where I'm killing myself to extend swimming section of Wikipedia.
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkwind&diff=prev&oldid=578683655 - "inserting his own partisan political POV "-no, I was just putting information he purposely hid. He is insulting me, calling me a partial user, when he is the partial here. And keep lying, saying I am "threatening".
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodrigo_Constantino&diff=prev&oldid=578942166 - Here he begins to invent that I am "Rodrigo Constantino follower" (I've never seen him, I'm not even customary reader of texts or articles of him, I only know this name because he had a certain impact with the Caviar Left text-and he not even quoted this text) and I have an "agenda" (insulting me by calling me single-purpose account, when I'm here a long time editing articles that have nothing to do with politics)
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rauzaruku&diff=prev&oldid=578943541 - Here he says "I do not live in YOUR kind of democracy," oh yeah, I think his model of democracy is Cuba, because he didn'tt make the minimum strength to counter-argue my edits on discussion pages, just tried to block me, made total reversals of all that I've edited, and now it's gone, fled... and other angry accusation: "And I'm accusing you of cyberstalking and cyberbullying," oh yeah, I think it is he who makes it, against people of biographies that he edits... this editor loves a controversy section. He writes the basic minimum on the subject (omitting much relevant information), then it starts to create a large section of invented and nonexistent Controversies, where there was no big discussion about it, at most places a blog (who happens to hate the related person) who made some sort of dispute about it, when isn't HE who thinks it is controversial, and posts a source with only the original text, without indicating the "great debate" or the impact of the "controversial" issue. Basically he creates articles to try to attack biographees through unproven controversies. Or just insert this "controversies". Rauzaruku (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI Mark, I'm the WP:OTHERPARENT in this matter. --GraemeL (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashmi_Singh_%28author%29

Can you please review this article and give a look at the deletion page's debate. Can you also please review the reverted links and lines? Ananyaprasad (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what reverted links are we talking about here? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Swaminarayan

Hello I was wondering if you could help me with editing a article for swaminarayan:

The Criticism section has been discussed and here is a suggested expansion. Any input would be helpful.

Several decades after formation of the movement, Swami Dayananda (1824–1883) questioned the acceptance of Swaminarayan as the Supreme Being and was disapproving towards the idea that visions of Swaminarayan could form a path to attaining perfection. Accused of deviating from the Vedas, his followers were criticised for the illegal collection of wealth and the "practice of frauds and tricks."[1] In the views of Swami Dayananda, published as early as 1875, it was a "historical fact" that Swaminarayan decorated himself as Narayana in order to gain followers.[2] Swaminarayan was criticized because he received large gifts from his followers and dressed and traveled as a Maharaja even though he had taken the vows of renunciation of the world.[3]

Swaminarayan initiated reforms in both relationships without totally abolishing sex discrimination or caste differentiation. The interpretation and application of Swaminarayan’s reform raise two hotly debated issues of contemporary social ethics, the position of women society and the role of caste.[4] However, while "many would assert that Swaminarayan Hinduism serves a patriarchal agenda, which attempts to keep women in certain roles", Swaminarayan himself, despite considerable criticism from those in his own contemporary society who "loathed the uplift of lower caste women," insisted that education was the inherent right of all people.[5] According to Professor David Hardiman, "Swaminarayan's actions have propagated a vicious form of patriarchy that subjugates women."[6] After traveling throughout India, he was reported to vomit even if approached by even the shadow of a women."[7][8] Practices set forth by him seem to restrict women and make gender equality in leadership impossible.[9] Professor Williams states, “No women are trustees of the religion nor do they serve on any managing committees of the major temples. Thus all the wealth and institutions are effective under the control of men.”[10] Concepts of pollution associated with the menstrual cycle lead to the exclusion of women from the temples and daily worship.[11] In case of widows, he directed those who could not follow the path of chastity to remarry. For those who could, he lay down strict rules which included them being under the control of male members of the family. This may seem regressive; however it gave them "a respected and secure place in the social order" of the time.[12] He also directed male devotees not to listen to religious discourses given by women. Swaminarayan restricted widows "to live always under the control of male members of their family and prohibited them from receiving instruction in any science from any man excepting their nearest relations."[13][14]

In relation to caste, as already suggested, the Swaminarayan order was and is predominantly conservative. Caste Divisions are scarely effaced by membership of the order and Harijans were formly excluded from Swaminarayan temples.[15] Swaminarayan's sect dismissed caste as irrelevant to the soul's status before god though in practice, caste distinctions remained visible among them though reduced in complexity.[16] He would eat along with the Rajput and Khati castes but not any lower.[17] He established separate places of worship for the lower population where they were considerable.[18] In the Shikshapatri, he wrote do not take food or water from a person of a lower caste. Members of a lower caste are prohibited from wearing a full sect mark (tilak chandlo) on their forehead.[19] Even now, however, for the vast majority of Gujarat's lower-caste, Untouchable and tribal population, the sect is out of bounds.[20]

If you can help me out. It would be very beneficial as I dont want to make mistakes. I put it on the talk page too but I have been getting attacked their so I am seeking outside help. Watch this for me. Thank you

Bluespeakers (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I'll have time to look into this. I'd suggest trying for some input here. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It's just that you are a strong user and there are so many users that attack any critical information being posted. I know it's time consuming but coming from someone with some history and knowledge about wikipedia would help. The main issue is that some users want to treat this person as a god and other know that this man was nothing more than a person and was historically criticized. I think any thing you add would be of value. Thank you for your response. I will post it in the place you suggested but I am afraid I will get attacked.

Bluespeakers (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it's just that I find it hard to get up to speed on complicated disputes about subjects I really don't have any knowledge of. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you protect the article for some time?

Bluespeakers (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've protected it for one week. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I may need your support as that same user is trying to block me. I really used all the tools I had to get help and this user is obsessed with me. I am afraid that I will get blocked and a moderator might just do it. If you can check my history and note that I have not done anything malicious would help. They are trying to make me guily by association.

Bluespeakers (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I don't think either of you will be blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. You can see the all the contributions on the Swaminarayan article and clearly no response has been given by other users because I believe those group of users are waiting for my account to be blocked. I have been requesting help and responding to all allegations but they have a team that they belong to and they control the articles. They belong to the group Wikipedia:WikiProject Swaminarayan. They commonly patrol the articles and agree with each other for the sake of keeping the article the way they want denouncing systematically anyone who disagrees. As soon as discussions about the recent rape allegations came out about their sect, they have been extra controlling and quick to remove that information. They have a administrator Bbb23 that has block my partners in the past (I agree the went overboard but still I will make sure they appeal their cases) and I want to make sure that I get a fair case. This is really getting out of control and their ganging up on users is something that needs to be investigated.

I now stated on all the people that I have asked help from: I also want to know that I am apart of an ongoing sock investigation and I am currently fighting. Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Swamifraud. I do not want this to affect your ability to assist in this article so after reading some of the accusing parties attacks, I am displaying. Please take a look at the articles above and contribute because there are many people patrolling the articles making sure that their religious group is only being portrayed in a certain way.

Please let me know if I need to do anything else.

Bluespeakers (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark. There has been edit warring from both sides: anti-Swaminarayan (adding excessive criticism) and pro-Swaminarayan (whitewashing criticism and adding excessive praise). Now that one side Bluespeakers is banned as a suspected sock. the other side User:Bladesmulti is reverted again without discussion. (I have reverted to the GA version of Criticism.) Can you please advise him to follow WP:BRD. Both of them were just reverting and edit warring, but lately Bluespeakers was trying to have some discussion and have a consensus. Also, request to you to keep an eye on the article. Redtigerxyz Talk 06:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I already made discussion, you never replied even once with evidence, but only claimed "someone agreed in 2009", which is not even a point. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi Mark, one question about policy. Should comments of a sock be stricken out as "Banned sock" and should sock puppet contribution be ignored (cannot be integrated in article). --Redtigerxyz Talk 08:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Brother Redtigerxyz, in fact you can remove the contributions of a permanent banned sock(also if his master is permanent banned)... Bladesmulti (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Going back and retroactively striking all the contribs of someone who turned out to be a sock really isn't helpful in my opinion. Unless it's in an ongoing AFD etc. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Warky T. Chocobo

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Warky T. Chocobo. 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. LTC b2412 Troops Talk RFC Inbox 17:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

One more thing

At Swaminarayan just revert the last edit of the ip/Bluespeakers, since that one is what all of the people had agreed on, much before this conflict started by today. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you point me to where a consensus against the IP's version developed? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Also have a look at this[45] as this user has actually broken the 3RR once already. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


A consensus was never reached. The talk page is still open for the user to reply. I cannot imagine why this user thinks I broke the 3R rule when they deleted the criticism part first with out explanation. Then when I reverted it we went back and fourth. After I posted the links that supported what was already being deleted and they still had a problem with that so I sought out help. I have posted my rebuttal on this link [[46]] and these people really do not want certain information up. I explained it in detail and I cannot seem to get a moderator to understand that these people are controlling the article and ganging up on people that do not agree with their positive only portrayal of their religious group. The want to group me with other socks who I personally know who made mistakes and where angry at the conclusion of their research. I am just picking up where they were blocked of because I can. At the end of the day, I have not done anything wrong, sought out help and remained civil. Please keep and eye out and see that the correct approach is taken. I was reading the pillars of Wikipedia and it is so sad that vandals come in and want to manipulate the site for their own benefit. Please I beg you to take a look and see that I have no ill intention. I just want to make sure that the right unbiased information is being upheld. I swear this is not my purpose to bother you on Wikipedia but I am so taken back that I would get this severe resistance from group members that want to make sure that articles are only portrayed in a certain way. I am so sorry for taking your time. I can only imagine the stuff that you deal with on a constant basis with bigger topics. Thank you

Bluespeakers (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Now Bluespeakers has been permanently blocked for sock puppetry, You can unlock the page Swaminarayan now. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks ! Bladesmulti (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardiff North (geographical area)

Hi Mark, in September you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardiff North (geographical area) with a decision to merge this and the three related articles to Cardiff. I've been unable to do this because there is absolutely nothing that can be merged - the substance of the articles is unsourced and largely original research, there are already separate articles on each of the Cardiff neighbourhoods mentioned in the articles. How do you suggest I proceed? Maybe ask for a review of the decision? Sionk (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If there's nothing to merge, you can just redirect the articles. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Eric Corbett

I agree that the ArbCom is the only remaining forum to deal with Eric Corbett. "Community consensus" doesn't work in some situations. The first is when an editor is baited. Eric is a bear, and other editors poke the bear. There is typically no consensus, and there should be no consensus; there should be careful judgment. The second is when an editor has a reputation both as an "excellent content creator" but also as being chronically uncivil. Both problems apply here. Thank you for filing with the ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Arbitration is never fun, but sometimes it's the best option for everyone involved. I think that's the case here, but we'll see what the rest of the Arbs have to say. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Operational Krav Maga (OKM) Deletion

Hi Mark - can you please explain why you deleted this page (OCT 19th)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.142.33 (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You can see the reasons for the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operational Krav Maga. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Zadar semi protection

Hello! On 25 October you have semi-protected article Zadar from editing. It seems you have protected it from me, but for reasons that have nothing to do with me. I am not that IP in edit warring, that is probably one person I know who has asked me to interfere because of my profession, I have logged in and removed some vandalizations, that's all. I wanted to remove some other of abuse and manipulation of references that I saw, but now I can not do it until the day of 1st November. Nothing special, 2 days only, but I'm wondering, is this how you motivate new members who want to contribute to the quality? Is this normal pattern of behavior in Wikipedia, an administrator does not check the content and history of the conflict and the role of people involved, just robotic - administratively with respect only to the first impression of the nature of conflict? I'm asking this because I want to understand if there is any point to appear here and hope for the constructive experience? Stairsup1stleft (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

When IP editors are making a lot of edits that require reverts, we often do protect the page from unregistered users and new accounts. Even though it is protected, you can still request changes be made via an edit request on the talk page, see Wikipedia:Edit requests for details. In any case, edit warring (WP:EW) isn't allowed, even if you are right you should discuss the matter instead of continually reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Simon and Simon (Businessmen) deletion

Hi Mark. I see you're the one responsible for deleting the above mentioned article. I was the author. I believe there are valid grounds for having a Wiki article on these guys (given there's space for guys like Ian Schrager etc). What should I do to try and get it back?

Arneb6 (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, you'd have to convince me, or a group of editors at WP:DRV, that they meet the guideline at WP:NPEOPLE. Do you think they meet the guideline? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The Pride (London)

Hello Mark.I was about to create The Pride (London) when I found out that it had once existed, but was deleted. See here: 19:42, 17 August 2013 Mark Arsten (talk | contribs) deleted page The Pride (London) (Deleting redirects to "The Pride (skyscraper)" after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pride (skyscraper))

I've been spending quite a lot of time recently working through all the tall buildings in London updating them and correcting them etc. This building was indeed approved for construction, but has been superceeded by another application. I think I'm able to work out the right information to put on this article. Although it won't be built, I think the building is notable for three reasons: its size, that it has planning permission, and was designed by Foster + Partners. I'd like to recreate the article and give it a go.Seaweed (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest you create a well-sourced draft in your userspace and work on it there. Then, when you've finished, we can talk about deletion review or restoration. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Opinion

How is expressing opinion vandalism?

Sorry, but we shoot for facts rather than opinions in articles. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

So if I find an article and site it showing my opinion in web site form then its okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.65.92 (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, more or less. You should try to find a reliable source that confirms what you're adding and cite it with your addition. See WP:V & WP:RS for the exact policy. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the response and thanks for segregation my question since I wasnt sure how.

Alright, let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Sorry if I am not replying to this correctly.

I find it a bit odd that I was reported for vandalism while correcting the title of a film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.161.190 (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I have official links from production and distribution companies to confirm the title change to the proper American title as well.

My apologies if you weren't vandalizing, I thought you were just changing it to try to irritate people. The title of the film uses the British spelling, "Blue Is the Warmest Colour". If you'd like to change the article's title you should use the WP:RM process. If you have the official links that would be very helpful. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

3WR on Istrian Exodus

Well, protecting the page without any possibility of modification is exactly what User Direktor wanted. The issue is that he/she - without reason and refusing to discuss - just revert any modification. Is this normal? --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps a talk page WP:RFC would be the best step forward here? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

ACS

Hi Mark Arsten, there seems to be some opposition against the continuous block of Riccione's reasonable (see the House of Commons report, please) additions. Is this opposition a consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.169.44.154 (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're talking about. What is this in regards to? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

 Trick or Treat! Happy Halloween Mark Arsten! I hope you have a great day and remember to be safe if you go trick-or-treating tonight with friends, family or loved ones. Happy Halloween! —  dainomite   15:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Help spread Wikilove by adding {{subst:User:Dainomite/HappyHalloween}} to other users' talk pages whether they be friends, acquaintances or random folks.

Sabeel sock

Could you perhaps delete File:Amanat_Ali_DP.jpg without me messing about with more complex deletion procedures? You already know that the uploader is a sock and the subject is not deceased, as claimed - or, at least, Amanat Ali (singer) doesn't say that he has died. - Sitush (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

And File:Shahbaz_Sharif_new.jpg (same situation). Do we need to check all file uploads by the master and his socks? - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I deleted them both under G5. It might be a good idea to look into the rest, not that you have to be the one to do so though. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I could find no others. - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is your user page template protected?

You have the only template protected user page. I'm wondering why, as it seems like an inappropriate use of the protection. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, when template protection was first enabled I wanted to test if it would work on non-templates. Never got around to changing the protection back. (I'm a bit absent minded at times, if you haven't figured it out yet.) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Alison McGovern (and maybe more)

I'll contact you later about other indefinitely semi-protected pages. In the meantime, what about this BLP? Can "pending changes" be enough? Even when BLP policy is violated, edits are infrequent lately, according to history page. --George Ho (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer to stick with semi here since there are BLP issues and OTRS is involved, apparently. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

this guy is going absolutely crazy. can you help maybe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:206.29.182.169 see this link. This guy sends me an absuive message before edit warring over and over from unsourced stuff hes fighting to keep on the page Veil of Maya. Can you deal with this nutcase? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.29.182.169 (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, looks like a couple other admins have weighed in. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark Kirk

Mark, There's a discussion going on at [47] regarding the reliability of the secondary sources being used in this edit. There's been no consensus on that issue. In the meantime, you've protected Mark Kirk with the proposed edits in place. I don't think that's appropriate given the status I've mentioned above.CFredkin (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to wait until a consensus emerges to pick a specific version to protect. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
My experience has been that the person adding the content obtains consensus before the content is added to the article. By freezing the content in place, you've effectively added it to the article.CFredkin (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Absent a compelling reason or clear consensus, I default to the current version when protecting articles. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Alien (Britney Jean track)

The song is "Alien" according to both Britney Spears (co-writer) and William Orbit (co-writer and producer). That article with the title as Aliens is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcampbell92 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I suggest you request a move via WP:RM. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't have it's own page (it's on the Britney Jean album page under confirmed tracks) so I don't think it needs a move if that's what you mean but it keeps getting reverted to Aliens. Gcampbell92 (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I guess you should discuss the matter on the talk page then. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Patrick Burrows

Hello Mark, You erroneously deleted our comment about the sophomores in Patrick Burrows' class. As sophomores in the class, we personally know that these are the facts and that he will be having a birthday on Tuesday, November 5th. These are completely factual and we hope that they can be re-added to the page.

Do you have a source to confirm that information? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Dennis Weidner

Mark, I arrived in Houston in the middle of the night and couldn't get om the Toll Road because a sign said no cash. That left me in the middkle of Houston with no idea where to go. Travelers should be warned about that. If you don't like what I wrote than you should write something up telling out of state travelers how to pay.

If you have suggestions on what should be added to articles, please make them on the articles' talk pages. Writing "Someone should add something about..." in the article itself isn't allowed. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

RPP

I am requesting for pending changes protection instead of Semi-protection to the article M.A. Jalil Ananta as this article is not being updated for a long time. - Rahat | Message 12:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you ask ItsZippy (talk · contribs), who applied the latest semi-protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Tourism in Poland

Since you were involved both times, I just wanted to let you know that it appears that WKS Śląsk Wrocław is back to the same edit warring here and with the IP he's been using here. It's not a 3RR yet, but it would be the third time if he is reported again. I agree with PoeticBent, we're just not getting through to the editor no matter how we nicely ask to start a conversation about the edits. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. Ajh1492 (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

He's back at it

Hi, Mark Arsten. I wonder if the persistent problems at Tourism in Poland would require a new report, or perhaps, we can simply follow on your earlier 24-hour block to extend its original purpose. Please decide. Here's the link to your notice at User talk:WKS Śląsk Wrocław And here is the link to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/87.99.45.74/Archive informing that User:WKS Śląsk Wrocław logs in and out to continue edit warring. He's back at it after your block expired,[48] but perhaps you would be kind enough to address his long-term socking as well. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 19:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark, he's back at it again with repeatedly adding the same images over and over. Ajh1492 (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark, User:WKS Śląsk Wrocław is back at disruptive editing at Tourism in Poland, we're at least able to engage him/her in some conversation, but still insists on pushing POV from Wroclaw even though complaining that Krakow has too many photos. I've attempted to mitigate the argument by further diversifying the photos, but I think we're approaching an impasse. Looking for any suggestions you might have. Thanks! Ajh1492 (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll keep an eye on it. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Nacional Monte de Piedad

Can you restore File:Nacional Monte de Piedad.gif? The file that replaced it File:Logo nmp2.pdf, is a copyright violation. Thanks. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 00:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC) And on an unrelated note, can you block 162.157.152.134 (talk · contribs)? The user has been adding an incorrect category to multiple bands that s/he considers "boy bands" despite the fact that all of them are not boy bands, for example The Platters has a woman, or Village People weren't teenagers. Thank you as well. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 00:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I've restored it, but it will have to be added to an article right away or it will get put back in the deletion queue. Also, I'd suggest taking the IP to ANI, I don't like to block for incorrect categories. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. For now I'll leave it as it is at WP:AIV, as another user reported the IP as well. I tried here because there is a backlog in that NB. Thanks again for the image. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 00:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Matches of the Republic of Ireland national football team

Why is this protected? The German game was the 500th game and the link is provided to prove same. This means that the first game was in 1926 in Turin.

Wiki is being ruined by you people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.254.43 (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I protected it in an attempt to stop the ongoing edit warring. If you'd like a change to be made, please raise the issue on the article's talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Issue raised a week ago on talk page............... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.254.108 (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for doing that. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome so how about reverting back to what was there before as the links provided prove that the German game was the 500th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.254.199 (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I probably won't get involved any further. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Al Lemos unreliable contributions

Notice what a partial user can do, how much he wants to force a point of view. Al Lemos puts as a source in the article Maílson da Nóbrega, a magazine completely unknown in Brazil, called "Brasileiros magazine", so I made a request in the Guild of Copy Editors to review the article, criticizing this source. Al Lemos is nuzzling my edits, and to justify the placement of this preposterous source, a magazine totally unknown to the 200 million Brazilians who have tiny drawing of 20,000 copies (here, neighborhood newspaper circulation has more than that), he goes and creates an article on the magazine, Brasileiros (magazine), thinking that it makes reliable source. Immediately, someone putted a notability tag. I've asked before to block Al Lemos, and I'm asking again. This user only tries to circumvent the rules and edit furtively enjoying that nobody is paying attention to him. Rauzaruku (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm probably not going to do anything here. I suggest raising the issue on WP:ANI. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=580034419&oldid=580034209. Rauzaruku (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what are you waiting for: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Partido_da_Imprensa_Golpista&diff=580069108&oldid=580021583. I'm hoping an end for this massive abuse. Rauzaruku (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism of Project A119 page resumes

The unknown poster who keeps adding bizarre claims about Project A119 has returned as soon as the block on editing was lifted. It looks as if it will need to be resumed or we will just have to keep reverting his edits.Graham1973 (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Airlines for America article

I have left a message on User talk:Intermittentgardener Talk page to compel him to explain his section blanking edits and incipient edit warring on the article in concern. He complains to a user of doing the very tactic he engages in. There is already a directive to Talk out any changes in the Criticism section of the article, yet, he chose to ignore it. It is clear from reading the users Talk page that he has a history of bias editing. I'm waiting to see what he says in his defense.--50.128.155.168 (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, keep me posted. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Can you expand duration of full protection? Dispute lasted for more than two weeks or so. --George Ho (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to keep it as it is for now, since it's such a high-profile page. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hapa Article's Page Protection

Hi Mark,

Please remove the page protection for the Hapa article. While the sockpuppet investigation was closed recently, I strongly believe that TAG speakers and Polyglottz are sockpuppets. They are trying to create the illusion of consensus when the discussion has been ongoing. Furthermore, I have definitely addressed all the points that everyone has been bringing up. In any case, the main point that needs to be made is that the lead as it was before it was protected was much clearer and accurate than the way it is now. There are two clear documented usages of the word hapa, but as the article currently stands in its protected state, it makes it look like the California usage is the only one. By the way, when the article was previously protected for a week, the version of the article that was protected was the version that documented the two usages.

I think it is important to note that I've been continually participating in the discussion on the talk page without trying to involve Wikipedia authorities, while TAG speakers/Polyglottz so far are trying to use force to shut down discussion regarding the lead.

Here is the link to the TAG speakers sockpuppet investigation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TAG_speakers/Archive

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.71.126 (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

And just to give you a heads up, you're mentioned at the TeaHouse. Same subject[49]. Cheers, Yintan  00:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I protected it in an attempt to stop the ongoing edit warring, which is disruptive. If you'd like a change to be made, please raise the issue on the article's talk page. Or you can register an account and you'll be able to edit the article in four days. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Mark: I'm confused though. Isn't Polyglottz also involved in the edit war then? Isn't it problematic that Polyglottz/TAG speakers have asked for page protection twice instead of properly trying to build consensus on the talk page, especially since the situation doesn't involve vandalism but rather the lack of consensus? Since I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so I'm trying to understand Wikipedia's perspective. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.84.132 (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Polyglottz is somewhat involved in the edit war, as well, though he has only made three reverts in the past month or so. If he's not willing to discuss the matter on the talk page, you could hold a WP:RFC to attract more participants to the discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, part of the reason it looks like that is because of his sockpuppets, but what can we do? Oh well. Thank you, Mark. I appreciate the suggestion regarding the RFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.81.118 (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for protecting Major League Baseball. Also, we never have too many editors helping get it to GA status , so if you're interested, feel free to help out. Sportsguy17 21:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

List of American Jews

Why did you delete the list of Jewish Criminals, why the hypocrisy? If we can have a list of American Muslims, where in the crime section we list criminals, why can't the same be done for Jews? If you feel it's nonconstructive, why don't you delete the criminal section of American Muslims as well?

This is a direct violation of free speech, and is NOT vandalism. The man who killed a child and ate his parts was a Jew, as reported by the NY Times. Every single claim was backed by an authoritative source. Either restore the page, or delete the criminal section on list of American Muslims.

I'll escalate the matter if you choose to remain as a hypocrite.

Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:104C:804F:E170:7933:5B29:3D6B (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we have some misconceptions here. I didn't delete any list of criminals, I simply protected the article to prompt discussion instead of edit warring. If you think content should be added to the page please propose so on the list's talk page and discuss the matter. Ditto for your proposed deletions from the other list (which I haven't had a chance to look at yet). User:Jayjg might be able to help me clear up some more details on the list policy for you, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
IP editor, the article in question is a List of Lists, not a list of individuals. This isn't some other article; see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Jayjg (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


I had a list of 5 criminals, and you deleted them, take a look at the history of the editing. Please restore the page with the verified criminals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.94.117 (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

When was this? I don't recall doing that. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Another sock

Admitted on my talk page, here, to be the same person who had an account blocked for my issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, blocked. Somehow I doubt that's the last we'll see of him though... Mark Arsten (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Same. He is only interested in the Batman: Arkham pages, so I will know if he resurfaces. Whether he's telling the truth or not, there is absolutely no way of knowing for sure, and unfortunately I can't give him that benefit of a doubt. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Closing AfDs as delete

Hey Mark, you recently closed two AfD discussions as delete ([50][51]), but they had been moved at some point during the discussion. Consequently, you deleted the pagemove redirects instead of the articles, so I tagged them for G6. This isn't the first time that this has happened with you or other administrators (I'm regularly cleaning up the pages listed here, and I'd say 1/3 of the ones I get to are this problem), so could you be more careful in the future? I'll let the people who did the moves know that it's generally a bad idea to do that, as well. Cheers, Ansh666 04:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with that. I've taken care of those two. Wish there was some way to make it more clear to people not to move pages during Afds... Mark Arsten (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I do too. I used to go through and check manually, posting a message on the discussion if it happened, but that takes a ton of time and with schoolwork building up there's no way I can get to it. I don't know or have time to learn how to program a bot for it or anything either (somewhat ironic given that I'm majoring in computer science). Maybe I should ask about this at WP:VPT or something? Ansh666 04:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, we don't have nearly as many people as we need working Afd lately. Hope we can get some more involvement soon. Posting on VPT might be a good idea, but maybe WT:AFD wouldn't be a bad place either? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hrm. I'll try both, if/when I have time. Big project due tonight, I probably shouldn't even be on here right now. Thanks! Ansh666 04:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
(Talk page stalker) I've encountered this problem too a few times. How about suggesting the addition of a concise note within {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} or elsewhere? -- Trevj (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe that would work. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll

They're vandalizing the talk page now. Would you mind protecting it? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what motivates some people... Mark Arsten (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
There's a Twitch with an LPer called ProtonJon. Apparently the users were using "Straw Poll" to pick the next game, and they overloaded the service. They're targeting pages related to "Straw poll" and "Pepsi", especially Wikipedia: Straw polls. User 'That One Derpy Sheep' is one of the watchers of the stream, and it's a vandalism-only account. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I'll be online for a little while longer. Let me know if anything else needs urgent protecting. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, they're starting to peck at Twitch (website) now... And Wikipedia talk:Straw polls too. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, logging off now. Have a good night. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! It seems to have calmed down now. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


I've mentioned you at

WP:ANI#3 more paid editors?. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let me know if there's anything specific you need from me. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

RFPP

I want to get them off my watchlist so I don't have to keep dealing with edits like these. This has been going on since May.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Understandable, but I don't think there's enough recent disruption to justify protection. Most, if not all, of them have received few IP edits within the past month. You're free to ask for a second opinion from another admin though. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hindu saints

Hi Mark, I see that you have just temporarily semi'd some articles about Hindu saints. Are you aware that these are long-term targets of a prolific sock? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Buddhakahika has some of the details. Temporary protection is not going to achieve much but I'm not keen on long-term protection either because they act as a honeytrap (see here). When this person gets going, they tend to edit a fairly wide range of material and can be difficult to spot, so leaving a couple of their regular haunts open provides us with an opportunity to catch them early. I know that they are disruptive but they'll be disruptive and likely to be undetected for a lengthy period if we protect the key things. What do you think? Am I being too Machiavellian? - Sitush (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've unprotected per your comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I may live to regret it! Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Tourism in Poland

Why should I say that I run a war and not others? Ask yourself the trouble and help and see. They write that kind of nonsense equally from each region of the picture, and we put a few of one! Poland has 16 voivodeships, images are currently 15, including up to 5 (1/3) of the Lesser Poland! So I rely on the insertion of the second equality photos from Lower Silesia is absurd. Rather should delete some pictures of Lesser Poland. WKS Śląsk Wrocław (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I warned you because you need to discuss the matter on the article's talk page instead of continually reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

PC at Vivekananda

Hello Mark. Recently I closed a move discussion of this article, formerly Swami Vivekananda, and noticed it gets a lot of IP edits. The log indicates you applied Pending Changes on 24 September. Due to the low frequency with which useful IP edits are being accepted, what would you think of my doing six or more months of semiprotection? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's Play (video gaming)

Hello again. Would you mind removing this edit summary? It meets Criteria 2 on WP:CRD. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for not posting that on ANI, like people usually do. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Maryam d'Abo

You removed some things I added and said I didn't give references. The only changes I remember making are covered in the text on her career, so that's why they were removed. I created a filmography section, which someone removed, but no real harm was done, because the text contained that info and more.

George Purdy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.182.22 (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, just make sure you include sources when adding information about living people. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

A plea

I know you are frustrated with the ANI squabbles. We both agreed - the thing ends. I have no intention of going against the RFC's outcome; regardless of the situation. You said wait for ArbCom. I believe we have run out of time and it was not I or Ryulong who brought it to ANI. I rather take a topic ban than Ryulong, but to be fair, I don't think either of us should be topic banned because Sven's RFC will be the end of it. Ryulong does enough maintenance to keep the integrity of the articles from vandals and worse and I simply can't do that role. I ask that you please change to backing the RFC and withdrawing your support for the topic ban. I've asked for the communities help before; Sven has answered my pleas - I hope you will answer mine as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It's getting late now, but I'll give the matter more thought tomorrow. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. And yes. I got less than 5 hours of sleep coming up. But I wanted my words to be heard since I have a 12+ hour window of inactivity when I must work. I'm willing to even take a topic ban over Ryulong if something has to be done... simply because he can maintain the integrity of the articles while I cannot. He stops hoaxers from slipping stuff in each week. My absence reduces the growth of the project's content and depth, but his absence ruins its credibility and integrity. I may not agree with him, but its clear whose more valuable if it was one or the other... and Ryulong said he might leave Wikipedia if he was topic banned. And he's not a "diva", so if I have to fall on my own sword or eat crow to ensure he stays here - I will. The conflict is not personal (as said before), but this RFC will end it. When Ryulong backed out of mediation and stated he'd leave if it had to go to Arbcom I realized this conflict will only result in everyone losing - I may be a scholar of the subject, but its also the reason why I'd be upset if this conflict resulted in losing Ryulong. I hope you understand my poorly chosen words. Have a good night. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sock

Hi, Mark! As per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EMr KnG, maybe you should also get an indef block to EMr KnG, after all he is a sock master. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot he wasn't blocked yet. Fixed now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal 2nd deletion nomination

You previously closed a deletion discussion for the article Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal. The article has been nominated for a second time. The current consensus seems to indicate a Snowball Keep. If so, the discussion should be closed by an admin. Here is the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal (2nd nomination). Thanks. CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Mark Arsten (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Just wanted to say thanks for the tweaks you've been making at Falkland Islands, and give you some caffeine to keep you going. Given the delicacy of the article, if you have any thoughts you'd like to add to the review, I'd be glad to hear them. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome, glad to help. Nice to see a controversial article being improved! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm really impressed with the nominator(s) dedication--looks like literally years of patient discussion went into bringing it to this point. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

PPACA (Obamacare) edit war

Hi Mark. I want to let you know that I have no objection to temporary full protection at PPACA, but that after you imposed it I discovered this is likely actually part of a larger story of disruption and sockpuppetry. The former is detailed here while the latter is detailed here. The SPI still requires admin attention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to look into it later. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

User:NR biogeochemist

Straight back to edit-warring after your warning: [52][53]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Mark Arsten (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Tiffany Harrison - GoAbroad.com

Hi Mark, I was in the process of trying to add a new page for our organization, GoAbroad.com, and was having some trouble as this is my first time trying to add anything to Wikipedia. I saw on my notifications that you had deleted the page. Could you let me know why, or what I can do to better understand how to add a new business page? Any information would be appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttmharrison (talk • contribs) 22:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the page because you hadn't added any information and it was basically just a blank page. While we do generally frown on people writing articles on their own businesses, if you do so please use WP:AFC. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback! I'll be sure to look over the information you linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttmharrison (talk • contribs) 17:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Prostitution of children

hi. due to text corruption that was a result of temporary bug in VE, i rolled back your last 2 edits on this article. you can see the corruption by comparing the revisions. apologies for lost work - maybe you'll be able to salvage some by viewing the diffs. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh jeez, I guess that's what I get for giving Visual Editor a chance. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
It might be more that you strayed into... THE NEVER NEVER LAND... ok I'll go now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
i hope this bad incident will not turn you off VE... however, at least while it shows "beta", it may be a good idea to "review your changes" before saving (the button is on the "save" form). peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I still have no idcea what you are on about, but I have disabled one link of yours. Be well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
it's about this edit and the next one. due to VE bug, these edits caused some corruption of the page. i think Mark understood me well enough - i don't know what is your part in this conversation. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I think Demiurge was making a joke. Humor doesn't translate well here sometimes. I'll keep using VE from time to time, but I'll be sure to check the diffs afterwards. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

SIMD

With SIMD, you can vectorize comparisons and batch the flow to target maximal cache optimality, though it requires more intermediate state. Also, SIMD cannot make pizza or tell me the answer to the ultimate question is not 42.

Ok, you are free to make that change to the article, but writing "this article is wrong" in the article itself is unhelpful. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Ognjen Kuzmić

First of all thank you for reading and allowing my request for Full Protection for Ognjen Kuzmić. I would like to apologize again for letting the other user drag me into an edit war on that particular article. I would like to ask you to please consider editing the page back to my version (it was sourced and everything) since there is no point in discussing the matter with the other user Bozalegenda (if you look at the history of the article, he was just reverting my sourced edit, to his unsourced only because he didn't like my edit, his edit doesn't have a single reference, and mine was FIBA interview).

Thank you again and I am looking forward to hearing from you

Bihseth (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Please take care not to violate 3RR in the future. I don't think I'll revert through protection; I protected the current version when I got to the page, per the usual practice. Unless there's a clear consensus or copyvio/BLP issues I don't pick sides when protecting. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The thing is -- I think we could be back to square one when the protection expires. I don't think it's relevant to cite ethnicity in the aforementioned article's introductory part (just to give you an example for an American player -- we should (not) write for LeBron James that he is an African-American (instead of just American) basketball player -- in this case it's more of a race thing than ethnicity but you get the point, it's the same principle for Kuzmic). In my opinion the "Bosnian Serb" should be used under "personal life" and stuff like that, it's not relevant for the introductory part of the article. Thanks Bihseth (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd suggest trying to get more people to comment on the talk page. Maybe post a note at a relevant wikiproject. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

AniceMathew

Hi Mark, this user you previously blocked for a day because of use of profanity is once again making mild Personal attacks however to no specific user. I have given him/her a mild reminder but please will you keep a tab on the users behaviour for while? Sohambanerjee1998 11:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Any specific edits you're concerned about? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes many, edits that remove sourced content preceeding proper discussion at the talk page let alone WP:CONSENSU, disruption including addition of Unreliable sources but above all making snide remarks and boasting in the Edit summary. Diffs - Personal attack and removing content, Not following WP:VNE, diff as well as improper use of italics. Absolute disregard for WP:MOS - 1. So here it is. Sohambanerjee1998 07:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest explaining on his talk page why you object to each edit instead of just using templates like that. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Mark, the user might be a "she" since Anice is a female name. As for the explaining I'll try my best to explain it to the user. Sohambanerjee1998 08:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the edit I blocked them for a few weeks back, I was inclined to suspect they were male, but I suppose anything's possible. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the comment was exuding the rash behaviour generally shown by men, actually it fooled me too. Then another Wikipedian reminded me that Anice is the name of a female. Soham Banerjee 07:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act‎

I think you accidentally disabled protection that was supposed to expire on Christmas, as well as move-protection. Care to comment? --George Ho (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Whenever a semi-protected page is full protected, once the full protection expires the semi-protection has to be re-added. They don't run together like temp semi-protection does on pending changes pages. I wish someone would fix that. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Our Lady's College Greenhills

Leave the Our Lady's College Greenhills page alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.126.104.111 (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a specific concern here? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi.

I hope I am not bothering you but I think I need to have a word with you about "edit warring".

Correct me if I am wrong but our guideline for proper editing is WP:BRD, whose text says edits to Wikipedia should optimally be done in a B,R,D,B,R,D,... fashion. BRRRRR... is edit warring, especially when it is not collegial. What I did in Template:Uw-vandalism1 was BRDBRDBRD... because I listened to my colleges and implemented what they suggested. None of my edits there is similar to my past edits, all of them are an attempt to make a compromise and if there is anything non-collegial about listening to my friends to implementing their suggestion, could you please let me know? I can certainly avoid it in the future, you know.

And by the way, a comment that reads "Codename Lisa, please stop all forms of editing until a strong explicit consensus is reached" would have had the same effect as protecting the template. I am not some vandal IP user, you know. I'd really appreciate a little more faith in my collegiality.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you were offended by my comments. I didn't mean to imply that you were breaking the rules in any way. It's just that I saw that there were a number of reverts in a short time on the template and thought that it would be best to protect it to prevent that from continuing. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello again. It is very difficult to be offended by you, especially after the second WP:FAC of ... well, we've covered this before. Anyway, I am not offended, but rather flabbergasted. Still, I am abandoning the whole line of inquiry. There are still answers I am looking for in the discussion page (so I'll stick around for a bit) but I can see that the discussion has come to a natural end. I'll do as WP:STICK says.
Still, I can't help but notice that the protection is indefinite. But suit yourself.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Codename Lisa. The editing restriction will lift on the 13th of November; it's the move-protection that's indefinite. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Thanks for clarification. I was thrown into error by the padlock icon that says "This high-risk template is permanently protected from editing to prevent vandalism." Question: Do this apply to template editor group too? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the template automatically changed to that when I protected. I should have changed it. Template editors can't edit it right now, but template protection may be something to consider when full protection expires. Semi protection will have to be re-enabled, at the least. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Mr. & Mrs. Smith original soundtrack album cover.jpg

I just saw your deletion of File:Mr. & Mrs. Smith original soundtrack album cover.jpg come up on my watchlist (no idea why it was there - perhaps I uploaded it). Anyway, it appears that it was removed from the Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film) article with this possible vandalism. Would you be able to restore the file? StAnselm (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you moved the file some time back. I've restored it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! StAnselm (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


Iranian Election Protests

This user, User:SpidExD is constantly making badly worded and poorly sourced edits to the page so he can put the Iranian Government position on the 2009 Iranian Election Protests. While I even added that to viewpoint to the page, He keeps deleting it in favor of those poor edits. I am sick and tired of his nonsense and his lack of Grammer. He keeps arguing with me that Fox and CNN are biased and corporate trash. Is there anything you can do about this guy. I am getting to my nerves by having to monitor that page.

First of all, don't edit war or you might get blocked. Even if you're right, you still are not allowed to continually revert. What you need to do is gain consensus on the talk page. Try asking for help at a relevant wikiproject or hold a talk page request for comment (WP:RFC). There are several noticeboards you can post on as well, for example WP:NPOVN or WP:DRN. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Mark it seems like this issue is expanding. SpidErxD has brought up the issue on Wikipedia:Help_desk#News_Reports and User_talk:SpidErxD#Help_Me_2 and I thought you should be made aware of that. Thanks XFEM Skier (talk) 07:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
a/c to HumanRightsWatch link Neda Agha khan was struck in traffic jam and she was several kilometers away from protests and there were no Basij forces around her when she was killed. But a/c to FoxNews link she was going to protest and she was killed by Basij.
HumanRightsWatch is more authentic than FoxNews,CNN Lies. and he was also removing Iranian/Russian point of view from that article. SpidErxD (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Hello, SpidErxD. Simply mentioning the word "lie" is enough to topple your discussion, which has due weight if authentic. (I'm not judging.) Yes, news agencies are known to be prone to systematic bias, not adhering to neutral point of view and favoring more attractive points of view. And besides, even if someone reject that fact and take their word as gospel truth, he or she still cannot deny that Wikipedia demands all significant points of views be covered, etc. But when you say "lie" you are projecting yourself as an angry person; with that, you lose face and then you lose discussion.
My advice: Be calm, don't forget to say hello, be polite, smile, treat your opposition's point of view fairly, use WP:DR instead of WP:EW, be ready to offer a compromise whenever the opportunity presents itself and more importantly, be patient. You'll be surprised how fast you get results when you are patient.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
It is as if he is going on the 9/11 page and writing that there was no evidence that Osama Bin Laden was responsible, other than what CNN says and the Russians and Iranians say that the Israelis were responsible. He is going on other pages, now Death of Neda Agha-Soltan and is making such comments. my point is that he is not out to make a consensus. He is using these pages to propagate "Russian Media Sources". He is trying to debate whether or not the Protests are CIA planned and Neda's death a Conspiracy. He shouldnt be editing articles. Ive nearly had it cause Ive had to babysit this guy for the past 2 weeks. And no administrator is taking a look at what he is doing as Vandalism, they are viewing it as Content Dispute. His edits are, at the very least, disruptive. I have tried talking to this guy and he is just debating with me as to whether im not a Pro-Shah and Pro-American corporate-s***. You call this content dispute? Again, im sorry, but ive had it with this guy. He has his own standard that BBC, CNN and Fox are lies and that Iranian/Russian Media is truth. His edits are disruptive, I have done all i can, and i would greatly appreciate it if an Administrator could do something about this guy.Rezashah4 (talk) 07:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, well I suggest you make your case on WP:ANI then. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I did make a case, I made it to them, now I made it to you. Can't anybody block this guy so I can continue editing other articles and get on with my life? Go read his Talk page, he isnt interested in consensus, he thinks Wikipedia is a forum for arguing conspiracy theories. Ive been through WP:ANI. They didnt help, can you help me? Rezashah4 (talk) 08:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
He was edit warring, for which I've blocked him, but that doesn't give you the right to call him a terrorist, so I've blocked you for personal attacks. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Question

Would this be considered a BLP violation? If so, would it need to be oversighted? Admiral Caius (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I've revdeleted it. I'm not an oversighter though, (and not 100% sure if it qualifies) so you'd have to e-mail oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org for their attention. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
What's the difference between revdeletion and oversight? Admiral Caius (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The main difference is that with revdeletion, admins (so about 1000 people) can see what was removed. With oversight, only functionaries (a few dozen) can see what was removed. See Wikipedia:Revision deletion and Wikipedia:Oversight for more details. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for the info, I appreciate your help. :) Admiral Caius (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Problem user

Thank you for blocking User: 98.197.200.120 for a week. I wanted you to know that I have now posted about them at AN/I, at WP:ANI#IP account used for nothing but vandalism because of their 100% vandalism history with never a constructive edit. I gather I can't take them to AIV while they are blocked, and in any case, I am hoping maybe there is a longer term solution rather than serial short term blocks. Thanks for all you do! --MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I re-blocked for 6 months {{anonblock}}. It occurs to me that technically I should have checked with you first, but it seemed so uncontroversial I guess I just didn't think about it. If you disagree with the reblock let me know and I'll adjust it, or if you want to change it and I'm not around, it officially won't count as wheel warring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
No prob, thanks for handling it. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for blocking that IP at Cloud Seeding. I was getting a bit tired of reverting their vandalism every other minute. ;) Might be worth keeping an eye on User:Briskjungle767, whose only contribution so far is a single count of vandalism in similar style as some of the IP's "edits" on that same article, two minutes after the IP was given a final warning. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I've protected the page. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply and the quick action. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

Can you please semi-protect Travelling Without Moving permanently (or indefinitely)? And make sure won't let unregistered contributors to vandalize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.179.80 (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's start off with a few days protection and then when that expires we'll see if it needs more. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thor: The Dark World protection

Hello! I've unprotected the aforementioned page - since it's now been released in all markets, it doesn't seem necessary to have it locked down. I'll re-apply protection if necessary; feel free to do the same if you see it fit. Best, m.o.p 06:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Master of Puppets, Marvel Cinematic Universe pages receive high levels of IP vandals around the time they are released, especially after their US release. Regardless, the page was protected because of disruptive editing before the films release, and happened to have been placed for a time period that extended past the main market release dates, to cover this known time. I strongly suggest either yourself or Mark re-add the protection. I'm not trying to be punitive to IPs or new editors, but having experienced this with The Avengers (film) and Iron Man 3, I know it will happen and their contributions will consist of vandalous edits to the plot section. I have not seen the film yet myself (will do so on November 9) but if there is anything in this film remotely similar to Marvel changing the characterization of the Mandarin (comics) in Iron Man 3, that will be a contentious point by IPs as well. And if in the mean time they do have worthwhile contributions to the page, the Edit Request feature can be used. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I probably wouldn't have unprotected here, but there's really no harm done. If IPs start causing trouble we can just reapply the protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: Protection isn't preemptive. The movie has been released in all markets, and, while it may yet be a target for vandals, we are not in the business of telling fortunes based on whether or not it's a Marvel property.
If there proves to be a significant amount of disruption, the page can be reprotected. m.o.p 18:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I think there is now enough reason to reprotect the page, considering the amount of excessive plot details IPs are now adding to article, in blatant disregard of our guidelines.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat: That's not really a reason for protection - protecting the whole article because a handful of users have changed plot details is a bit excessive. I've added a notice to the beginning of that section that points to the talk page. m.o.p 03:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
There was already a notice at beginning of the section, that IPs were ignoring. The article is becoming increasingly unstable. Why not protect it for a few weeks until the attention cools down. IPs would still be able to make suggestions on the talk page, and perhaps they will gain a better understanding of what is acceptable and not.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat: How's it looking now? Has it calmed down? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually it has, the larger note seems to be working.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

50.193.59.141

50.193.59.141, whom you blocked temporarily (thanks!), keeps inserting the same incorrect nonsense in Traditional animation. Greetings, --Janke | Talk 07:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Block

Hi Mark. Thank you for blocking this user. This is the third recent incarnation of this editor, each time with a slight variation on the username. Do you think it would be technically possible to prevent the creation of new accounts with similar usernames, e.g. prevent creation of new accounts with names containing <string1> and <string2>? (and if so, where should I go to request that?) Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It is possible to do so, I'm not very familiar with the process. User:NawlinWiki would be a good person to ask about this. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Typhoon Haiyan (2013)

Hi Mark. I'm wondering if such a long protection is needed. You have far more experience with this sort of thing, so I'll defer to your judgement. I just keep thinking that maybe many, several-hour-long protections might be better. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anna, I'm not chained to the idea of a week-long protection necessarily. I can unprotect early and see how it goes. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mark. I've asked at IRC #wikipedia-en for more watchers. I'll be busy here and there at the weekend, so won't be able to watch all the time. Your protection may well have been best after all. Best wishes, and thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Message to Specifico

The situation has been resolved, as far as I'm concerned. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User:SPECIFICO referred to the sanctions page again. I posted a message to him here and asked that he remove the remark. See: [54], which contains the particular diff and your message to me. Specifico removed my message without reading it here: [55]. If you would be so kind, please comment. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Srich, Mark Arsten said that you were not to be accused of a serious infraction. I did not accuse you of a serious infraction. I did however point out that you appeared to be wikilawyering and attempting to manipulate the outcome of a talk thread. I hope you will consider that observation in the constructive tone it was offered to you. Please chill a bit. We are collaborators here. Let's work together. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Srich, I think your best bet is to "turn the other cheek" here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I am disappointed. The posting by Specifico about the notice was the 3rd one he made, and he did it even though he knew reference to the "log" should not be used against me. In the particular edit Specifico said "You already have one notice logged for your attempt to force closure of a WP discussion in which you were an involved editor. This discussion is clearly ongoing and you should resist any temptation to force premature closure." Whether or not I have had a notice posted has nothing to do with continuing the thread. It is a comment on the editor and editor behavior, not about the page or progression of the talk. Worse yet, Specifico now distorts what he said at the MR talk page. Above he says the accusation was not one of a serious infraction – but so what? And then he goes on about "wikilawyering" and "manipulation". Consider, when I ask that he remove the statement, he doesn't even read it. Talk about "constructive tone" and "collaboration" and "let's work together" – not reading a talk page comment is hardly a step in that direction.
Mark, which cheek should I turn? I've turned a few already. Consider this comment [56]: "Srich, of all the places for you to display this kind of behavior I would guess that this is one of the most foolish and most likely to further tarnish your reputation here. Please drop it." Or how about this one [57]: "It is not our role to instruct the Admins as to how they exercise their authority. Your proposal is nonsense and as I said above, it's fruitless and inappropriate to diffuse this thread by trying to twist and tweak Bbb's proposal." Mark, I came to you asking about the posting of the notice, and you said not to worry too much about it. And then I pointed out how the notice was being used improperly, and you said the notice should not be used against me. Well, it clearly has been used in that fashion. I am running out of cheeks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so what do you suggest I do here? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Nothing here. Post a message on his talk page. Something like "Don't mention the 'log' again". Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Rich, I don't know why you're so offended by people pointing out the notice. The notice isn't a big deal, and (in and of itself) doesn't carry any practical consequences. You may be alone there now, but others -- perhaps both SPECIFICO and I -- will join you there in due time. I was actually hanging out with you the sanctions page for an afternoon, but another (uninvolved) editor reverted the involved editor's notice of me. Steeletrap (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Very good Mark. While I think there are rules that do apply, I thank you and I am satisfied. Steeletrap, if the notice is not a big deal it should not be brought up on any page. Doing so is simply WP:TPNO. – S. Rich (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Now, Goodness Gracious Srich. You're once again prepared to tell Admins what to do? Even with your sample language, no less! Bottom line is this: What you've given us is yet another example of control-freak type behavior. First it was your "pseudo Admin" closing, (which ... you really don't think was any problem at all, do you?), then next, it was your WP:ICANTHEARYOU AN games on Bbb's proposal. Then it was your renewed attempt to impose "consensus" -- this time at Rothbard talk. And there are countless other recent misadventures. You've had uninvolved editors express concern about your obsessive links to random WP policies and many other disruptive behaviors, edit warring, and battleground behavior. Why are we here cluttering up Mark Arsten's talk page? Frankly, to waste Admin time on your hurt feelings is disrespectful of Mark and of scarce WP Admin resources. And of course, through your campaign of denial, you have publicized your cameo on the Sanctions page far and wide. Take a bow, and please remember, you are not permitted to post on my talk page. Please consider all the feedback you've been offered over the past couple of months and take a step back. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism only account is back

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/204.184.153.3

Brangifer (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Airlines for America

I have left the following messages for User: intermittentgardener to explain anything that he's done to the A4A article. It's obvious he has an economically conservative bias and is using it to edit articles and then simply ignores requests...no, demands to explain his edits. All he says is, "It's POV. It's POV. It's POV". Typical Wikipedia Bully.

"It is hardly NPOV. I have removed it.Intermittentgardener (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
In what way are you implying the positions the A4A takes on issues effecting passenger safety and consumer protection POV? People come to this article wanting to know about the A4A. The entire section in question tells them the story. How is that POV?? The A4A's actions and desires in the cases outlined are contradictory to their mission statement; safety. How does fighting airline pilot rest improve safety? How does opposing consumer protection improve the traveling public's experience? --50.128.155.168 (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
In a talk section on your own Talk page you accused a user of "Now, you have a really bad problem with section blanking that needs to stop. If you keep this up I am going to take immediate administrative action against you. If you have a problem with text (that is not a copyright violation or a BLP violation) deleting huge chunks of it is not the solution. Re-write, tag it, bring it up for discussion, or bring in third-parties. Do not delete it. Intermittentgardener (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Stop reverting edits because you don't agree with parts of them. Use the talk page to argue against those who already agree it should be a part of the article. I see from a previous Talk topic that you have a pro-trade association approach to editing Wikipedia. It appears it has not stopped.--50.128.155.168 (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
From WP:YESPOV ...describe disputes, but not engage in them... There is every reason for these sections to be in the article. It appears Intermittentgardener has withdrawn his contention of POV editing. He has no retort. --50.128.155.168 (talk) 04:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
At this time tomorrow, the Criticism Section will be restored, by me. A revert by Intermittentgardener will be an open acknowledgement that he has problems with WP:HEAR. He is aware he is being told to explain why he finds the section in question POV, yet refuses to do so. A revert to a new party to the article will be considered WP:VANDALISM since it obvious there is a standing directive to discus this section before making any edits to it.--50.128.155.168 (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC) "
First of all, don't edit war or you might get blocked. Even if you're right, you still are not allowed to continually revert. What you need to do is gain consensus on the talk page. Try asking for help at a relevant wikiproject or hold a talk page request for comment (WP:RFC). There are several noticeboards you can post on as well, for example WP:NPOVN or WP:DRN. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Cool. Now where is the warning on to Intermittentgardener to refrain from edit warring. I've started a thread on the WP:NPOVN. Thanks.--50.128.155.168 (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I was hope he'd see this warning since his name is linked here. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DesignDeath

Another editor has raised a issue here so it should probably not be considered done yet. Cheers! Jhenderson 777 23:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you probably want to request a checkuser there, I don't think there's anything more I can do with it. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism on Allegro Development Corporation page

Hi Mark Arsten. It looks like there has been some vandalism on Allegro Development Corporation. It looks like the same user has been attacking the page for a few weeks now. --Splin--ter21 (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'd suggest reporting them to ANI if they continue. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Swizzz

Hello Mark, I am curious why the AfD closed as non consensus, the nominator said he had no stake in the result, and the only delete vote did not have a policy/guideline based rational, while there we're three keep votes. I know its not a vote, and the final result is not that important as long as the page stays overal, but I would hate for it to be nominated again. Either way, the only reason it was nominated was because I asked the administrator to unprotect SwizZz so I could move Swizzz there. Since you closed the AfD, could you unprotected SwizZz so I can make this move? STATic message me! 01:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I was a little confused by the nominator's statement actually. I couldn't tell if he was weakly advocating deletion or not doing so. When Afds don't get a lot of participation it can be hard to say for sure if consensus has been reached. Well, I'll take another look at it later. I've moved the article to your preferred title for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
No huge issue, but thank you for moving the page. STATic message me! 01:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Chosen Wizkid article

You recently deleted the Wizkid chosen article. I need you to put that info in the Wizkid article. That information is still relevant regardless of what anyone thinks of it. I can't find the info and don't know how to go about finding it. versace1608 (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like I can userfy the deleted article for you. Let me know what you think. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking you could create a sandbox for it. The information needs to be retain. I guess you can go ahead and userfy it. Thanks. versace1608 (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it's now at User:Versace1608/Chosen (Wizkid album). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. versace1608 (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC) Quick question admin, can there be more than one "contents" box in a Wikipedia article? I created a custom contents box for the List of songs recorded by Wizkid and the article was merged into the "Wizkid (musician)" article. versace1608 (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we generally try to stick with one contents box per article, actually. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Dark Doctor

Today you deleted my article on The Dark Doctor. I would like to re-edit it and put it back on Wikipedia as I think the delete was unfair. Is there anyway I can edit the deleted article without re-creating it again.Mcs2050wiki (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like I can userfy the deleted article for you. Let me know what you think. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm the copy edit

Greetings Mark. When will you start the copy edit? It's been over a week. I don't want to sound impatient. Please just tell me a date if possible. Thanks and best regards, Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that, I delayed it since I saw the FAC was archived. I'll get to it soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Gaudiya Nritya

Hi Mark, I saw you protected the article on Gaudiya Nritya for further editing. May I know how knowledgeable you are about Gaudiya Nritya or Indian Classical Dance? May I know how you could even think to protect a public article? Did you check? after even giving Government site references someone is continuously deleting article and information with different IDs... you even locked the genuine IDs... Isnt it called taking wrong advantage of rights of being an administrator? dnt you think this is spoiling the name of Wikipedia? I dnt know about others... But as I read the article before, every information is genuine and even I can deliver the reference from scriptures and books with their genuine ISBN number. Anyways, let you know one thing, this again and again editing and deletion happening because, a class of people are scared about their existence, and they are well aware about the certain developments on Gaudiya Nritya... more researches are coming up with concrete evidences, they are even getting more inferior with their complexes as they too are understanding the dance form they are proud with, actually came from Gaudiya Nritya... and their clan has never been known as an affluent one in terms of status and class in India... neither in real literature and culture nor in the war of India's independence. They can do only one thing they can envy other neighbors. Anyways as Gaudiya Nritya is a national asset of Indian art and culture I can only request you to remove the protection and blockage that you imposed on some decent persons who even input some valuable information. Else I think this will only decrease the good name of Wikipedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogblr (talk • contribs) 12:23, 9 November 2013 (EST)

Well, the page is no longer protected, so I don't know why you're complaining about this. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Zionists

Mark Arsten

Greetings.

I have seen your latest deletes. Looks like you are suppressing anything against Zionists. You have deleted the article on Criminal American Jews and Mike Ghouse. Mike Ghouse is a pluralist and a social activist. Perhaps the reason you deleted his article, if I may gather is due to Mike being a muslim.

We will appreciate if you restore both articles. Otherwise we would be compelled to reach out to Wikipedia owners!

May Allah (SWT) forgive you for any error.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.178.155.82 (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted almost 20,000 pages since August 2012, so I'm not surprised that some of those pages have been anti-[insert religion here]. Mr. Ghouse's article was deleted because it seemed to be an advertisement and lacked good sources. I don't know what you're talking about when you say I deleted Criminal American Jews, as best as I can tell there has never been an article on the subject. But anyway, you're welcome to report me to Wikipedia's founder if you like, his page is right here. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

question

Common cold has indefinite protection. The article has had only 13 edits in the last 30 days and I was wondering if it might be eligible for pending changes rather than indef, especially since not all IPs vandalize. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you ask the protecting admin, Jmh649 (talk · contribs), to see what he thinks about PC. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I asked you because it appears you do alot of pp's. Is asking the protecting admin a requirement? I ask because I just noticed he's also the lead editor. Isn't that a COI for him to pp when he edits the page? Malke 2010 (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not a requirement, per se, but I think it's the best way to go about it. Let me know how it works out. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Not a big fan of pending changes. I guess we could unprotect it for a bit and see how it goes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the reply. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Locking of Science reference desk

Mark, I note that you've locked WP:RD/S (diff). May I ask why you've done this, what (if any) consulatation was carried out before your decision, and how we humble editors can request that the page be unlocked? Thanks. Tevildo (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The page is not locked, actually, anyone can still edit it. It's just that changes from unregistered or newly registered users require approval for the next day. I implemented that after there was a report on WP:RFPP of racist trolling on the page. You can request that it be removed at WP:RFUP. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, I've put in the appropriate request. Tevildo (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connie Corleone

Did you intend your close to preclude a redirect as is customary with fictional characters? If so, why, and if not, why did you not do so? Obviously I can add one, but it won't have the history behind it for possible future expansion. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

No, a redirect would be fine here, in my opinion. Even undeleting the history behind the redirect would be fine with me. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Arrambam

Thank u for protecting the article. But I feel that the protection could be extended for at least two more months (I may possibly start working towards making it a GA from January 2014) ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's keep it as it is and then reevaluate in February. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark Kirk page protection

Hi, you full protected the article Mark Kirk indefinitely. Could it be unprotected perhaps? I commented on Talk:Mark Kirk#Protection a few days ago. (Maybe you meant to protect it with an expiry date?) Thanks, SPQRobin (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, that was a total mistake on my part. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sourceforge and WP:ANI

I think we were misled by the master. In fact, someone told us that the master is Wikinger, not Sourceforge. --George Ho (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Really? Interesting. Have any other socks popped up? The two IPs at the SPI were blocked as proxies, so at least there's no paperwork to fix here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Block on 199.190.45.188

Mark, a few minutes ago you blocked User:199.190.45.188. They're still vandalising their talk page. Do we just leave them to get on with that? Thanks! Nick Levine (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't always take away talk page access, but when they're posting porn on the talk page I do. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Brandy Ray J family business print ad.jpg

This image is tagged as "orphaned", while it is nominated as FFD. Is undeletion possible? --George Ho (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to add it to an article. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
That won't work right now; the other image in Brandy & Ray J is still used. We both... fought over which image must be used. --George Ho (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleach (anime)

I thought the AFD basically was a merge discussion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and no. A merge can be considered at Afd, but a talk page merge discussion can be subsequently held as well. What I meant in the close is that, there was no consensus in the Afd whether to merge or not, but anyone is free to speedily open another merge discussion to try for consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Ugh but do you realize all this stuff is going on too?—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I saw that it was opened, I haven't looked at it in much detail though. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Have a look ...

... since I can see you are active in the deletion log, have a look at this user. A handful of accounts and weird redirects. In a more normal case I would just ask him myself what's up, but I think I'll leave this one to someone with more miles under their keel. Or what? Best, Sam Sailor Sing 01:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Weird. I deleted a few of his articles. It would probably take quite a while to explain to him why everything he's doing is wrong, not sure I have the energy for that right now. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I corrected my initial posts. I must have been tired, User:Adeptzare2 were not creating new accounts but subpages. Subpages /1, /2, and /3 are meaningless redirects.
They have edited in User:Kein Einstein and User talk:Kein Einstein. At first I thought they could be socking, because they end up redirecting Kein Einstein to their own Spanish user page. I looked at their global contributions and noticed they are blocked on de.wikipedia for socking on de:Benutzer:Adeptzare2 and de:Benutzer:Adeptzare3. On German Wikipedia they had a short edit war with Kein Einstein in October. I reverted their edits to the Kein Einstein pages here and posted a message to Kein Eistein on his .de user talk page. He replied that If you ask for my opinion: Adeptzare is weird....
Judging from simname and quacking behavior (elaborate maze of meaningless redirects, and an interest in stars) I am willing to bet a beer that we are dealing with the same user who had the accounts User:Adeptzaire, User:Adeptzaire2, User:Adeptzare2, and Fitnes321go. All now blocked for socking except User:Adeptzaire2. They were reported to ANI by Sven Manguard in October, thread now archived here.
Sorry for taking up space on your talk page with these obeservations, I am not not sure the time spend looking into all this has benefitted anything else than my personal curiosity for how things work. I have welcomed the user, but I have also warned them for the edits made to another editor's user page and asked for an explanation.
One question: User:Adeptzare2 was indef blocked on 9 October. How come he then can have made edits in November?[58]
Best, Sam Sailor Sing 13:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I haven't gotten to look at it in too much detail yet, but it sounds like you have grounds for a filing at WP:SPI. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Missing deletion

Mark,

In closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime Time: Charity Anthology, you only deleted one of the two lisedt articles. Can you delete After Dark: Charity Anthology as well? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 02:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've deleted it. Please use this template to bundle in the future though: Template:Afd footer (multiple). Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LaVon Gittens

Hi Mark, thanks for closing this one. There was actually a separate article listed in the AFD which got missed (which is part of the whole set of articles created by the same person). §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note, got it. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madhurima Tuli

Hi! This is really odd, to question closing admin, but it anyways has to be done per DRV process. I didn't quite understand how you reached the "result was delete" conclusion. Could you please help? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If you like, I could reopen the discussion to let it run for another week. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
That would be better. One "speedy delete" vote at the discussion was kinda weird without any reasons. And i doubt that delete voters even saw the changes done in the article post AfD. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring Users

Is there a block / Ignore feature that can be used to stop me viewing posts made by a certain user?--Olowe2011 (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't believe that is possible. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

an article which you deleted

I am new to Wikipedia and I recently posted an article which you deleted. I am attempting to post articles on all past, present, and future members of the electoral college from Iowa. If I did something incorrectly or poorly, I would appreciate some feedback. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello Tyme (talk • contribs) 13:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The article was deleted because of insufficient references and because there was no clear evidence of notability. The participants in the discussion felt that an elector is not sufficiently notable without other evidence of notability. Let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Bye Wikipedia

Thanks for blocking me and please block me permanently.
A/c to Wikipedia Admins, BBC,FoxNews,CNN reports are more authentic than HumanRightsWatch Reports. Great!!
RT.com(Russia state tv),PressTv.com(Iran state tv), CCTV.cn (China state tv) are biased and conspiracy channel and these channels sources are not authentic. Great!!
All the material in Iran related article cited towards CNN,CBS,ABC,FoxNews etc. Great.! All the citation in Syrian Civil War are Western sources because they are authentic channels and Syrian rebels are good guyz and Russia,Iran,China,Venezuela state channels aren't authentic and Syrian govt. is cruel regime a/c to your admins. Great.!

MainStream media building public support to invade Iran like they did before invading Iraq,Afghanistan,Libya. Iran is no.1 is Gas reserves and 3rd in Oil reserves but USA isnt invading Iran for Oil they want to bring Democracy. WoW.!
Let me ask you people 1 question?
Saudis dont let women drive / In Iran, female drive airplanes.
Saudis dont let women vote / In Iran, females are in parliament.
Saudia burn Chruches,Synagogues and dont allow freedom of religion / In Iran, there are 600churches for 250,000 Christians & 60+ Synagogues for 20,000 jews and Iran allow freedom of religion..
Iran built satellites, rockets indigenously / where as according to Grand Mufti of SaudiArabia "Earth is Flat"..

why Netanyahu said Saudia is our ally but in many speeches he said Iranian Regime is Radical Islamic Regime?? Those who burn Synagogues and issue fatwa of killing Jews are ally of Netanyahu and where 20,000 Jews live is radical Islamic regime??

Saudis who burn Churches, punish those poor Christians who celebrate Christians are friend of USA?? US presidents kiss Saudi Kings and hate Iran..

Reason why US presidents kiss Saudi Kings-> Saudis sell oil in dollars, allow Royal Dutch Shell,Exxon Mobil, but weapons worth billion$ from USA.
Reason why US hate Iran,Venezuela-> Iran,Venezuela dont sell oil in dollars(they are attacking PetroDollar) and Iran built weapons,machines,vehicles indigenously.. Iran,Venezuela nationalize their Industries and they kicked US companies.

US Starting another War with Iran, more poor people will die and Weapons industries & Bankers will earn more profit.. I hope that Russia,China wont intervene in this War and I hope this War wont become WW3 because Nobel PeacePrize Winner, Obama is going to invade Syria,Iran.
block me permanently, I am not editing Wikiepdia.. ask Jimmy wales to install more Anti-Iran,Anti-Russia admins. Bye. SpidErxD(Sept2011- 11Nov2013)..
SpidErxD (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I only blocked you because you violated the three-revert rule after being warned not to. It didn't have anything to do with political issues. Note that I blocked your opponent in the edit war, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
RezaShah said that Shias are sick look here. 68million(89% of total population) Iranians are Shias and he is calling them Sick.
He said only Terrorists support the Islamic Republic of Death look here
Do you really think he is making neutral edits to Iranian related articles?? SpidErxD (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
First of all SpidErxD, Welcome back. Second, You are the one who started this debate. I told you to simply stop putting irrelevant comments in the summary. And then you get all tough and defensive and start a political debate with me. Third, no sir, I've edited plenty of Iranian articles. Only you seem to disagree with me. Are you the truth because you listen to Iranian Media? How bout this, I take you to Iran and show you what the country is really like, Im at an advantage since my family is from a war zone and a rural area, not just the flashy capital, then you can come back and argue your idiotic conspiracy theories to me.Rezashah4 (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
First of all I thought Mark block me for speaking the truth. Second, 89% of Iranians are Shias so stop calling them sick people. Since 1901, Britishers were stealing Iranian Oil through Anglo-Persian Oil Company. In 1951, Mossadegh became Iranian elected PrimeMinster and he started nationalized Iranian Oil companies. In 1953, US&UK(Operation AJAX) overthrow Iranian democracy and installed RezaShahPahlavi(pro US dictator). In 1987 Iranians overthrew RezaShahPahelvi(US puppet) and Iranian Oil was once against Nationalized. In I wasn't born at that time but my Mother,Father supported Khomeini. Some relatives of RezaShahPahelvi didnt like Iranian revolution like you(@RezaShah4). In 1980s(Iran–Iraq War), Saddam Hussain invaded Iran with the help of USA, US provided Chemical weapons to Saddam to use against Iranians, half million Iranians died in that bloody War. But US isn't happy till now. I just want to tell you that HumanRightsWatch report is more authentic than FoxNews,CNN & stop removing Russian/Iranian point of view from that article, I am not removing US point of view from that article.. 89% of Iranians are Shias so stop calling them sick people. Iranians kicked RezaShahPahelvi and his family members, So stop defaming Iranians. SpidErxD (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A rather difficult user

Hello Mark, I recently marked Frayser Click for speedy deletion for being a copy of DJ Sound. The creator of both articles then vandalized my talk page with an "edit warring" notice, when I had yet to make a single revert on that page. He then removed the speedy deletion tag, which I reverted and warned (final warning) him for, then he vandalized my talk page again by restoring the warning. And just as I was writing this he did it again. I wanted to take this to WP:AIV but choose not to due to it probably being ignored. Do you see this as blockable offense? I sure do. STATic message me! 19:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I left a couple responses to him. Let's see how he reacts to them and then we'll work from there. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The false accusations are just kinda ridiculous. Also should have been blocked for WP:HOUNDING and edit warring on my talk page, did not exceed three reverts, but combine that with the misuse of the warning template, it looks blockable. STATic message me! 20:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, doing some image work at the moment, but will take another look soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks like he's leaving your talk page alone now. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible that those reversions of my talk page could be deleted? Obviously I should not have been warned for edit warring when I all I had done was mark his page for speedy deletion, then be "warned" two more times when the single revert I made was to restore the speedy deletion tag. If you do not feel okay doing it is okay, just had to try and ask. STATic message me! 03:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't think any Revdelete criteria apply, sorry. I can leave a note there if you want though. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Mark that works too, I appreciate it STATic message me! 05:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Tip off

Hi there MA, AL from Portugal "speaking",

just to notify you that this user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thegreatelgrande) is, in my humble opinion User:Indiasummer95, blocked by you. Editing pattern strikingly similar and, in Cristian López, he reverted me immediately after being reverted, with the same M.O. Edits by the new account are, as in the previous account, most if not all mobile ones.

Note: i have also contacted the admin that handed the bigger block after you, lest you don't have the time. Cheers, happy week --AL (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

After seeing what i saw in Juan Carlos Valerón (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Carlos_Valer%C3%B3n&diff=580632377&oldid=580465779), 100% sure it's the same person, just check two or three summaries below in Valerón's article, it's the same summary, verbatim. --AL (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed information. I've concluded that it is very likely the two accounts are being controlled by the same person and have blocked Thegreatelgrande indefinitely. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Overturning a block

Hi Mark,

I just want to let you know that I've talked to Risker to request (because in my capacity as a staff member I do not have the tool) that User:RYasmeen (WMF) be unblocked. She is an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation, a QA test engineer, who was attempting to recreate bugs, which I hope explains the whacky edits that you saw. For the record: thank you for your entirely correct block to protect the wiki. I'd have done the exact same thing, had I seen the account making those edits. You did nothing wrong. The fault here is with the Foundation, who evidently did not communicate correctly to the new staffer that she needed to have a user page up that identifies her correctly, and she absolutely should not have been editing the mainspace. So, just to reiterate - you didn't do anything wrong, but I'm requesting that the block be overturned regardless. We will be taking corrective training action, and re-evaluating the way that these things are communicated to new hires. She will also be doing the majority of her testing off-site, on test2wiki. Thank you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Mark, that I did rescind the block based on Philippe's confirmation that this is a WMF staffer, and that corrective actions are being implemented. I completely concur that your block of the account was absolutely correct. Risker (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I saw the report on AIV actually, which is strangely more pleasant than ANI much of the time. I had seen the account when I was huggling but I didn't do anything because I saw the (WMF) on the username. Then when I saw the AIV report I checked the talk page and didn't see the usual staff page and thought I had caught a brilliant troll! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
My apologies Mark Arsten this has happened here before User:Jamesn (WMF) user even created staff userpage it was only because of this that I reported a WMF account in AIV.Through I later saw another user had also reported in UAA earlier .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, interesting, I hadn't heard of the Jamesn case before. Well, it looks like I won't be desysopped over this, so no harm done :) Mark Arsten (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Protection International Debutante Ball

You have declined the protection request of this page, but this page is now receiving a lot of vandalism from accounts trying to add names of people who are not linked to the ball or who are not notable. My edits are constantly being reverted by this person (presumably somebody linked to the names being added). Could you please advise how this person can be blocked for vandalism? I feel that this person will persist in trying to add these names to this page. --1wikideb1 (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's enough to justify protection, and maybe blocking the accounts. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mark Arsten,

The reason for my undoing is the justification that the "noble persons" are indeed correct. The facts are verifiable, as shown with the attached links. I am directly related to the International Debutante Ball, therefore fully knowledgable of names put on the list. As part of the directing organization committee, I would like the information presented on the list. For further contact on the matter please email me at morgans@internationaldebutanteball.com, which is the same email address on the official website, www.internationaldebutanteball.com. If more contact information is necessary to prove identity and relativity to IDB, please let me know and I will provide. Thank you, Prettyinkypink (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. We generally frown on people editing articles about organizations they are involved with, see WP:COI for details on our guidelines. I would suggest that you edit the article's talk page and discuss the matter with other editors there and see if you can come to a consensus on the issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark, Thank you for your help, as I was unaware of those guidelines. I am fully aware of the topic and that was the reason for my input. I will defiantly take your advice and try to find a reasonable solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.20.217 (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Prettyinkypink, Would you please talk back to me and discuss why you want to add them instead of ignoring me and just consistently reverting my edits? The Rockefeller family, Nixon family, Eisenhower family, etc. are notable and famous families. Who are the Schott family? They are not notable/famous that the whole world knows them - How are they in the same league as the Rockefeller family or US president's families? I do not know anybody who has ever heard of the 'Schott family'.--1wikideb1 (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Further to my previous message, I have just read on the internet that somebody working for the International Debutante Ball is called 'Schott' and her daughter was a debutante. If this is true, then this is not a very objective name to add to the list as it is not a famous and notable family name and many debutantes from the same year according to what I have read on the internet are actually from famous families and they have not been listed on the list. If you are linked to the Schott family, who work with this debutante ball, then you cannot add this name to the list as Mark Arsten has indicated.--1wikideb1 (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

G8's (F5's)

Would you undelete our images that you deleted under G8 if we moved them into pending AFC? Crtew (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Creating File talk:HornAfrik.jpg
  • Creating File:Al-Rabou'e-Muhammad.jpg
  • Creating File:Ali-Sharmarke.jpg
I can undelete those at any time, yes, but they would have to be moved into an article in mainspace or they would again qualify for deletion. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

What qualifies as G8-exempt? Honestly, I'm an instructor and this is the first time I've required students to use fair use images if they can't obtain one for a dead journalist. However, those articles need to be reviewed independently by some one other than me after I grade them. Just as AfC is backlogged, so am I :( However, I didn't store the template records for these. Is there some kind of solution for instructors working through the education program. Crtew (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

My workflow on this is going to have to seriously revised next time to avoid all this extra and unnecessary work on all of our parts. Crtew (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry about all the confusion. These were deleted under WP:F5, since they were fair use files that were not used in articles for more than one week. I don't know of any specific way non-free files can be exempted from the requirement of usage in articles, no. My advice would just be to wait until the articles make it into mainspace before adding the files to them. Maybe you should ask on the education noticeboard to see how other instructors handle this? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

F5: "Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article." That's pretty much what an AfC is! Crtew (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll check with another admin.
@Diannaa: what do you think I should do here? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mark, sorry but I was unable to find the answer to your question. I think User:Kudpung is involved in AFC and he will know. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I'll ask him. Thanks for taking a look. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The draft User:Crtew/Muhammad al-Rabou'e has now been submitted to AFC for review. Crtew (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The image for User:Crtew/Layal Najib is in a similar situation and is close to being submitted for review. Did you ask Kupung? Crtew (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
No, I haven't gotten to talk with him yet. Feel free to ask him if you have time before I do. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please undelete the image for Muhammad_al-Rabou'e now that it is in mainspace! Crtew (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan Hart (locked)

Dear Mark, I've removed conjectural content in the Jonathan Hart entry, but the same editor has repeatedly reinstated it. I finally revised it to include the original source's conjectural terminology ("apparent"). I brought the conjectural content to the editor's attention, and the response from him was a very lengthy description of his personal involvement with various people, none of whom he can cite, some of whom are also editors for Wikipedia (in his description, changing entries to suit their employer's needs). I suspect that a strong personal bias is involved. My intention is to either remove or acknowledge conjecture, and in this instance my interest is in relation to the external source's author (known for his speculation) -- specifically, I don't see the function of conjecture in this entry apart from personal antipathy, particularly since the editor insists on asserting conjecture as fact and acknowledges personal involvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.110.26 (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you discuss the matter on the talk page and try to come to a consensus there. If you're unable to do so, consider posting on WP:BLPN to get more input. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear Mark -- the WP editor decided to try e-stalking me instead by searching for information based on my IP. His stalking and veiled threats are in the talk file. Perhaps you could look at the content and abusive behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.110.26 (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd welcome any sort of advice you could offer on this matter. If you think it's better served on the BLPN, I would be happy to start a discussion there. You can find my position on this issue (if you're interested) at User talk:174.1.110.26. Thanks. --Rawlangs (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
A followup: I have opened a discussion at the BLPN for this issue and will notify the IP editor. --Rawlangs (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I think BLPN is the best venue for this. Is there any truth to his claim that you're stalking him? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm hoping that's not a serious question, but I'll answer. He made reference to things I had posted outside of wikipedia, so I decided to check up on him too. I ran a geo-locate on his IP with the tools wikipedia provides, then googled the IP and found a bunch of access logs from the U of A. Seems the IP only accessed documents related to a single academic who lives and works near the area the IP block is registered. The IP had also been used to edit the wiki entry for the institution where this person works. I googled the name, and discovered this person is on a publication's advisory board with Jonathan Hart. The whole search took about 5 minutes, was made in response to his checking into me, and doesn't qualify as stalking. I've refrained from naming him anywhere, but I referred to his professional position in a reply. From his immediate and negative reaction I believe I found the right guy. His description fits the pattern of hyperbole I've come to expect from this user. Thanks for your attention to this. --Rawlangs (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
That was a serious question, yes. Violations of the WP:OUTING policy are taken very seriously, so I would strongly suggest you make an effort to stay within the letter and the spirit of the guideline. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of WP:OUTING and will work within it in the future. I posted his professional position without other identifying information. I listed his position, but not the academic institution he works for, and I don't think the position alone could be used to directly identify him. I am concerned that he has used the same type of information against me to accuse me of a COI. I tried to get ahead of this accusation by opening the ticket at WP:BLPN. Given the above, I would appreciate your weighing into the discussion at WP:BLPN, and perhaps referring whatever you think is appropriate to WP:OVERSIGHT for permanent deletion. I believe I've acted in good faith throughout. Again, thanks. --Rawlangs (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I'll look into his posts as well later. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Very much appreciated. I'll make myself available if you have any questions or concerns. I'd like to get better at this. --Rawlangs (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Namit Das

Hi Mark,

Recently some user was vandalising some pages. You protected 2 pages i have seen namely armaan kohli and tanisha. can you please protect namit das too . I have manually reverted . But can you protect it too. Thanks . TanmayRaoM (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem like that page has received enough vandalism to justify protection at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Megan Young Part 2

Hi Mark! I have another concern with this article. This user - Zwiadowca21, added an image that is nominated for deletion. I instinctively removed it but this user posted it again. Did I do something wrong? greenmarktea78 (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you did anything wrong, but you might want to wait until a decision is made in the deletion discussion before removing it again. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP question

Can I use multiple examples, including an AFD that almost make me left the project in disgust or policy talk? Or does it have to be an ArbCom related case. Thanks Secret account 13:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

@Secret: It does not have to be limited to an Arbcom related issue, no. Please use as many varied examples as you like. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Carol Kicinski

Hello,

I have been working on the Carol Kicinski article and I noticed it was deleted. I would like to find out how I can get the review process opened again so I can make proper changes to the article. I made some changes after reading a few comments about the article and I would like to get a chance to get some more input about the changes and figure out how I can improve the article. I'm new to writing articles on wikipedia so I'd like to get more feedback and be able to make more changes.

Please let me know the process on how to fix this.

Thank you, --M.Renae (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like she may not be notable actually. We need third-party sources that cover her in detail to have an article on her. Most of the sources in the article at the time of the deletion either weren't independent of her or didn't provide significant coverage of her. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Back2Basics

Hi Mark, How come you deleted the Back2Basics the radio show page? We've just hit 100,000 listeners per show on iTunes, which makes us one of the biggest dance music shows in the country. These listeners are worldwide, therefore, we do not see us as a 'regional radio' as outlined in your deletion log. These numbers do not include our live listeners, which we have all over the country via the webfeeds for both the radio stations we feature on. PodBean has this week notified us that is has now made us a featured PodCast and will promote the show in their music category. We've also had a number of national exclusives, such a Nile Rodgers from Chic and LA duo Classixx's first ever Irish interview. I am in the process of undertaking some media coverage in relation to out 100k figures and Podbean announcement, which I hope will help boost our adherence to notability guidelines and increase the references in the article. We are an international radio show that just happens to air on FM locally in Dublin, but most of our listeners are outside Ireland with the US and UK been the most common location. This is the way radio is moving and we are future proofing ourselves. Is it possible we can work on a restoration? Regards, Simon (a presenter on the show)

Well, to have the article restored, we'd have to see evidence that it has been the subject of coverage in third-party, reliable sources. I.e., books, magazines, newspapers, etc. Can you provide examples of such coverage? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Jsprocks101

Hello Mark- I noticed your block of Potatoface6969 and wanted to run something by you. I think this account might be a sockpuppet of the user who posted vandalism warnings above your block notice (Jsprocks101). I suspect Special:Contributions/LoLmanLoLz, Special:Contributions/TheUberTitties69, and Special:Contributions/Thaylock might be as well. I would not be surprised if these users were all coming from an IP in Sweden. See also these page histories:

I don't usually notice or look for this kind of stuff and am not quick at investigating it, so I wanted to run it by someone who might have more savvy in this area. Eric talk 18:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've blocked them all for blatant socking/vandalism. Let me know if anything else turns up. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Glad to help. Thanks for taking care of it. Eric talk 19:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I am LoLmanLoLz and I have been doing a bit of research on why I was blocked for not doing anything. And then I found this page, which makes me wonder what people are thinking when they see something and immediately jump to the easiest and simplest (and sometimes dumbest colution) that they can find the fastest. I am seriously worried about what people think when they block me and other people JUST BECAUSE WE HELP WIKIPEDIA FROM SWEDEN. (racist or something??) I am kinda pissed at these people who block innocents from doing anything, and then even stop them from in any way continue to use their legitimate wikipedia accounts to help wikipedia. LoLmanLoLz and jsprocks101 were just reverting vandalism that was done by TheUbertitties69 and potatoface6969, accounts created by people in our class that wanted to be funny.WE JUST WANTED TO HELP Wikipedia (I know that caps are like shouting, intended at this point) by undoing their vandalism. However, then they simple went on our computer (we were in the same classroom) and do vandalism from there, getting us blocked for not doing anything. In my opinion the isckpuppet thing is completely overkill, and there was no account called Thaylock involved, so you have just blocked someone that COMPLETELY innocent, they didn't even have anything to do with us. I hope this wakes up some peoples brains back to thinking. THank you very much. Lolman cake (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You've already made an unblock request from your primary account. Don't create a new account to evade that block. Acroterion (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello. My name is xxVapenhandel. I am not a sock puppet. I am a friend of Lolmanlolz and jsprocks101, who are different people. A terrible thing happened to these people. But its all been reverted now. There is nothing suspicious posted by them. But I look here, me, a man, who has trusted the administrators of wikipedia for centuries. But the handling of this case has not only been immoral and unethical, it has, quite frankly, made me sick. It is disgusting how you, Mark Arsten, and you, Eric, handle this case. These users were not sockpuppets of one and other, they were different people. The citizens of wikipedia. The ones who fix the small and the large mistakes. Yet you people are elitist. You see only into what your computer tells you. Let me explain the situation. On some computers, people were logged into wikipedia. This included jsprocks101 and lolmanlolz. Before this situation, they were normal editors of wikipedia. But soon enough, some people from their class came and saw their pages open. And decided it would be fun to vandalise articles. I am sure lolmanlolz and his friend were completely disgusted and annoyed. But those people would not stop there, noo, they created potatoface6969 and another account which has a rude name. They vandalised, and jsprocks101 and lolmanlolz were annoyed with them. They realised they were abusing wikipedia. So they collaborated to leave vandalization warnings. However, they accidentley left them on the user page and had them moved. Now you come into place. Just because Sweden may seem like a dark, miserable, cold place, that does not mply that only one person lives there. You said "Swedish IP! Same person lol" and proceeded to block EVERY SINGLE ACCOUNT. If you were to look through their edit history, such as jsprocks101's edit history you will see only constructive edits untill that day. I am disgusted and upset by the way you have acted. But you can change it. XxVapenHandel (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that none of the above helps your case, and that as far as I'm concerned, nobody in your class should be editing Wikipedia: you're wasting your time and ours Stop creating new accounts, and stop running good hand/bad hand accounts. Acroterion (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello. i am disgusted by your attitude. I am ashamed that wikipedia has been reduced to this.

Bad faith?

[59] That diff you point to says nothing about bad faith. It's a simple expression of derision. Bad faith implies there's something suspect about my motives. What does that diff you point to say about my motives? It says a lot about my level of respect for the editors mentioned. But so what? No, I'm not getting it. Where's the bad faith? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, few good-faith editors begin their involvement with a dispute by announcing their intent to mock the other participants. This may be an exception to the rule, of course, and I hope your behavior going forward changes my mind. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain that Anthonyhcole is simply misguided and genuinely believes that the article is biased. Every side of the story has complained that we are too mean to them and too nice to everyone else. That's one of the reasons I remain convinced that it's probably the most balanced source of information on the topic.—Kww(talk) 05:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, well, my impression may have been mistaken. Oddly enough, I was just reading Death of Gareth Williams, another maybe murdered person. Seems like much less drama surrounding that article though. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong: I'm certain that Anthonyhcole intends to cause trouble. I'm just of the opinion that he will do it because he believes it to be the right thing to do, not because he thinks it will be entertaining.—Kww(talk) 05:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify my position: I have no doubt it's been a very difficult article to keep on the straight and narrow, with hard POV-pushing coming from both directions, and in my very ill-informed view, it has struck a good mean. My only problem with it is the inclusion of who filed and what were the grounds in the mother's second divorce, which I genuinely believe to be undue and a BLP violation; and the title is wrong because we should name an encyclopedia article by its actual topic (like Death of Gareth Williams) and per my reading of WP:1E - where I agree with Moonriddengirl (quoted on that talk page).
I'm also, obviously, troubled by what appears to be serious ownership issues and misrepresentation of consensus - but I'm only up to October 2008 and perhaps things are better now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
My advice would be to open a WP:RM about the title and maybe a talk page RFC about the divorce thing. And to focus on the content, instead of the other contributors. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with all of that. I'll finish reading the archives first. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Paranor

I've nominated Paranor for retargeting at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 13#Paranor. Since you participated in the AfD discussion for the page, you may be interested in commenting on this proposal. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Narayan, Kirin (1992). Storytellers, Saints and Scoundrels. Motilal Banarsidass,India. pp. 141–143. ISBN 81-208-1002-3.
  2. ^ Narayan, Kirin (1992). Storytellers, Saints and Scoundrels. Motilal Banarsidass,India. p. 143. ISBN 81-208-1002-3.
  3. ^ Williams 2001, p. 165
  4. ^ Williams 2001, p. 165
  5. ^ Rudert, A. (2004). "Inherent Faith and Negotiated Power: Swaminarayan Women in the United States". Cornell University. Retrieved 2009-05-10. {{cite web}}: |chapter= ignored (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ http://www.jstor.org/stable/4379024
  7. ^ http://www.jstor.org/stable/4379024
  8. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=OegOWaEeLgoC&pg=PA18&dq=vomit+swaminarayan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=js1vUobXBZGl2AWIyIDwCQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=vomit%20swaminarayan&f=false
  9. ^ Williams 2001, p. 165
  10. ^ Williams 2001, p. 166
  11. ^ Williams 2001, p. 169
  12. ^ Williams 2001, p. 167
  13. ^ http://www.shikshapatri.org.uk/~imagedb/hms/mss_obj.php?type=units&id=34&brief=1&alltrans=1
  14. ^ http://www.shikshapatri.org.uk/~shik/pdf/arthdipika-isso.pdf
  15. ^ The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and Society in India Christopher John Fuller P. 173
  16. ^ Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire, Issue 2002 Christopher Alan Bayly P. 161
  17. ^ Williams 2001, p. 170
  18. ^ http://www.jstor.org/stable/4379024
  19. ^ http://www.shikshapatri.org.uk/~shik/pdf/arthdipika-isso.pdf
  20. ^ The Structure of Indian Society: Then and Now A. M. Shah P. 117
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mark_Arsten/Archive_the_fifth&oldid=1147977108"