User talk:Mark Arsten

Welcome to my talk page, please leave new messages at the bottom of this page

Red Cord Record deletion

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

http://www.redcordrecords.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ascension Deletion

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

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

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

Admin

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

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

Restore Deleted Valley Bulldog Article?

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

Links:

1. Book - The Great Book of Bulldogs

2. Book - Valley Bulldog

3. Site - IOEBA Breed Standard

4. Site - IOBEA Breed History

5. Site - Bulldog Breeds

6. Probably not a good source - Yahoo Link

Thank you for your time.

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

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

Saurabh Choudhary

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

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

Hiram Wesley Evans

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

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

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

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

History of Gibraltar

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

Iambic pentameter

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

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

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

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

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Solfeggio frequencies

Hello Mark Arsten,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Solfeggio frequencies for deletion, because it seems to be an article that was previously deleted by a consensus decision.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Howicus (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Hiram Wesley Evans

This is a note to let the main editors of Hiram Wesley Evans know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 24, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 24, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Hiram Wesley Evans (1881–1966) was Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, an American white supremacist group, from 1922 to 1939. Evans, a dentist, joined the Klan's Dallas chapter in 1920. He quickly rose through the ranks and, after ousting William J. Simmons as Imperial Wizard, sought to transform the group into a political juggernaut. Although Evans had kidnapped and tortured a black man while leader of the Dallas Klan, as Imperial Wizard he publicly discouraged vigilante actions. He also led major gatherings and marches, endorsed several successful candidates in 1924 elections, and promoted the Klan as a nativist, Protestant group. Despite this, the Klan was buffeted by damaging publicity in the early 1920s, and the Great Depression of the 1930s severely damaged the Klan's finances and Evans' own income. In 1939 Evans, having lost favor within the Klan for disavowing anti-Catholicism, was succeeded by James A. Colescott; the following year he was fined $15,000 for price fixing. Historians credit Evans with refocusing the Klan on political activities and recruiting outside the Southern United States but note that the political influence and membership gained were transitory. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Odd, I didn't get a notice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That is odd, but not as odd as what I've just been reading about (a guy who paints portrait with his genitalia). Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Careful Mark, I think that's connected with dramah, and the llama would not be happy. Regarding the blurb, maybe "in 1924 elections" needs a bit of a tweak. You do seem to write about some fascinating things! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
      • That's very much connected to Dramahs. Hmm, I think "the" (although more common in this context) would actually be wrong as he supported multiple candidates in multiple state elections. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Could we have "1924 state elections", then? Otherwise we're not sure if it's elections for positions within the KKK, for Congress, Senate, President (OK that's pushing it a bit), or something else. Looking at it another way, is endorsing some candidate really a significant part of his career? As opposed to, say, nominating a candidate? Couldn't a wide spectrum of political parties have endorsed any one candidate? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Well, a Klan member became governor of Indiana so it wasn't as if they were not effective. Since that's only a small clause in the sentence, I don't think it needs to be removed. We could change it to "several successful Klan-affiliated" candidates, but that sounds like a mouthful.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
            • So, "state elections", yes? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
              • Ok, I added "state elections". I think it flows a little better. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
                • Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, the guy is a scum, but let's stop being so damn politically correct. He wouldn't be the first scum on the MP.PumpkinSky talk 23:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Nor would he be the last... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, I wonder what the history books will say about the racists of our time. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
        • For the most part, in England one doesn't need to go as far as history books to see scum described as scum. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Press (magazine)

Hello. I would like to ask you to reconsider the closure of the discussion linked above. The keep arguments are not policy based and the notability of the subject has not been established. I intend to take this to WP:DRV, however as a courtesy, I am running this by you first. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess I agree that the strength of the votes was somewhat weak. Could I suggest opening a Merge discussion? It looks like Free Press (magazine) would make a great candidate for merging to Vinod Jose. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that sounds like a good idea. Would you please initiate the discussion? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I've referred to this conversation in the proposal to merge that you placed on Vinod Jose's page. Are you also the admin who reopened the AfD after it was closed? Crtew (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I only closed it once. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Surely, you saw its muddled history? Crtew (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadleaf Commerce

Hello. I would like to ask you to reconsider the deletion of the Broadleaf Commerce wikipedia page. At the time, it was deleted due to a lack of reliable sources about the platform. Looking at similar open source projects, the following may better support reinstating this page.

FLOSS article / video on Broadleaf Commerce The source code for Broadleaf Commerce Broadleaf Commerce community forums Spring Source article "TOOLING FOR THE JAVASCRIPT ERA, AN INTRO TO BROADLEAF COMMERCE" Introduction to Broadleaf Commerce video - Spring YouTube Channel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpolster (talk • contribs) 23:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think those sources count as reliable per our definition, WP:IRS. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I chose those sources by looking at the following : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_Commerce. 67.198.62.242 (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)BPolster

I'm a little confused

Why did you delete that revision from my talk page? I'm just curious.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he did, I think he just rev del'd an IP edit. PumpkinSky talk 15:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, I didn't think I'd be seeing a message from you on my talk page today! What happened was a user accidentally edited while logged out, exposing his IP in the page history and signature. So I revdeleted the IP in the page history. Then I realized that the signature was still visible on the page so I removed it and revdeleted the whole edit. So I actually kind of made a mistake and did the revdelete twice. I guess my edit summary wasn't very clear, sorry! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

When Jimbo posts on one's talk page, the llama is rarely far behind! Of course, the llama does not say "I'm a little confused", but, instead, "I'm a little llama". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Your assistance please

You recently closed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancer victim hoaxes

I have several questions about this closure:

1	One of the participants in the {{afd}} was making an unusually large number of excisions to the article, during the {{afd}}. Excisions that effectively prevented attempts to address concerns raised during the {{afd}}. Traditionally, those who favored "keep" are given a free hand to try to address problems with the article.
2	Half the entries in the list were not individuals, half the entries in the list described hoaxes built around fictional characters.
3	It is my understanding that part of the role of the closing administrator is to look at the arguments offered, and to discount those that are based on misunderstandings of policy. Several of those who voiced delete opinions here have pointed out -- correctly -- that many of the individuals in this list are not sufficiently notable, in and of themselves, for standalone articles. The misinterpretation of policy is that they have asserted that individuals who are not sufficiently notable for a standalone article cannot have the notable elements of their story incorporated into a more broadly focused article. This is simply not supported by policy, and by my understanding of the administrator's role a closing administrator has the discretion to discount policy misinterpretations. Another misinterpretation of policy advanced by those who voiced "delete" was that BLP required a complete moratorium on any coverage of individuals who may have mental health issues. Policy doesn't say this. It merely says we need to be careful that our coverage of individuals is written from a neutral point of view, verifiable, and relevant. It is based on the assumption that a moratorium on discussing mental health issues, or individuals who may have mental health issues is actually in the best interests of individuals with mental health issues. Moratoriums on other issues, like alcoholism, and child abuse, has not worked out well for sufferers. I drafted an essay in an attempt to address this issue User:Geo Swan/opinions/You can't say that here!

Will you reconsider this closure? Geo Swan (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding (1), Geo Swan was always able to edit the article, and indeed continued to do so.

Regarding (2), the fact that the list was a synthesis of two different topics is the fault of those responsible for creating it in the first place - it cannot be a justification for keeping it.

As for the rest, I get the strong impression that Geo Swan is attempting to Wikilawyer around what looked a clear consensus that the article raised substantial WP:BLP concerns. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Geo Swan and Andy, thanks for stopping by. I do not plan to reconsider my close in this case. I find the subject of this article very interesting and have read several articles about it in the past, but my close is based on what I find the consensus to be among the participants in the discussion. In this case, most participants felt that listing very negative information about otherwise low-profile individuals was an insurmountable BLP issue. There were also significant concerns about whether this article adhered to our best practices for the notability of stand-alone lists (WP:LISTN). I think these are valid arguments, inasmuch as there is a difference between notoriety and notability. So I think my close reflected consensus, but you are free to open a DRV if you disagree. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Formatting help requested

Could you put some boxes or some other type of visual element around stuff pasted on ANI by Johnvr4? They've made a complete mess of that thread by copying bits of conversation from various other pages. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Various other pages are getting Archived and Deleted. Permission to fix the formatting is granted to you, I do not mind one bit. I would like All to understand the arguments here and who supports them.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Generally, pasting text like that irritates people. I've added a collapse box so it's clearer now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the hatting. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Archived?

I see the thread went into the archives for lack of activity. (Maybe it had too much competition from the Jimbo-related dramas.) Does it mean the proposal failed? Obviously the participation/consensus was not great. After that ANI was started (or better said, concurrently) myself and another editor tried to explain things further to Johnvr4 at on his talk page, in the hope for him to realize that one cannot "read between the lines" of the sources to the massive extent that Johnvr4 has done. Unfortunately it doesn't seem that he will ever be convinced. On the other hand, he clearly has put a lot of time and effort finding material for that article/topic (which is still preserved in his userspace). It seems that best solution is for him to be topic banned from editing in article space, mostly due to John's edit warring there, which led to protection during the AfD. I considered perhaps just put him under a revert restriction, but given that he has been pursuing this for over a year, that probably won't work. Perhaps a good compromise is to have him edit only his user space on these topics (US chemical warfare and/or the CIA). He should be allowed to post notices on article talk pages, e.g. "hey, I found this awesome source", but clearly he is reading stuff into sources that most other editors don't see and sometimes he is promoting sources that fail the Wikipedia reliability standards. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

In hindsight, it looks like I've made a procedural error. I should have posted to AP:AN not ANI. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you can just pull it out of archives if you want and relist it. I've had to do that before with low-traffic topic ban discussions. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's just wait and see; he has been inactive for the past couple of days. I've partially cleaned up a few other articles where he was active (Rainbow Herbicides, Agent Orange, Biological warfare, Project 112, etc.) 86.121.18.17 (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI: Alex Goot

Ilov90210 asked me about the Alex Goot article and since my response referenced you, I am leaving you a courtesy note. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. The software does it automatically now though if you link a username. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Omar Todd

A few users are becoming bothered by the Omar Todd articles that keep appearing on Wikipedia. We're at a count of three pages created already. Someone else has already added the tag for speedy deletion and cited a reason, and a few of us have voiced concerned from the 2nd nomination for deletion (successful) to the current 3rd nomination for deletion (pending). I'm thinking WP:SALT after deletion might be a good way to prevent further articles being created. I'm unable to administer this edit --- perhaps you can? PixiePerilot (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the speedy was declined. But, yes, I probably would salt it if I saw that it was deleted a few times. Since you brought this up on the Afd the deleting admin (If it is deleted) will probably do so. I can always help if he forgets to though. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bystander Theory

Rather than userfy, would you mind if I restored this and moved it to the incubator? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, go ahead. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will do... and I will leave a note on the AFD's talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead Masks Case deletion

Hello,
this case was featured in the book "Confrontations" by Jacques Vallée. Unlike many ufologists, Jacques Vallée is a reputable scientist, and I think his books can be considered reliable sources. Even though he considers Latin American media "a notorious unreliable souce" in his book, I'd say that two documentaries on this case ([1] & [2]), made by TV Globo in 1990 and 2004 respectively, are more or less reliable sources. They also demonstrate a long-term popular interest in this case. Not sure if the other sources on this case (INFA & Revista Vigília) are reliable, but in my opinion the aforementioned ones are enough to show the notability of this case. Is it possible to review the deletion? Finstergeist (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I felt kind of bad for deleting that article. Procedurally, there seemed to be a consensus to delete it though, so I did. It's a very fascinating case and part of me would be glad to see it recreated. I'd have to suggest a trip to WP:DRV though, to get community consent to recreation. Sorry and good luck, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, understood.

Deletion review for Lead Masks Case

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lead Masks Case. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Finstergeist (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Johnny Squeaky

I noticed Johnny Squeaky, and saw him for the first time, when he made this edit to the John and Lorena Bobbitt article two hours ago. I was alarmed by that edit because not all of the information in that section is trivial. The first portion of it is about the impact the case had on society. This made me do research into Johnny Squeaky's editing history, and I see that you have reverted him before for editing warring and left him a note about trivia sections. He has been warned enough times, as seen in these, these and these discussions at his talk page, about inappropriately retitling "In popular culture," "Popular culture," "Cultural references," etc. headings or similar to "Trivia" and that he should not tag them as "trivia" unless they truly are...and yet he is still doing exactly that. The "Cultural influence" section in the Homer Simpson article, for example, is not trivial. It is about that character's impact on society, but Johnny Squeaky would no doubt title that section "Trivia" and add a "trivia" tag to it...which says "Lists of miscellaneous information should be avoided. Please relocate any relevant information into other sections or articles."...even though that section is not a list, there are no better places in that article to relocate that information, and the section should not be split off from the main article per WP:SIZE. To Johnny Squeaky, it is all trivia because "In fact, usually [popular culture and trivia] are the same thing. 'In Popular Culture' is used as a synonym for 'Trivia' by people who feel the name 'Trivia' is too down-scale for Wikipedia, while they are still perfectly happy to include content that any reasonable person would classify as... Trivia!" This miscategorizing/mistagging of his is a detriment to Wikipedia, especially considering that the trivia tag makes editors more prone to remove the sections (at least when they aren't as well put together as the Homer Simpson Cultural influence section); Johnny Squeaky has encountered that type of mindset, such as at the Nag Champa article, but he is still miscategorizing/mistagging sections despite that. So maybe it's time to report this editor at WP:ANI? Start a WP:RfC/U about him? I'm also confused by the Ronny Squeaky and Donny Squeaky accounts; are they simply sockpuppets of Mangoeater1000 that Mangoeater1000 decided to use to mock Johnny Squeaky?

Note that I have not linked Johnny Squeaky's name in this section because it will notify him of this post on your talk page and then he will come to this talk page and, from what I have seen of his behavior in general, behave rudely and/or extremely rudely. Or he'll leave such a message on his own talk page, and remove it soon afterward (maybe as an attempt to keep me from replying to it, though I could still start a fresh section and reply about it in that one). And I would rather you or someone else watching your talk page comment productively on this matter before he weighs in on it. I'd rather not discuss this matter with him at all, considering that he's weighed in on the matter enough times as it is and it has been a case of WP:I didn't hear that or something similar each time he did. I'm also tempted to invite others who have had a problem with his miscategorizing/mistagging of sections to this talk page section I've started, but I would rather not do that without your permission. You may not want that drama at your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. I'll take a look at it and get back to you later. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I'm not too sure what to do honestly. I'd lean towards RFCU as an option based on my brief examination of things. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Thanks for looking this over and offering your take on it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Project A119 - Might need protecting as well

Hi,

I've been keeping an eye on Project A119 and it's related talk page and the unidentified person who keeps adding the claim that Edward Snowden was involved in reviving Project A119 has been repeatedly adding it to the talk page. Most recently with a comment directed at myself that read: "This is bigger than you think, and please stop this edit war." after I deleted the text and added a comment to provide sources. Graham1973 (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done. I usually hesitate to protect talk pages, but in this case I doubt there will be much collateral damage. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Requests for lesson protection

Thanks for reviewing my requests for userpage protection, the other day. My mistake for requesting pending changes protection. Is there any way that I can get semi-protection? The pages are located at User:Jackson Peebles/Adoption/Lesson #. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I think semi is Ok in this case. I've just done the nine you listed at RFPP. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Kate Garvey

You stated: "This close does not mean that the article has to remain, however, the community can begin a new discussion at any time about whether to merge and redirect this." That's telling people they if they didn't get their way in the AFD, just go ahead and have the exact same discussion over again on the talk page for a merge/redirect discussion, which means in this case nothing would be merged of course, so it just deletion. There was no consensus to delete directly or through a false merger where nothing is merged. Dream Focus 22:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I usually allow for speedy merger discussions after a no consensus close. There doesn't seem to be a broad agreement about whether to keep this content or do away with it entirely. Merging the content to another page would be a middle ground of sorts, so I don't feel like that should be ruled out, considering the lack of an actionable consensus thus far. 22:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There is zero content of any sort that could be merged over to any article. So its just a stealth delete and shouldn't be encouraged. Dream Focus 22:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Then !vote against a merge if one is proposed. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Why repeat the entire AFD all over again? You do it once, you shouldn't have to repeat it. Some determined people will probably just wait a bit for attention to die down then try again this way, to try to get rid of the article with less people noticing. Just gaming the system. Dream Focus 23:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As an Afd closer, I'm not saying it should be merged or even that a discussion should be held on a merger. It's just that one can be held. What I'm saying is that a no consensus close doesn't preclude the opening of a merger discussion as a matter of procedure, like a Keep closure usually does. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Though I !voted delete, I must say that Mark has made a good call on this one. Reading through the discussion, I don't see enough support for either of keeping or deleting. Merging is an option but there it isn't addressed enough in the discussion for the closer to recommend it explicitly. Good call. --regentspark (comment) 12:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert (character)

Thank you Mark for enabling protection on this page. However, the edit by Discospinster before you enabled protection on the page needs to be undone. Is there a way that can be done and Stephen's title be restored?

It can be undone, but you should try to gain consensus for the change on the talk page. See WP:BRD for best practices in edit wars. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Oddball Barnstar

		The Oddball Barnstar
		What more deserving person is there for this? I can't even begin to count the topics you've improved that fall under this. Keep at it! PumpkinSky talk 23:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

lol, thanks. This is a fitting barnstar. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Very fitting ;-) PumpkinSky talk 23:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Old Afd (June 18) still open

I don't know why but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATAXIA CURE seems to have fallen off the bookkeeping lists at AfD. It has some weird formatting and was page-blanked at some point, but it should be easy to close since even the creator ultimately agreed that the three articles should be deleted. Sorry to bother you about this, but I couldn't figure out where to let anyone know about this and noticed you'd recently closed some AfDs. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that was a pretty clear consensus. Done. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)