Jump to content

User talk:Mark Arsten

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carolduncanshusband (talk | contribs) at 02:43, 1 January 2012 (→Thanks for the suggestion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my User talk page. Add new messages below:

Merge discussion for Prosperity theology

An article that you have been involved in editing, Prosperity theology , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ltwin (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Ltwin (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deletion of Steven Schmidt

You proposed deleting the article for Steven Schmidt - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Schmidt for lack of references. But I think you added references. So why on earth would you delete an article for a reason that you easily remedied?

Not sure I follow that logic.

-- Mgayle23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.41.12 (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Mgyale, you are partially mistaken here. User:Pburka proposed the article for deletion because of a lack of sources. I happened to come across the article after he/she proposed it for deletion. I added in some sources and removed the proposed deletion template. Someone could still nominate it for deletion through WP:AFD later, but it's safe for now. Interesting article you wrote there, I hope you stick around. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tees railway viaducst

Yes, I think that book is about the road bridge - see Tees Viaduct. I saw that article before I made the railway page. JagMoore (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my mistake. It's a shame how quick that was nominated for deletion though, I hope you are able to turn up some more sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thanks for the references! ^_^ Bolillorocks (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)bolillorocks[reply]

My pleasure, that's a very interesting topic. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bach

Apologies, Mark. I had wrongly thought that as long as we quoted the obituary as being a proper source the article would be OK. Thanks.LenF54 (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your further reply, Mark. I want to proceed with the article, particularly as I stated at its creation that the justification was that his Saga Magazine became the largest circulation monthly mag in Britain and this is not a part of the stubbed article you have allowed to remain. When I read my article I still think it is a reasonably constructed piece of work, but as you rightly say it is too similar to the Telegraph's obituary. The problem is that the Telegraph's piece contains almost all the relevant info (other than place and cause of death, wife's maiden name and year of marriage) so any article I write will in some way contain elements of it. I will keep working on it. Could I suggest that if I come up with a sufficiently re-worked piece that I think could replace the current stub, then I put it in my sandbox and ask you to look at it? That way I would not be writing something only for you or another editor to delete it. In the meantime I want to add to the stub about Saga Mag being at one time Britain's biggest selling monthly, otherwise it should be proposed for deletion. LenF54 (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sounds like a good idea--the article was well-constructed and seems to be a pretty notable topic. Feel free to re-edit the article or work up a draft in a sandbox. I should be able to take a look at your work again, but in case I'm not around Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests might be a good place to get some help, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, I put a note on Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests and an editor stated on 4 November that the article looked OK apart from a particular copyright violation - but he wanted a second opinion. I have deleted the offending external link, but no further opinion has been forthcoming. Can you take a look for me please? I have other work queuing up to get into my sandbox User:LenF54/sandbox, and while the Paul Bach article sits there I keep tweaking and adding to it. Currently the article is more about the magazine than Bach! LenF54 (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, I had totally forgotten about this, thanks for the note. I agree with the other reviewer, this draft looks like it is in good shape. I'm glad to see that you kept going and worked on it some more. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Nextdoor

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

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

A tag has been placed on Nextdoor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the importance of the subject, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Institute Benjamenta

I must admit I was nonplussed by your publication--just hours ago. Your article looks like it is of good quality, and at first glance appears to contain more of a research base than Courtney's. I'll discuss this development with her but it won't be until after Thanksgiving. I may encourage her to see if she could add anything to the article you posted so that she gets some experience on collaborating with other editors to create a better product. Thanks for drawing this to my attention. -Webster Newbold (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hope that it works out well. She did have some information in her draft about awards and soundtrack and a couple other things that don't have in my draft. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Unthink

Orlady (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 08:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nextdoor

Orlady (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 08:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements to Prosperity theology

Hey. I think the theology section is good, but it needs to do a better job of actually describing what this looks like in practice. How exactly is giving money and other "seed" practiced and explained. How does belief in divine healing look through this perspective. What does suffering and lack in a Christian's life mean to prosperity theology adherents. So just more detail.

I have a book which I can use to help to boost the history section.

Governance and organization. Prosperity gospel ministries tend to be very hierarchical with the senior pastor having nearly unchecked authority over church affairs. This might need to be talked about. Ltwin (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts, those are good observations. The authoritarian trend is particularly true, I think. I'll see if there are any good sources that I can dig up. Also, I just noticed, this article gets a lot of views! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About images, perhaps images from TBN or something. Maybe the cover of a book advocating prosperity gospel.
I also think there needs to be more clarity on the difference between prosperity theology and Word of Faith/Positive Confession. Having grown up in a WOF influenced church, I know that they go hand in hand. From what I can tell from reading though, Word of Faith seems to be a particular form of prosperity gospel. One can advocate a prosperity theology without believing in full blown Word of Faith. Ltwin (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additions to the article, they look pretty good. It is really coming along nicely. I agree about the distinctions, there are a variety of subsets in the movement. Moderates vs extremists as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to get some more of that in the article, there is really a lot of coverage out there about this. I had a hard time finding sources that talked about the differences between moderate PT and hard-core WOF theology. I'll keep looking though. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit of Agnes Monica

You're great! The prose reads much better. I don't have time to do a full review of it, but from a quick look I think it passes GAC1a and b now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I haven't joined the GOCE or anything, but I was looking over their page and thought I'd take a try on it. I don't know much at all about Indonesia so it was good to learn a bit. I had a ton of caffeine that day, and it was wearing off by the end of the copyedit, so I probably missed more then. I'll try to take another look if I have time in the next few days. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Whiteaker, Eugene, Oregon

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thank you

Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, I hope you enjoy the use of the mop. It was really a shame though to see how contentious the debate got by the end, but you kept your calm admirably. It reminded me a lot of the negative campaigning used in American politics these days. I wish Wikipedia were above such things. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Woodland Notability

Camp Woodland was built in 1969 and at its first summer camp had 487 campers. The camp also has a dynamic history. This is according to its about page at http://woodlandcamp.org/history.html That's notable to me. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 23:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your response. I'll open a deletion discussion to get some more input on its notability. Typically independent sources are required to have an article, perhaps someone who comes across the discussion can turn some up. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed the template from the page after expanding it some and now you nominated it for deletion. You weren't supposed to undo what I did with that template. Why? --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 00:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE

Thanks for the comments man. I'm glad the article helped in a way.--WillC 22:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, hope the rest of the review goes well. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palo Alto High School edits

Hello,there, what was wrong with this, why did you delete it? This is all verified and cited and important information about the school. Palygrad (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Palygrad[reply]

Palo Alto High School has a substantial academic achievement gap, whereby Black and Latino students do not enjoy a comparable level of academic success as their White and Asian counterparts. For example, in 2010, only 15% of Blacks and less than 40% of Latinos met the UC/CSU A-G requirements for admissions eligibility, compared with 80-90% of Whites and Asians. [7] Palo Alto High School, as part of PAUSD, has a disproportionate number of Blacks and Latinos in special education, and as part of PAUSD is subject to a state-mandated plan to reduce this disproportionality. [8] On April 20, 2011, Radu Toma, Palo Alto High School Mathematics Instructional Supervisor, and the Palo Alto High School Math Department, issued a letter to the PAUSD School Board and Superintendent personally signed by Radu Toma, Suzanne Antink, Kathy Bowers, Judy Choy, Arne Lim, Deanna Chute, Natalie Simison, Misha Stempel, Maria Rao, Charlotte Harris, Scott Friedland, Lisa Kim, Ambika Nangia and David Baker. The letter states in pertinent part: "However brain theory supports the reality that confounding student situations interfere with their ability to focus and succeed as they move through advanced mathematics curriculum in high school. We live in an affluent community. Most of our students are fortunate to come from families where education matters and parents have the means and will to support and guide their children in tandem with us, their teachers. Not all of them. . . . Many of these are VTP [desegregation transfer] students or under-represented minorities. . . . In the present system, they graduate proud of their accomplishments, to go on to community college or jobs for which PAUSD prepares them better than most districts. . . . The alternative, diluting the standards in our regular lane to basic benchmarks which might allow every student to pass Algebra II would end up hurting the district's reputation . . . . [segue to info re their plan to] "motivate slackers". [9]

My apologies, I saw the misplaced example file at the top of the page and reverted your edit to remove it. If you have cited text about the school you are free to add it in anytime. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Caxias

Hi, Mark. I saw that you made several edits to Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias. Do you plan to review its FA candidacy? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lecen, I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia copyediting so feel free to revert my tweaks if you don't think they're an improvement. I wasn't planning on giving a Support or Oppose in the FAC since I'm not completely familiar with Featured article standards. I'm trying to get up to speed on it and hopefully I'll become more familiar quickly. I'll try to look over the rest of the article and leave a comment on the FAC though. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, you're helping a lot. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know very little about South American history, so this was educational for me if nothing else :) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article about Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná which I brought to FA level some time ago. I made quite a few imporvements since then and I wanted to be sure that its prose looks good. If you're interested, could you do some copy-edit on it? Since you read Caxias, you'll feel at home here. --Lecen (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'd be willing to go over it when I get a chance. I'll let you know if I have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to add my thanks, especially for simplifying some of the more awkward areas. Much appreciated. • Astynax talk 19:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome, with large articles like that it really does take a number of people looking at it to catch everything. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you done with the Marquis of Paraná's article? Is there anything else to be corrected? --Lecen (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks great, thank you very much. Tell me someting, at the beginning of the next section, it is written: "Luís Alves would normally have begun the Fourth year at the Royal Military Academy in March 1822." Should I add "Fourth year classes"? I don't want anyone to believe that this Fourth year was his fourth year at the Academy, which wasn't. --Lecen (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that would be a good change to make. Good catch. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite yet, I have not done below the First presidency of the Council of Ministers. Things are going well thus far. Hopefully I'll be able to finish soon. I've tried to be careful, but you should probably review my changes to make sure I didn't change the meaning of anything. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I'm finished. I'm not a professional-quality copyeditor (yet), so there's a chance that some particularly exacting editors could still find issues. My new year's resolution is to get some articles up to Featured Status, so this is good practice for me. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, I made a few changes to the second and third paragraph of "Military education" section on Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias. Could you do me a favor and take a look and improve where necessary? Most important is this part: "He rose from alferes (equivalent to a second lieutenant today), on 12 October 1818, to lieutenant (nowadays first lieutenant) on 4 November 1820". The date "12 October 1818" is when he was promoted to alferes. Thanks a lot, --Lecen (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I took a stab at it. Hope that my changes were an improvement! Mark Arsten (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, is this correct: "Physically, he was ordinary looking, with a round face, brown hair, brown eyes and average height."? --Lecen (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that basically looks ok to me. There are a couple other ways you could write it though ie: He had an ordinary appearance, with a... And so on. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed to "He had an ordinary appearance, with a..." as you suggested. Thanks a lot. --Lecen (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: "Luís Alves' indistinguishable features were compensated by his bearing; historian Thomas Whigham described him as someone who "learned the art of giving orders early in life. Immaculate in his dress, he was soft spoken, polite, and smoothly in control of himself. He seemed to radiate calm composure and authority." Is this ok? What about the ";"? Do you have a better suggestion? --Lecen (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure "indistinguishable" is the best word to put there. (not 100% sure) I think you're trying to say that his features were the same as people around him, but it almost sounds to me like "Luís Alves' indistinguishable features" means you can't distinguish one of his features from other features. Maybe say "unremarkable features" or perhaps "quotidian features". Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct. Changed to unremarkable. Thanks a lot! --Lecen (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Alexis Bachelot

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Woodland

Can you extend the date that Camp Woodland is going to be deleted? I need a lot of extra time. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 21:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's nothing that I can do at this point since the AfD is under way. If you comment in the AfD and say you can provide evidence of notability soon an administrator may extend the discussion. Also, you could flag the article for rescue. Even if it is deleted, if you can find proof of notability after the fact you can always open up a WP:Deletion Review. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For your outstanding copyediting of Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias and Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná. You deserve this. Thank you very much. Lecen (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Joanna Yeates

Hi Mark. Thanks for copyediting the article, it's reading much better now. I also need to apologise to you as I didn't realise you were still working your way through it, and added something to the Tabak section which I'd overlooked, so I hope you don't mind that I've done that. I've tried to add it in the same style, so hopefully it should be ok. I'll put it up for GA in the next couple of days and see how it fares. Thanks once again. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, glad to help--the prose wasn't bad to begin with. I think the article is in pretty good shape for a shot at Good Article Status. (Though I wasn't familiar with the case to begin with, so I wouldn't know about bias/comprehensiveness). I haven't officially joined the GOCE or anything, but I saw the backlog and figured I'd try to help out a bit where I could. (Since I was adding to it myself). I'm still a bit new to Wikipedia copyediting so I won't be offended if you disagree with any of my changes. There are a few sections I haven't gone through yet, but I should be able to finish up in a day or two. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again and thanks once more for the copyedit. I agree with everything you've done, so the only change I've made is a small update as Saturday was the first anniversary of her death. I'll put it forward for GA today and hopefully it should be promoted after Christmas. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, I hope that the review goes smoothly. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please take note of the following:

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was quick service! Thanks, I'll get to work cleaning up vandalism shortly. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot

For the Copyedit
Have a local brew on me. Your copyedits to 1740 Batavia massacre have the article sparkling. I'm tempted to go to FAC today or tomorrow. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're very welcome, I think the article is in great shape. It is always a pleasure to try to copyedit well-written articles, I think this definitely deserves featured status. (This was a lot easier than the one about the singer I did a few weeks ago!) Mark Arsten (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the offer, I'll plan to take you up on that! I'm working on a sandbox draft right now and haven't moved it to mainspace yet. I'm still waiting for a couple books to arrive, actually. Half the fun is doing the research though :) Mark Arsten (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Science of Logic

You wrote me the following:

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Science of Logic, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you kindly provide some grounds to back up your assertion that my edit to Science of Logic was "unconstructive"? Xianmw (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, that was my mistake, I have restored your edit. I was using WP:IGLOO and I misfired, totally my mistake--I deserve to be hit with a trout for that. Good for you working on Hegel though, we need more contributors like you. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Ederick

Please save my page "The Children and the Airline (2011 book)" I need this page in order to publish my novels. Even though I had not released it. You can trust me I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesDavidEderick (talk • contribs) 02:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I know what it is like to have someone try to delete a page right after it is created, so I know what you are feeling to some extent. I thought your page was a hoax at first, but I'll take your word that the book is real. But you should review Wikipedia's inclusion guideline for books to see if there are any guideline based argumentation that you can make in the discussion. If you find that your book does not meet the guideline but likely will soon, you can ask to have the page moved into a userspace location. Also, I don't understand why you need to have a Wikipedia page in order to publish the book? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for beating me to vandalism 3 times tonight. :) Keep up the good work and happy holidays! -- Luke (Talk) 02:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks for all your great work helping to get the prosperity theology article to GA status. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I think my account has been hacked. I just logged on and i got like three messages. How do I changed my password? — Preceding unsigned comment added by S3XYman2043 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not sure--I've had the same password since I registered an account. Maybe ask on the WP:VP? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Alexis Bachelot/GA1

Will complete the review on Saturday. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, not a problem, thanks for the note. I'm sure I can find something on Wikipedia to keep me busy until then :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On hold till 31st. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Yep, Merry Christmas

Hello, Mark! I hope you're doing fine. I wish you a Merry Christmas and I really want to see you and I working together again next year. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd like to wish you a Boas Festas, as well. I see you got another couple supports on the Duke of Caxias, good deal. Hope you get to bring a few more articles to FAC in the new year. Hopefully there will be a lot more edits to FAC and less to ANI/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests then. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I won't. I'm giving up the FAC. I asked for one thing: impartiality. That's all. I don't believe someone who has issues in the past with an editor should review the latter's FAC. That's simple and reasonable. And I'm the kind of person who believes that we should all treat ourselves with respect. It isn't because we are protected by anonymity (well, at least not me anymore) that we have the right to call someone an "arse", "idiot" or tell them to "fuck themselves" as that said person did before. I just want to finish Caxias' FAC and I'm done here for good. Anyway, I wish you a good Christmas celebration. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that you are giving up on FAC, I wonder if the process is eventually headed for reform. Oh well, I guess time will tell. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that we have always the same small group of editors taking part on the FAC process? There are no newer editors appearing interested on reviewing articles. I see the contrary: there has been quite a few good and experienced editors giving up. What to do? I don't know, but the delegates do not seem to have the will to propose any improvements for real. But forget about it. I just wanted to thank you and wish you a nice holiday. You're a great person and deserve it. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you reversing my edits on the Taser article?

My statements are factual. Do you deny them? A taser is a torture device, and this is obvious to anyone who's seen any news article concerning their use in the last decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.102.240 (talk • contribs)

Hi, thanks for asking. On Wikipedia, additions to articles must be written in a neutral tone and should be cited to a reliable source. Statements such as this appear to be biased to me and did not cite a source, that's why I reverted you. If you believe that this is accurate, please open a new section on Talk:Taser and attempt to discuss the matter with other editors. It will help a lot if you provide citations for your claims. Thanks and Happy Holidays, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

How do you reason with a anon user that trolls you and keeps reverting your edits? The problem is that they have no incentive to discuss or register as a user to engage in discussion.MonkeyKingBar (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and how do you reason with a sockpuppet [1] who refuses to discuss edits, refuses to follow the rules, and has been banned several times[2][3][4][5][6]? 99.224.54.167 (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, my talk page is getting crowded. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised the matter at WP:ANI, hopefully they can sort things out between you two. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updating AUS information

Hello Mark, I'm editing the AUS site and got a message from you, of which the word 'vandalism' made me sit up. It's my first time to work on Wikipedia copy so please let me know if I have overstepped the mark in my editing. I'll start reading the guidelines now. --Frances Barton (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, that was actually my fault--I removed the vandalism template a couple minutes later. I restored your edits to the page, you did nothing wrong there. What happened was I saw that there was one empty section with Xs (you removed it here) and though that you were just adding a bunch of Xs to the article. Then when I saw that you had made more edits than that I restored your work. Please continue helping out around here, we need contributors like you. It is good to read the guidelines, but there are quite a few of them. I recommend Wikipedia:The End for some good introductory information. Thanks Mark Arsten (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mark, shall do. --Frances Barton (talk) 06:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Bridge, Texas

I live in Bridge City. I cannot recall the name of the lady (then a child) who was honored by having her suggestion for the name of the bridge made official. Somethings just don't have references, but ask anybody in Bridge City how the "Rainbow Bridge" got the name Rainbow Bridge, and they will tell you about the little girl, who was a friend of Ruth and Henry Darder. Since you feel it isn't interesting, how come the bridge was renamed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.59.12.226 (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for reverting you like that, your edit here was not vandalism--when I looked at it I thought you were saying that the name was given after it was put on the NRHP list. That being said, when you add information to Wikipedia you should always include a reference. See this page: WP:V for Wikipedia's policy on the issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may be able to find the copy of the lcoal paper from the late 1990s which related the story. If so, I'll add it as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.59.12.226 (talk • contribs)

Thanks, and sorry again for the misunderstanding. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Ross Issue

You undid my edit to Rick Ross. I had added a category in that edit. Also in that edit, inappropriate language had been replaced with symbols for some weird reason. I did not mean to replace the swear words. The next time when something similar to this happens, do not undo the revision, but edit the page and put the swear words back into the page. Because you undid the revision, the category that I added was removed. I later put the category back into the page. Jawadreventon (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see the category added at the bottom at the time just the bowdlerizing symbols, I would have re-added it had I seen it. Also, in your last edit to the page you re-censored the article with "@#!*%" over the profanity. Do you have some sort of text filter on your computer? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Zeami Motokiyo

The DYK project (nominate) 20:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion

Although I agree the Jediism article needs more material I do not feel I am yet suficiently qualified to provide such material. I am learning though. If you do find a jedi knight or master let me know. Perhaps they would accept a padawan. Circuitboardsushi (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will tell you if I find one, but there aren't many around Wikipedia these days ;) Mark Arsten (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but why were my edits not constructive?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mark_Arsten&oldid=468875393"