User talk:Mark Arsten

Mark Arsten is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

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

Main page appearance: Alexis Bachelot

This is a note to let the main editors of Alexis Bachelot know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 22, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 22, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Alexis Bachelot (1796–1837) was a Roman Catholic priest and first Prefect Apostolic of the Sandwich Islands who led the first permanent Catholic mission to the Kingdom of Hawaii. He arrived in Hawaii in 1827, expecting the approval of King Kamehameha II. He learned upon arrival that the king had died and that the new government was hostile towards Catholic missionaries. Bachelot converted and then quietly ministered to a small group of Hawaiians for four years before being deported on the orders of Kaʻahumanu, the Kuhina Nui of Hawaii. Bachelot traveled to California, where he served as an assistant minister. In 1837, having learned of Kaʻahumanu's death and King Kamehameha III's willingness to allow Catholic priests, Bachelot returned to Hawaii, but found that Kamehameha III had changed his mind. Bachelot was removed from the island and confined to a ship for several months. He was freed after the French and British navies imposed a blockade on Honolulu harbor. He later secured passage on a ship to Micronesia, but died en route. His treatment prompted the government of France to dispatch a frigate to Hawaii, an intervention that led to the emancipation of Catholics there. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help with History of Gibraltar GA review?

Hi Mark, I wonder if I could ask for your help with a current project of mine? I'm working on History of Gibraltar with the aim of getting it to FA by 11 April, the 300th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Utrecht, under which Spain surrendered Gibraltar to Britain. I should have the article ready for a GA review within about the next week to 10 days. As the bulk of Gibraltar's history involves sieges and battles, it's pretty much a straight-up piece of military history. Would you be up for doing the GA review? It would need to be turned around pretty quickly (say within about 2 weeks of nomination) in order to leave enough time for it to go through FAC. Prioryman (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that does sound interesting. No guarantees, but I might be able to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, actually, I'll plan on doing the GA review when I see it nominated. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I'll let you know when it's ready for a review. Prioryman (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've got through it faster than I anticipated and History of Gibraltar is ready now for a GA review. I've nominated it under the World History subtopic. It would be great if you could take on the review of this. Prioryman (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've picked up the review. Hopefully I'll be able to work somewhat quickly. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, I made a few more changes yesterday from a new source I found but that really should be it from me now. I see you've already done some work on it, so thanks for picking it up so soon. Prioryman (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your review comments. I've replied to all of them, but have a few followup questions for you. Prioryman (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try to get to them soon. I have a few more comments to post too. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fram

When you said "My advice to Fram is to walk away from this conflict before he gets himself in any more trouble. Sometimes it's best to say "mistakes were made" and find something less controversial to occupy oneself with.", did you mean from the AN discussion with Demiurge and so on, or did you mean specifically from Kumioko? The former I will leave alone, but the latter I can't walk away from, since I am the one being followed around. Fram (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I was thinking more along the lines of: when you're "under the microscope" (having an AN open about you) anything you say has the potential to be used against you, so it's best not to post too much. But disengaging from K is a good idea, and hopefully Demi will de-escalate too. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, although I believe that during the AN discussion, my behaviour or comments weren't really problematic. As for the disengaging, I'll not follow either of them around, but if the opposite happens (in a disruptive way), I'll calmly open an AN discussion if necessary. Fram (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds good. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sexology arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 22, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Student of the Year

Mark, you deleted the above article based on an AfD. However, the article still exists. The only thing that I can see that may have recreated it is User:Pleasant1623's move of the protection settings from Student of the Year (film), a redirect, to Student of the Year. If that's not it - and I'm not sure why that would recreate it anyway - I'm at a loss. If you can shed some light on this, I'd appreciate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this is very confusing, yes. Ok, I did some poking around, and I figured it out. I deleted an article "Student of the year" and then after it was deleted "Student of the year (film)" was moved to that title. If you check the "view or restore deleted edits" you can see the version that I deleted. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the move of the protection settings, but I didn't see the move of the article itself. Now I see it on the move log of the redirect. But why? Shouldn't both pages be deleted?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is, there was "Student of the year" about a non-notable program in New Zealand and "Student of the Year (film)" about an apparently notable Indian film. After the former was deleted, the latter was moved to the former's title. So I don't think the film article needs to be deleted. Hope this makes sense. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I should have looked more closely at the content. Thanks for bearing with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear program of North Korea

You recently changed this article from a disambiguation page to a redirect, based on a brief discussion of articles proposed for deletion. I'm not sure this was the right decision, since North Korea ostensibly has both a nuclear weapons program and a nuclear power program, both of which have received news attention of late (see isis-online.org). But my main question is how was I to know that this article was proposed for deletion. I follow the article's talk page and didn't see any notice there. If I had been aware I would have commented. NPguy (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the consensus at the Afd was to use a hatnote instead of a disambiguation page, so people will still have the option to view both topics if they enter Nuclear program of North Korea into the search bar. This edit added the Afd notice, although there was another edit soon after, which probably prevented people who had it watchlisted from seeing the Afd edit. No rule was broken though, it's just a quirk of the deletion system that puts the responsibility on interested parties to find it rather than the nominator to reach out to interested people. If you'd like, you can take the deletion decision to WP:DRV to try to have it overturned. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say no rule was broken, but that does not seem to be true. The AfD notice contained the following:

but the AfD notice was deleted before the issue was settled. It seems to me the change should be undone and the discussion reopened. NPguy (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe that it was left there until the discussion was closed. This is the last revision before I redirected it, and the notice is still there. If you believe the closure was seriously flawed, you are free to take the matter to WP:DRV and petition to have the discussion re-opened. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right. I just missed it. Strange. NPguy (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freelancer

Please stay away from freelancer.com. You are biased or an employ of freelancer.com. Please leave wiki from your vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.75.49 (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you, I am neither. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Freelancer.com is having a practice of vandalism of wikipedia. If anybody write about their malpractices they immediately mark it vandalism. read below

http://getahindu.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/freelancercom-privacy-policy-and.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajith90 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that negative information about a company does not qualify as "vandalism" by Wikipedia's definition, Blogspot is not a reliable source (WP:RS), so it shouldn't be used to cite information in articles. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REX#Journal of the South African Dental Association 2

Resolved

Hello! I've got the article now. Where have I to send it to? -- Doc Taxon (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks, glad to hear that. Please send it to arstenm

gmail.com. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian School Protection Needed

Hello. I request that you protect Austrian school for an additional week. An editor reverted content today with no prior discussion on talk. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to hold off on re-protecting for now; right now it seems like we have the "B" and "R" of WP:BRD, which is Ok. If there are more reverts that could be a problem though. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't know whether you are aware of the history of this content. The content was edit-warred at length by one editor against a number of other contributors to that article. There was an RfC which was decided against the view of user Byelf2007. He subsequently denied the validity of the RfC process to settle an edit disagreement and resumed warring. That was the occasion at which you were initially asked to protect the page. If you were not aware of this when you made your decision, I would appreciate any further consideration you might give the matter. I am afraid we are going to get into another mess with the article. Thanks SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see. If he restores it again, I will take action. I'll leave a note for him. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it does take two to edit war, so you might want to open a noticeboard discussion instead of reverting him again. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mark Arsten. User Byelf2007 has again begun to edit war with 4 recent reverts on the Austrian School article. I undid the first and asked him to desist, but I just returned to find 3 more of his reverts in the same section of the article. 4 Reverts here: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Maybe you can help him to decide to undo his reverts and to join the rest of the editors in a hands-off this content. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I considered blocking him, but went with page protection instead. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Johnson (reporter) and James Brandon

Mark, As the editor who closed the AfDs of Anthony Johnson (reporter) and James Brandon, I was hoping you could move the deleted articles from the archive to my subpages for salvage. In both cases, the number of votes were few, the assumptions about Wikipedia policy were flawed, and there were factual errors in the nominations. I have been able to salvage other articles in the process of AfD or in the aftermath, such as in the case of Assaf Abu Rahhal. Crtew (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you think you can improve them, I'll userfy them for you. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Crtew (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intrasomatic model

I'm puzzled as to why you created the redirect, given that there seemed to be something of a consensus not to do so. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there was a consensus not to redirect. In any case, the redirect was done in my capacity as an editor rather than as a administrative enforcement of consensus (i.e. the discussion was closed as "delete" not "redirect"), so you are free to send the redirect to WP:RFD if you feel it is not a good redirect. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated it for deletion given that the target section in NDE isn't there anymore. Mangoe (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfA: thank you for your support

Mark, please accept my thanks for your support during my RfA. I hope my performance as a candidate did not prove too great a disappointment. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have supported. I'm sorry you weren't successful; this has demonstrated once again that WP:RFA is a failed system. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Mejin

Hi, Mark. I was about to create an article on Malcolm Mejin, but realized it was deleted. Would it be possible to have it reinstated? There is recently quite a coverage on him, albeit not internationally, but nationally (state and community -wise). Can we have it up in Wikipedia? Many thanks.

Regards, Bluemoon. 01:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.141.53.88 (talk)

Possibly, could you show me some of the sources you plan on using to create the article? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read an online article and I was going to write a short Wikipedia entry on him based on this news. There are other online news about him, but I find this more interesting. http://www.theborneopost.com/2013/02/06/malcolm-mejin-to-write-about-gays-next/ Regards, Bluemoon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.165.98 (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to userfy the deleted content for you to work on. I can only do that if you register an account though. Please register and I'll create a userspace draft for you. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've created an account. Guide me to the next step if any. Thanks, Bluemoon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemoon989 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of Shahbag Square

Hello Mark, I see you have protected 2013 Shahbag Protest. I wonder if you could do the same or delete and salt Voice of Shahbag Square. A user has posted a somewhat rambling manifesto (I think that's what it is) on it. I have cleared it and redirected it to the main article on the protest but they have reverted it once already. It could probably do with being protected if the redirect stays or salted if deleted. Cheers, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've protected. In return, could you explain things to the user? It seems like he's new and may not understand how things work here. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll get on that. Thanks Mark. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for removing sourceless material from 2013 Shahbag Protest

Dear Mark, you have protected this article for User:‎Reason.upholder's vandalism. But he put a section named "Large Issue" just after lede, which don't have a single line of reference. He don't have basic wiki editing skill and even don't know where to comment. Would you please remove that section?--Freemesm (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit conflicted, I would like to remove the sourceless information but WP:PREFER suggests removal after full protection only in cases of vandalism, copyvio, or BLP issues. Do any of those apply here? It seems like it should probably be removed, but I don't know that it's urgent enough to do it through protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the section. It is totally editors opinion it is clearly WP:OR violation and off course is a vandalism.--Freemesm (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is OR, I'm not sure it's vandalism though. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section clearly defaming the judges and leaders of the government, it has no verifiable source and it violates NPOV, then off course it is BLP vio.--Freemesm (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you may be right, I'm not sure. I suggest you ask another admin, or maybe use the {{edit protected}} template to make a request. Sorry! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha, got it bro, The total section was copied from this blog!! Which is clearly copyright vio. Can you revert it now? I am also adding other vandalism issues on that article's talk page with {{edit protected}} template.--Freemesm (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Come to disturb you again sir. Please There are more sections, which are copied from that blog and pasted on that article. Here I describe them under {{edit protected}} template. Would you please check that?--Freemesm (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Sorry bro, you have already reverted them. Thanks a lot. Actually I have sped hundreds of hours to collect reference and make this article decent. That's why I care about that.--Freemesm (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Ok. Then it does look like a lot of work has gone into that article, good job! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help required to report 2 vandal

This account is continuously vandalize the talk page of 2013 Shahbag Protest article. Ho dont have basic idea of editing wikipedia and don't even know where to write in talk page. He was tried to push a blog content on that article. Another account is this, who was engaged in edit waring and revert about more than 10 times. How should I report them? Would you please help me? Which one will be appropriate 3rr or vandalism report?--Freemesm (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, only the most obvious vandals should be reported to WP:AIV (adding profanity, blanking articles, etc.) If someone is repeatedly reverting other editors (4 or more times in a day usually is the mininum for a report, WP:AN3 is the best place. For more complex issues like failure to discuss questionable changes, copyright violations, pov-pushing, you would want to go to WP:ANI. Hope this helps! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bro, Here I report one of them in 3RR. It is my first reporting. Don't know was I right or not. If you have time, can you check it please. I understand that fro yesterday I am disturbing you. Sorry bro.--Freemesm (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The report looks good, there's sometimes a bit of a backlog on that page but someone should get to it. I'll let an uninvolved admin handle it, since it's often good to get new perspective on these things. You're not disturbing me though :) Mark Arsten (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarianism article

Mark, as the semi-protection you put on this article expires today, do you mind keeping an eye on it for a few or several days after the semi-protection expires in case the same problems that caused you to semi-protect the article reappear? Flyer22 (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll keep an eye on it. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modern School (New Delhi) article

Mark, the article on Modern School(New Delhi) has been subject to vandalism. Someone has falsely written my name(Rijul Rajesh) in the list of notable alumnis in the public service section and written obscene words in my native language against my name. As this article is protected i cannot edit it and would like if you address this problem at the earliest.Thanking You! Rijul Rajesh 19:30, 14th February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note, I've removed it. Let me know if you need anything else. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mother India

Hi Mark Arsten, we last worked on Ahalya, that you helped reach to FA. Dwaipayanc and I are working on the iconic Indian film Mother India to take it to FA in celebration of 100 years of Indian cinema. Can you look at it and give some constructive criticism to improve it to FA standards. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The peer review.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds interesting. I'm in the middle of a couple reviews right now, but if I get time I'll look at it. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark Arsten, we are looking to start a FAC early next week as we wanted this article on main page possibly in late April to celebrate 100 years of Indian cinema. Please take a look.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I finished up one review and did some more progress on another. I should be able to take a look at it this weekend. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedit edit. Prose runs better. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, I'll try to do more soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mother India/archive1: Thanks for participating in the PR (Wikipedia:Peer review/Mother India/archive1). Mother India is now at FAC. We hope we have answered your PR comments properly. Sorry, could not get your input on them before closing PR as we were in a bit of a haste to nominate on FAC yesterday, on auspicious Saint David's Day. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Finasteride Syndrome

Could you restore the history for this? I understand the article was deleted and I'm not disputing that, but I don't see a policy reason for making the history unavailable prior to your conversion of that title to a redirect. I'm interested in researching what was contained there.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's at User:Brian Dell/Post-Finasteride Syndrome now. (Check the history for details). Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the work you do not just for Wikipedia but for an individual request like this. I've now saved it so I have no objections to having that newly created userpage deleted (although I have no objections to it remaining either).--Brian Dell (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Papal_conclave,_2013

I've requested user Surtsicna to stop editing the page. I've requested semi protection for this page. Will edit tomorrow the page to avoid restrictions. Is not the first time I've engaged on this "war", still . Please lock the page and request citations why there should be on the page because is a non catholic media guess and there are no references in Catholic Church sites to this. I've made this change in the same article in Wikipedia Spanish (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%B3nclave_de_2013). I will edit the full document to fit Spanish one that has more information. Thanks.

Hello, the best thing to do would be to continue to talk with Surtsicna on Talk:Papal conclave, 2013. I would prefer to avoid locking the page if possible. If you feel that your conversation with another user has become fruitless, it may be best to approach other interested editors (those editing the page/the talk page etc.) and ask for their opinions. If that doesn't work, you can always consider Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for your all-round constructiveness. You're a real asset. Pass a Method talk 21:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the barnstar! Mark Arsten (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Winter storm naming

I just wanted to make you aware of this discussion I started at Winter storm naming. I have no intentions of making any changes to the article myself, but was just hoping to get input from editors previously involved in the article (or recently-closed AfD) in an effort to improve the article and clarify its purpose. I will leave any changes to the consensus of other editors who decide what's best. Your participation would be welcome, regardless of your views on the issue. Thank you. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another barnstar for you!

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		Many thanks for all your help in reviewing various articles I've written, and in being such a diligent and conscientious reviewer - it's been a genuine pleasure. Prioryman (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar, you are very welcome. It's been a pleasure reading your creations! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's kind of you. :-) I've nominated the article for FA now; I don't know if that's your forte at all but I thought I'd let you know anyway. The nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Gibraltar/archive1. Prioryman (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfD question

Hello Mark. For the past few days I have been involved on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo where I see you have amended security settings. My question to you since you operate in that field is, what happens in cases like this when votes are roughly tied? I know that measures are not taken on account of one side achieving more votes than the other but what are the factors that influence whether a page is deleted or remains? How many admins are involved in the decision and what signals the green light to move in? I mean, is there a time frame? I am just curious. Out of interest, this is how the article looked at the point when the discussion began, Now the page has had quite a facelift. Although I have made a fair few edits, I question whether it is worth it in light of the fact it may be wiped out. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 03:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there are a few things that determine what happens in this situation. An admin could just close it as no consensus, but it's possible that it could be closed as keep or delete if an admin spends a lot of time looking into it and feels strongly that one side of the debate is using particularly poor arguments. A number of sockpuppets on one side could also lead to a keep or deletion. Improvements to the article should be considered, but there's no guarantee that they will. It's hard to predict what will happen; a lot depends on who feels like closing it. A lot of admins shy away from closing long, complicated Afds like this one because it's more difficult than the normal ones and likely more acrimonious too. As far as time frame goes, we're really not supposed to leave them open for longer than three weeks (that sometimes happens though). You could try listing it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure though. Hope this helps answer your questions! Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mark, it answers everything. Unfortunately that discussion is on the acrimonious side and I have to take my share of the blame. I am now keeping away from the discussion itself but will continue to improve the article where I feel I can. As for sockpuppets, the discussion is not as dominated by them as it might seem: one confirmed sockpuppet on each side, both struck out, the problem is that accusations of socking have flown about and tarnished the project page and this is what sticks out. Thanks for your time Mark, I'll see about declaring the page at RfC. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

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

Review request - Chappaquiddick

Hello Mark - My recent submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chappaquiddick incident conspiracy theories was rejected by reviewer User:GAtechnical on the grounds that the article "reads like an essay". I understand the difficulty in evaluating these postings, but I wonder if you'd look at it and determine if it's fundamentally flawed in that respect.

The subject of "conspiracy theories" no doubt raises red flags with some editors, but as encyclopedians, we should maintain a dispassionate approach. Can you give me a frank evaluation of the article? I would encourage you to take a look at some existing articles - John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories- for examples of "essay"-like contributions. I feel fairly certain that the article I've submitted avoids these "literary offenses" and provides adequate secondary sourcing. 36hourblock (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, to be honest, I don't think I've ever reviewed an Afc submission before. It looks like they have a place where users can ask questions (Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk), so you might be better off asking for a second opinion there. Sorry! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding marginally notable Wikipedians

Hi. After the deletion discussion settles, I wonder if we couldn't get Justin Knapp merged into some other article. It's fine as a redirect, but a separate article really doesn't make any sense. Maybe a merge/redirect to History of Wikipedia, as I said in the deletion discussion? But I was also thinking about a redirect/merge to Notable Wikipedians with subsections for a few different people. That might be able to finally kill off the Simon Pulsifer article as well, and perhaps some others. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, merging Knapp to History of Wikipedia would be a good idea. Some kind of Notable/Prominent Wikipedians article might also work, good thinking. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow modification to deleted page: Tai Urban

Regarding - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tai_Urban

Basically, I would like a chance to rewrite this section and improve it with the notes that you have provided in the deletion.

The notability for martial arts referenced his gold and bronze medals in Junior Olympics in Taekwondo. Junior Olympics is a prestigious event for people under a certain age that are unable to qualify to Olympics due to their age. He is also a repeated gold medalist (1st place) winner in several martial arts. Please undelete this section, so that it can properly be referenced for review.

The notability for actors is his significant roles in multiple notable films and TV shows. The actor was in a Disney TV show called Pair of Kings. The actor is also a host for a TV show called Talent Watch. He has over 40 credits on his imdb. The significant fan base can be shown by going to google and searching "Tai Urban red carpet" to show more sources regarding the individual.

The notability for his photography career is that he has photographed many celebrities. These can be found by going to google and searching under "Tai Urban WENN" to locate links (sources) of the many celebrities and entertainers that he has photographed.

There is also a couple magazine articles that have written about him. Please allow me to update the sources for this.

The reliable sources were incorrectly formatted and I would like a chance to fix this. I am working on that person's talk page to show corrections. Jennajjen (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)jennajjen[reply]

I'm a bit skeptical whether he is notable, but I'll userfy it for you to add references and proof of notability. I've put a userspace draft at User:Jennajjen/Tai Urban. You can work on this and improve it here. When you are finished with your improvements, you can apply to have it reinstated as an article at WP:DRV. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song)/archive2

I know you c/e it, but can you please comment on the FAC? Thanks. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 14:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look at it soon, although it keeps reminding me of why I dislike FAC. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please c/e this, I did some rearranging as Jivesh boodhun (talk · contribs) thought the section was not nicely mixed (instrumentation, vocals, lyrics). Thank you for everything !!! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure there's any more copyediting needed on that. Unless I'm overlooking something due to familiarity at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Sports Symposium

Hello there, I was taking a look through Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ivy Sports Symposium and think that it is sufficently well written and referenced to make it's debut in Article space. I observe that you are the an administor who previously deleted a version of this article. If you could take a look at the AfC submission and see if it meets your criteria, move it to article space, that would be great. Thank you for your time. Hasteur (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not sure. It might be best to bring it to WP:DRV, to be honest. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mark

When you get a chance, can you please redirect User:Status to User talk:Status for me? Thanks. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undo. I'm fine now. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You must hate me! Haha, thanks! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, that was easy. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ward

I see that a page under my name was delted in October. I didn´t create the page but am puzzled as to why it was deleted? --177.32.135.211 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the reason for the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Ward. Basically, it was deleted due to a lack of coverage of Ward. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Heroes

Hi Mark, if you have time could you give a copyedit/comments for the soon-to-be FLC National Hero of Indonesia? It would be really appreciated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I think I can help with that, no problem. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Skip to bottom

Are you sure that this template's high visibility justifies "full protection" rather than "semi"? --George Ho (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't 100% sure exactly where the line is in terms of visibility that divides semi from full protection. But since you asked, I brought it down to semi. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it is done, why is renaming by autoconfirmed users allowed? Shouldn't level of move be indefinitely "sysop" or something? --George Ho (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the move protection was accidentally removed in my last edit. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-Edit Request

Hi Mark. My name is Jivesh. I usually edit Beyonce-related articles. Well, Tomica told me about your precious help in copy-editing "Cry Me a River", a FAC on which I commented and will definitely support given how nicely the prose has been polished in comparison to its first FAC nomination. My current project is "If I Were a Boy" and I wanted to know if you could please copy-edit the article for me? I am still working on the article and I know that there is still a lot left to do. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I guess I could help on that. Let me know when you're done with it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Well, I have already completed the lead, the writing and production, composition and lyrical interpretation, critical reception and commercial performance. I will be very happy if you could start copy-editing these section for the time being as I am not going to edit the article today and tomorrow. Thanks. :D Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly when I'll be able to get to it, you might have a little bit of a wait. But I'll try to get to it soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. You are very nice. :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect SimCity (2013 video game)

Hello. Please reconsider your semiprotection of SimCity (2013 video game). There was no "persistent" vandalism at the time of protection, and there were good unregistered edits. Thanks. 118.236.203.49 (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The semiprotection will expire on the 12th, I think. I suggest you request edits on the talk page until then. What exactly qualifies as "persistent" vandalism is a judgment call, but the page certainly had issues with non-constructive IP edits before then. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, on second thought, 27 days of protection instead of 30 isn't bad. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

27 days? You protected it 3 days ago. :-P I looks as if the non constructive edits are starting to crop up again since removal. It is a highly controversial topic right now in the media. DrNegative (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, I meant to say 4 days instead of 27. I don't have much time at the moment, but you might want to go to WP:RFPP if the vandalism gets too bad. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re AN/I question/comment

Regarding your comment "So why didn't you attempt to discuss the issue with him instead of immediately opening an ANI thread to complain? Unnecessary ANI threads are part of what's wrong with Wikipedia.", I chose not to do that because I did't think, considering my personal history with the user, that it would have been a good idea. I decided that I would much rather have brought in a neutral third party who could deliver the message with a minimum of drama than risk the mess that a direct confrontation could have and likely would have created. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I wasn't aware you had a history with TCO. I suppose if you did have a history of clashing with him, bringing in a neutral third party might be for the best. I was a little frustrated because I didn't think an ANI thread was needed, but I suppose I can see your perspective at this point. It certainly is unfortunate how contentious RFAs often become, so I agree we should do our best to rein things in there when we can. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oath Keepers

Is this still on your watch list? Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. I trimmed my watchlist back a lot earlier this year. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hey can you give me some advise on editing and stuff

well i was hoping you can help me clean up some articles but i dont know where to find some so can you try to email me at [removed] thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.107.180 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but the best advice I can give you to start with is to WP:REGISTER an account. Wikipedia:Cleanup is a good place to find articles that need to be cleaned up. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two old AfD's

Hi there. I'm leaving you a message, as you are one of those that closes a lot of AfD's. We have two AfD's listed at WP:FOOTY from 26 February (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Víctor Zúniga) and 27 February (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamás Romhányi (2nd nomination) - I am aware of that you closed the first AfD, and might consider yourself WP:INVOLVED) that hasn't been closed or relisted yet. I believe that the problem is that they hasn't been listed at the daily log (step 3). Even though there seems to be a clear consensus in both AfD's, it should be noted that all the voters are WP:FOOTY members, so I don't know if it's appropiate to relist them so that other people could find them and vote their opinion, or if they could be closed right away, but that is up to you or another admin. I've also sent the same message to User:MBisanz and User:The Bushranger. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the note, I'll take a look at them. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see the Bushranger beat me to it. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A little more salt, maybe?

Thank you for closing the deletion discussion and deleting Peter Proctor. The checkuser who has been following the sock case associated with the page says that he suspects that the disruptive socking is likely to continue [5]. For that reason, I'd like to suggest that you consider salting both Peter Proctor and Peter H. Proctor. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, we're supposed to wait until the article is recreated until we salt it, so this was slightly out of process. I figured since there was socking afoot it wouldn't hurt to be careful. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that. But you definitely made the right call. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave for deletion?

Could you kindly join in and give a helping hand in assessing and progressing. A well reasoned assessment with reference to Wikipedia policies & guidelines would clearly be needed. I feel that the deletion discussion would have been slam-dunk case if the papal election frenzy and the Media circus would not have entered the scene. Arguments like I "feel" so and so is unfortunately a notoriously difficult assessment tool and not always agreeable with encyclopedic sentiments. A bad example of a non-convincing argument from the discussion in question is: Well what utter crap! I'm a reader of Wikipedia and I found myself at this article because I wanted to know about the likely candidates, and a useful article I found it. Well I don't care whether it meets whatever "core policies" you're talking about, but I do care whether it provides me with information I need. And it does, so cut the crap about deleting it.

So far these points have been cited as relevant :

KEEP

WP:GNG (cited once)

DELETE

Thank you for your time! --Pgarret (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a lot of reading... can't get to it right now, sorry. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting: harassment

Hello

I think we have a case of harassment that might need an admin's attention. My fellow Wikipedian, User:ViperSnake151 is being harassed in his (or her) talk page.[6] The harassing party has been previously engage in another instance of harassment. See [7] for message from an admin warning him.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A single talk page message is not WP:HARRASS. (Nor was the other case - that was the removal of Wikipedia policy violations.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just blocked Dogmaticeclectic. Not for the templating (which is a WP:DTTR violation, but not worth blocking over), but for the edit warring across multiple pages after many warnings. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Huldra (talk) has given you a plate of hummus! Hummus is a specialty of the Middle East. With some pita bread, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of hummus by adding {{subst:Hummus}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a plate of hummus to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Thanks for helping protecting Palestinian people! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks, I love hummus. Glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re : 'If I Were a Boy' copy-edit

Thank you very much Mark. Well, to tell you frankly I have only reached till the music video section. I have not yet done the rest. I will surely inform you when I finish the remaining sections. Honestly, how did you find the writing? I am planning to nominate it for FAC in the future. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me know when you want me to take a second pass. The writing wasn't bad, a little wordy in parts but no major issues. I think the writing was mostly on par with the last couple music FAs I've worked on, Homework (Daft Punk album) and Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You are great. :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at close?

As closer of WP:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (4th nomination), you're more than entitled, and invited, to leave some closing remarks there. --Lexein (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page deletion

Hi Mark You've deleted my page and I don't understand why. Please advise how to reinstate. Many thanks Alison (----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisonnorrington (talk • contribs) 21:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can see the reasons for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Norrington. There was a consensus among the participants that the article did not satisfy the WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR guidelines. Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools

How do you like this?

Rhodri Morgan

The Foot in Mouth Award is given annually to those who test the bounds of modern English through their language. Rhodri Morgan (pictured) said his 1998 award "made [his] name", and has gone on to make no change for another award. Other recipients have "literally" been given the award for Campbell's Pasta, knowing, reading signs, and being inexperienced yet experienced or a giraffe called a snake. In 2008 a special life-time achievement award was given to a talking bush for "services to gobbledygook". (Full list...)

— Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, I like it. Great blurb! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this year's April Fool's main page will be fun. Happy editing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VeryFirstTo

I was the main contributor to this article but missed the AfD. I'd like to see if I can revive it, but not sure of best way. DRV doesn't seem right, as the close was perfectly reasonable. I could userfy it for myself, but then unsure if restoring it to mainspace is appropriate if all I've done is beef up the sourcing. Maybe if I userfy, improve, move to mainspace and procedurally nominate it for AfD myself (or ask you to) that'd satisfy commonsense and policy. What do you think? --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if a procedural Afd would be the best idea. My advice would be go to DRV and ask permission to move the draft into mainspace. I think I've seen that done before, at least that's usually what I recommend. In a sense, you would be asking for the deletion to be overturned, though not because of closer error. I've just userfied the article for you, it's at User:Dweller/VeryFirstTo now. I've noticed a lot of people have had problems with startups getting deleted... it seems like people are so afraid of letting advertising slip by that they're willing to nuke any article on a new company. Just my view though, not sure if that was what happened here. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You were mentioned, so..."

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. "The thread is Request for guidance." Thank you.

(Note: The quotations are there to make this as similar as possible to the notifications about this sent out to other users by User:The Bushranger.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment from Ched

Hey Mark, I've been watching the above for a while now, and I am doing my best to assume good intentions, but quite frankly? At this point it's looking a lot like trolling to me; and perhaps WP:DENY is the right course. IDK .. Just IMO. — Ched : ? 13:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that it was not originally my intention to post the above - I've explained my reasoning for this at the WP:ANI link in question. I posted the above out of fairness after User:The Bushranger informed the other users. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dogmaticeclectic, multiple editors have given you advice on multiple occasions. Your continued WP:IDHT approach is now well into the disruptive range of WP:NOTHERE. Your questions have been asked and answered MULTIPLE times. I see a bit of minor template work recently, perhaps stick to that for a while. Let me be perfectly clear here, and you can consider this a Final Warning if you like: Knock it off. Otherwise you're going to be looking at the backend of an indefinite block. Have I made that clear enough? — Ched : ? 13:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dogmaticeclectic I think I've sufficiently explained my reasoning for the block, but if I haven't, you are free to ask specific questions about my reasoning. Otherwise, I'm not interested in pursuing the matter further. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In the interests of closure, as well as helping me understand how administrators actually apply WP:EDITWAR, I would like to ask you to "explain why my actions were considered block-worthy while the actions of the other users involved were not", as I put it in this WP:ANI case. You did mention at my talk page that I was "edit warring across numerous pages", but so were the other users, and that you also mentioned that I "have received many warnings not to edit war", but many of those warnings came from those very users.

Note that I'm not trying to stir up any potential further trouble about this, but simply trying to obtain a clearer understanding of why the situation developed as it did. (Also note that this question of mine was not responded to in this WP:ANI case with regards to this block.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I can recall correctly, ignoring warnings was a big part of the reason. Reverting the reverts of bold edits was part of it too--it's WP:BRD, not BRR... Also looking at the total number of reverts played a factor. I did warn the other two participants, and hopefully those warnings will have the desired effect. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

That wasn't my edit. I'm not sure how Wikipedia counted it as mine, but it was not (and I'm pretty sure no one logged into my computer either). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.123.211.161 (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, don't worry about it. I suppose it could have been anyone editing from your IP, or even a neighbor using your wifi. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a CSD G4?

Omar Todd (producer) vs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar Todd. Is it a G4 or not? If not, it should be moved to Omar Todd, as there is no need for disambiguation. The-Pope (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, thanks. G4'd and salted. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HI

As you might know "S&M (song)" has not been fortunate enough to have been promoted to FA despite seven or so nominations, I was wondering if you could go over it please? — AARON • ^TALK 16:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'll think about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok — AARON • ^TALK 23:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Eagles

Hello, you deleted this article without any consideration for the fact that the AfD appears to have been initiated by a sockpuppet of a banned user. Please explain. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has it been definitely established that the IP was ban-evading? It doesn't look like it was blocked and I don't see anything on the SPI page. In any case, since the nominator's concerns were endorsed by two users in good standing, deletion was probably appropriate regardless of the nominator's identity. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank You Mark, I own you very much for "Cry Me a River" :D ! You da best ! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, glad to see that it was promoted! Mark Arsten (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Like — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it was today, finally! It wouldn't be if you didn't polish it Mark. And thanks Crisco ^__^ ! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kantian ethics

Hi Mark. I don't know what you're doing at the moment, but I've just requested a peer review of Kantian ethics. If you have time, do you think you could take a look at it please? Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's good to see you're active again. I was worried that you had retired or something. Glad to have you back. It's funny you ask about this article, I had just seen the day before that it was up for PR and read the lead and the first section. Brought me back to my college days, I had an elderly German philosophy professor who spent a semester trying to teach American kids to adopt Kantian views of ethics. Anyway, quite a coincidence to see you bring it up on my talk page a day after I started reading it. But yes, I'd be glad to PR it. Not sure I can do it quickly though, it might take me a little time to wade through. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back at the moment, yes. I'd never officially retired, but starting University last October meant I had far less free time (as you can imagine), so Wikipedia was just not a priority. Things have quietened down recently (plus I'm on holiday at the moment); we'll see what happens in the future. Anyway, thanks, that'd be really great (don't worry if it takes a little while; I have other things to be getting on with in the mean time). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight?

Not sure if you have the ability to do this, but you'll know who does. per request of the other editor on the thread who inadvertently revealed her personal information on article talk, could you see that the following series of edits be deleted? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATarpan&diff=547185084&oldid=523909527 Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 19:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I deleted them. I'm not sure exactly where the personal issue was, so I may have taken out more than was needed. Let me know if you need anything else. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Montanabw, just a gentle re-reminder, such requests should go by email not out here in public on widely watched pages like Mark's drama llama paddock! If it's a genuine privacy issue then you can email it straight to oversight, they love to receive emails. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red Roots Deleted

Hi. I'm writing because the article Red Roots has been deleted. This band is apart of the sublabel Red Hen Nashville (redhennashville.com) of the major record label Daywind Records(http://www.daywindrecords.com/). The group is also on the major game show "The American Bible Challenge" on the GSN network (http://breathecast.christianpost.com/articles/6660/20130318/red-roots-the-american-bible-challenge-on-gsn.htm). Every radio single released by the group has charted with "Grow" being the highest at #20 on the most notable Southern Gospel Chart "The Singing News." They have over 100,000 on their self-titled music video "Red Roots." I'm wanting to submit a revised article with their latest accomplishments and background information. I would greatly appreciate the consideration of readding a revised article about the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countryguymusicman (talk • contribs) 13:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing if you want the article to be restored is to find evidence that it meets WP:BAND or WP:GNG. We generally need evidence of independent media coverage by newspapers or magazines. Can you provide evidence of such coverage? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The girls are at this link contestants on the American Bible Challenge with their band name Red Roots: http://gsntv.com/shows/the-american-bible-challenge/team-announcement/?id=31044
Here's a M.I.L.E magazine article interviewing the girls: http://musicislifeentertainment.com/wordpress/2011/10/01/3633/
Here's the top Southern Gospel Magazine Singing News Featuring the girls in this article:

http://www.singingnews.com/Southern-Gospel-News/11688006/

Here's a major Southern Gospel Magazine featuring Red Roots: http://www.sgnscoops.com/2011/07/13/red-roots-include-fans-in-upcoming-music-video/
Here's newspaper articles: http://morningsun.eviesays.com/performer/6265/red-roots.html

http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2012/06/ear_2_ear_ace_mckay_5.html

Here's online articles:

http://bluegrasstoday.com/bluegrass-triple-whammy-with-red-roots/
https://www.google.com/search?q=red+roots+news&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=red+roots+news&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Efc&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&ei=dLNVUYXiLZSE0QGB5YCoBg&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44442042,d.dmQ&fp=1844a98be6767a7d&biw=1223&bih=670
https://bluegrasstoday.com/double-wide-church-video-from-red-roots/

The group's music video received a Telly Award: http://www.singingnews.com/Southern-Gospel-News/11671761/
I hear the group being played on XM Sirius Radio on the Enlighten Program which is a national radio network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countryguymusicman (talk • contribs) 15:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've moved the article to your userspace, User:Countryguymusicman/Red Roots, as a draft (WP:USERSPACEDRAFT) so you can add citations to reliable sources (per WP:V). Please note that press releases and blogs do not qualify as reliable per our standards. Once you have the article fully sourced with citations to significant coverage of the group (WP:GNG), you can apply to have it reinstated at WP:DRV. To be honest though, given the links that you've provided it doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAPS International High

Can I inquire why you closed this discussion as "Keep"? It seems to me that no valid keep reasons were presented. --Atlantima (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, I closed the article as Keep or Merge. So you could still propose that the content be merged to a different page if you think the school shouldn't have its own article. As to why I didn't delete the article: to decide against the numerical consensus, I'd need to see that their !votes are demonstrably flawed with respect to settled policy. Whether secondary schools are inherently notable or not is a debated issue, and not something that I see as a settled policy. Of course, you're welcome to take the decision to WP:DRV if you like. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons that the "Keepers" brought up are "demonstrably flawed": "There must be sources!", "Keep because it is a real school.", "Keep because other schools have been kept.", "Keep because I have linked to my usersubpage where I say that I think every school is notable because it's important to their students.", "'Keep because consensus.' 'What consensus? Where?' '*ignore*'", "Keep: Schools are inherently notable even though all notability guidelines say nothing is inherently notable.", etc. Every article is supposed to be judged on its own merits, not based on past decisions of other articles in a similar category. --Atlantima (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're asking me to do more than the role of an Afd closer should here. Your position, that secondary schools are not inherently notable, isn't a firmly established policy. I can't make it one in my role as an Afd closer. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you to explain your AfD-closing decision, which sure seems like something that an AfD closer should be able to do. I also would like someone to explain where WP says that anything can be inherently notable, and why this "firmly established policy" is not reflected in guidelines. This is not just "my position": it's the one that appears to be WP's official position, which I am simply trying to enforce.--Atlantima (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if you acknowledge that you are unable, in your role as an AFD closer, to disregard arguments to avoid in deletion discussions when closing AFDs, then that seems like a real problem.--Atlantima (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantima, check out WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. That is entirely in-line with precedent. Mark's close was right on the money. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. What's more, I've actually read the intro to that page, which states that "previous outcomes do not bind future ones" and "Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else. All articles should be evaluated individually on their merits". Try again.--Atlantima (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't bind, but it also doesn't prohibit people from following it. The discussion was mainly towards keeping the article, citing unwritten consensus about senior high schools, Mark closed the article as a keep. I had the same experience when nominating some local election results for deletion back in 2011... sure, it bites and it's hard for us to believe that this is notable, but don't forget that notability need not be international. Also, sources are not always online; if we were stuck using online sources, half of the featured articles written wouldn't be nearly as developed. It's quite possible, although difficult to prove, that paper sources exist in the Maldives; for less-represented countries !voters typically give more leeway for that. If you want to take this to WP:DRV, go ahead, but be prepared for a snow keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Crisco has said it better than I could; I agree with his comments totally. And again, you are free to drv this. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afd:Pete Malcolm

Mark, would you consider closing this as a Keep please? It's been going on for some time, and IMHO there is clear concensus to keep the article, espacially after I re-wrote large parts of it and added many more references. Thanks Roger RogerDavis21 (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure there is a clear consensus to keep the article. Sorry! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4 Keeps to 2 Deletes isn't concensus? Also, I thought absence of concensus resulted in a Keep? Just trying to understand rationale. Thanks RogerDavis21 (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically it's 4 keeps to 3 deletes... numbers aren't the only thing though, strength of argument counts too. DGG seems to have a strong argument, and I'd be hesitant to dismiss his point of view out of hand. Evenly divided articles are often kept, but WP:No consensus closes are often used in these cases. But it's probably best though that you wait for a closer and then discuss the results with them. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Roger, technically it's 3 keeps to 3 deletes, Peterkingiron is also !vote stacking. More importantly none of the keep arguements have any basis in policy. Your forum shopping for a close your way is poor form. Your canvasing is worse. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recently deleted article

I ask you because it happens you're the one who deleted List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave: I'd find it very useful to be able to glance at that page briefly. The reason is that I want to create an article on this subject on the Latin Vicipaedia (we have a special interest in goings-on at the Vatican). I don't want to take text from the article, or even the list of names, because that's available in Russian, but just to be able to follow up references. Any chance you could restore it to my userspace for a short time? Andrew Dalby 16:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sure. It's at User:Andrew Dalby/List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you. I see there were no references on the page at all. I know this was said in the deletion discussion but I couldn't quite believe it. Deletion was certainly the right decision.

Anyway, I've checked the list of names, and that's all I can do with it, so you could delete it again now. Thanks very much for your help :) Andrew Dalby 19:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

‎User:Jmanooch at the Hebephilia article and at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology

Hey, Mark. Will you weigh in on this? And perhaps revert this as inappropriate, or should an ArbCom clerk or ArbCom member do that? This editor is out of control, which I commented on here. These type of inexperienced Wikipedia editors are always a pain. Flyer22 (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to let the clerks deal with that on the Arbcom page. Maybe request full protection on Hebephilia if the edit warring keeps up. I'd be hesitant to act there with my admin tools, personally. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was also asking if you may offer some words of wisdom to Jmanooch. I have no interest in communicating with the editor any further, as he is completely out of touch with how things work at this site and my motivations regarding editing the Hebephilia article. I have not even yet read his latest comment(s) (meaning since I've replied to him) on that talk page and may wait days before reading it/them...or never read it/them; that's how agitated I am by this editor. Flyer22 (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 is clear violating WP:OWN and using personal disparagement to dissuade review of perfectly sensible edits. I will be following the arbitration case with interest, and I will track comments about my input with interest. Inexperienced Wikipedia editors, by definition, bring a fresh view, so you discount them at harm to the Wikipedia project. That I don't know how things "work" with this site, is something inevitable, at early stages of having reasonable edits automatically blocked by article 'owners'. Also, by design, Flyer22 has no primacy in this or any other space. Avoid favouritism to 'known' editors, just because they can manage the system, I advise. Worth noting that I made one very cautious edit, and this brought down the holy wrath of Flyer22, and claims of being 'out of control'. Something amiss there.

jmanooch 19:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, before Jmanooch followed me to this talk page and now seems to be stating that he will be engaging in inappropriate WP:WIKISTALKING (which is against policy, and which he can be indefinitely blocked for), I was just about to tell you that, judging by his talk page, it is clear that no amount of words of wisdom will cause him to generally behave appropriately on Wikipedia. I don't blame you for sparing yourself the trouble of trying to talk to him; just look at what others on his talk page have had to endure. Any further comments he makes on your talk page about me will be left without a response from me. And unlike Hahc21 has advised him, he is unwelcome on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jmanooch, you're received warnings from several experienced users and admins over the past couple days, so there's not much more for me to do here, other than to tell you to calm the hell down. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Mark Arsten

User:Mark Arsten, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mark Arsten and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Mark Arsten during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! That's the cool thing about this day on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not yet that day for me, but it's getting there. Flyer22 (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, I looked at the main page at 8:05 and got quite the shock :) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Wikipedia time zone. Flyer22 (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Because, coal towns are notable, thats why Coal town guy (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, they sure are. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qutation Validity

Hello Mark and thank you for welcoming me to the wikipedia community. I read all that you wrote on my talk page and I had a question regarding the reliable source for quotations. On my contribution, that may or may not be removed shortly, I quoted as person based on what they literally said during an interview, the link to the video of which is black listed because it was an interview with the Huffington Post (which I'm well aware is about as credible as ham sandwich). What should I do in that situation? I'm not presenting what the speaker said as fact, merely presenting the fact that he had actually said what he said regarding the topic. Any suggestions you have would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Fyujin (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of a tricky area, but I believe that his statements in the interview would be considered acceptable for use as a primary source. These can be used in some circumstances, but should generally be avoided. There are guidelines for the use of such sources at WP:BLPSPS. Basically, it would be acceptable for basic facts in the subject's biography. Let me know if you have any more questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think understand now. Since what the speaker is saying is subject to debate then citing an interview of them saying such a debatable statement is not much different than me saying said statement myself. Therefore it would fall under the 'he said/she said' category rather than fact and would hold no validity. Similar to citing a video of a man claiming the world is flat still doesn't prove that the world is in fact flat. I think I have a better understanding and respect for the stipulations of reliable sources. Thank you for clearing that up for me, Mark. Fyujin (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help for deleted page

Greetings! Hoping you can help us make the necessary changes/updates to bring back the page.

Just got the message that a page i helped to author has been deleted: This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 14:36, 3 April 2013 Mark Arsten (talk | contribs) deleted page Human vulnerability to climate change in the Caribbean (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human vulnerability to climate change in the Caribbean)

This is especially disappointing because:

We were continuing to make updates to the page. References and neutrality issues were resolved to the best of our ability. A request was sent to get more feedback, but not info was every sent back to us; and;
This page was part of our credit for a grad class in climate change. 25% of our grade just got deleted.

Even without the issue of the class, it would still be great to have the page up simply to bring attention to the plight of areas in the Caribbean. Is there anyone we can work with to revive all or part of the page? Thanks Avewiki (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Assignments for student editors may be of some help to you; besides the information/advice on that page, you can ask for help on its talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avewiki, I've moved the page to your userspace (WP:USERSPACEDRAFT): User:Avewiki/Human vulnerability to climate change in the Caribbean. The page can now be publicly improved and the process of improvements can continue. I hope your grade won't suffer now. In addition to the link Flyer provides, other good places to ask for help about how to improve the page would be Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment. Eventually, you could apply to have the deletion overturned and the draft reinstated at WP:DRV. I'd suggest waiting some time and getting more help before doing that though. Let me know if you have any more questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plichota and Wolf

Hi. You probably did notice this, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Plichota was an incomplete AfD discussion because more discussion is going on on the co-author's page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cendrine Wolf. Where it is more clearly demonstrated that the writing duo do in fact pass the definition of WP:AUTHOR #4. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think consensus was against you on Plichota, but since the other is still open I've relisted it. Also, please bolding keep more than once in Afds--it's best to use comment rather than writing keep a second time. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

?

Hehe — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. You know, I kind of wish I hadn't had known what was coming. I wonder how I would have reacted if I was totally caught unaware? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps like the people on the talk page... quite a few posts. I was surprised. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Quantum Theory

Dear Mark,

I had submitted article on New Quantum Theory and found that the same has been deleted with reason that this a fringe theory. I believe any new revolutionary theory is treated as fringe untill it is proved. I have contacted the author and he has a published a book on this topic. Being associated with nuclear physics I think world should now about this theory and as a responsbile wikipedia author I assure you that this is a great article and shoule be published to wider audience. I am also providing the details of the book by the author: Book : New Quantum Theory Author : Narendra Agarwal Publisher: Lambert Academic Publishing ISBN : 978-3-659-34139-7

Request you to reconsider your decision and help in getting this knowledge across to the world.

Regards, Tushar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tushar gupta123 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure I can help you on this. To reinstate the article we'd need to see better sourcing. Wikipedia requires that articles be supported by reliable sources WP:RS, and Lambert Academic Publishing is a VDM subsidiary, and therefore not considered to be reliable per our guidelines. Are there other academics who have published about this? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, Thanks for your response. Before publishing this article it was reviewed and supported by Dr. Gary Bowman, Associate professor of North Arizona University, USA. For verification purpose you can directly drop a mail to him at Gary.Bowman@nau.edu and copy me in that email. Many thanks for your support. Tushar gupta123 (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but we'd need published sources that provide coverage of this topic to have the article restored. You should probably review our notability guidelines WP:GNG so you know what to look for. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Koji Oishi

You deleted this article earlier this year but perhaps you would like to consider resurrecting it as the fighter in question has just signed with ONE Fighting Championship, is fighting for a title in May and has been the subject of widespread media coverage this week. [8]

~~Sadoka74~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadoka74 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you reviewed the WP:NMMA guideline? He would have to meet that guideline to have his article reinstated. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Deletion of Red Cord Records Page

I am the president of the label and I just realized our page was deleted. I do not know who created our page but I would very much appreciate it if the page was reinstated. After reading the reason for the deletion it is not accurate as we are distributed by Victory/Sony and have plenty of legitimate articles to prove our credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redcordrecords (talk • contribs) 03:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, could you offer some of those articles so I could verify them? (Keeping in mind our WP:RS & WP:GNG pages.) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Lawrence

Mark, I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to leave a query regarding a recent deletion. You must deal with these all the time.

I would like to find a way to make the article acceptable. I have many professional musician/academics who have listed me as their former professor on their own sites - it would be great to continued to be linked.

There are certainly specific citations/names of articles/sources that could be listed in a revised article. Thank you. Lawrence Kaptein, DMA

Hi, could you offer some examples of articles that would support a revised article? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mark - My recent publication energy has been largely focused on choral compositions and arrangements, many in the area of ethnically-inspired works for choral performance. I currently have twenty-four published works )Alliance Music Publications, Houston, TX). I can provide you a list - or examples - with publication details if you wish. Examples of scholarly (juried) articles I have authored include, "Motivation Takes Form in the Choral Rehearsal," 'Choral Journal', November, 1986, American Choral Directors Association; and "Three and a Half Centuries of Choral Singing in America," IFCM International Bulletin, International Federation of Choral Music, 1989; (which was then translated into German and published in Musikerziehung Osterreichischer Bundesverlag, 1990). Thanks for your continued help with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrycaptain (talk • contribs) 18:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but we'd need published sources that provide coverage of you to have the article restored. You should probably review our notability guidelines WP:GNG & WP:PROF so you know what to look for. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the notability guidelines material was very helpful. Thanks. Two published sources of a secondary nature that support major threads in the article include, "The School Choral Program: Philosophy, Planning, Organizing, and Teaching," (co-authored by: James Jordan and Michele Holt, GIA Publications, 2008-book) - references contribution for inclusion of ethnic music in the curricula of American public schools; "Colorado Conductors' Chorus Provides a Creative Outlet for Music Professionals," (Music from Colorado," authored by Kenna Brunner, 2010-magazine article, University of Colorado at Boulder - references initiative to provide Colorado music teachers with additional training/technique through quality ensemble participation. With you continued guidance I would like to move forward with the restructured/referenced article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrycaptain (talk • contribs) 05:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing for you to do at this point would be to create a userspace draft (WP:USERSPACEDRAFT). Make sure that everything in it is cited to reliable secondary sources. Then when you're done we can discuss possibly restoring it to articlespace. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC). Thanks, Mark. I'll get started.[reply]

Mark, Would it be possible to send me a copy of the deleted article? I've been gathering the required secondary citations and would now find it a bit easier to add them into a revision of the original text. Unfortunately, I didn't print it out/save it prior to the deletion. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrycaptain (talk • contribs) 00:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have e-mail enabled? If so I could e-mail it to you, or you could e-mail me and I'll send it to you. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mark - If it's convenient, my email is (kaptein@colorado.edu). Thought it might be a bit easier to see where secondary citations might mesh with parts of the original article. Again, thanks for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrycaptain (talk • contribs) 01:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,Mark - I've been working on revisions and and have two general questions: (1) I'd like to incorporate the secondary source citations into the revised text using the most appropriate Wikipedia format. Is there a link (for examples) I could refer to or should I just list the sources and references as completely as possible in the revised text? And lastly, (2) can/should DVDs, videotapes - and even YouTube recordings be cited as acceptable documentation for musical performances? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrycaptain (talk • contribs) 20:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend using {{citation}} family to format your references. Specific examples are located at: Template:Citation#Examples. Video can be used as references, what's important though is that you use secondary sources; WP:SECONDARY has a good explanation. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks again. Am reviewing formatting guidelines. Yes, explanation of secondary sources is clear.[reply]

DYK

... that a year ago you were the 104rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, can't believe it has only been a year. So much has gone on since then! Mark Arsten (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, couldn't believe I reached 104 then already. It was a fast year, - did you know two Bach cantatas "premiered" 22 April, BWV 12 and BWV 103? (The article on 12 is not by me, 103 is - and nominated for GA.) Both start with weeping, but I try to let go of that, see my talk ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarzkopf ACR

Just to let you know, I've responded to all of your comments here. Thanks for your review and your patience! —Ed!^(talk) 12:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try to check back in soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Mikanović

Hey!

I see that you were the one who, quite rightly, deleted the article about the football player Dino Mikanović ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dino_Mikanovi%C4%87 ). He has since debuted for the club, in a professional league, so I guess it should be put back up :). Thanks! Zlopseto (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was deleted via WP:PROD, so it can be automatically restored. (done) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strange activities in Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed/doc

Hello, Mark

I am seeing strange edits in Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed/doc. They have they nature of vandalism, except they are not done by vandals. (See 12:11, 20 April 2013‎ Werldwayd, and the next edits.) I'd say either it is a gadget gone bad or a user account breach. I also considered contacting the users but then I am speechless; what am I supposed to tell them and how am I supposed to do it politely?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that is very strange, I'm not too sure what to do about it. I'll try to take another look soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's so sad to see that you are ruining wikipedia

I really, really despise people like you, who think that add to the project, yet ruin it. You seem to delete articles, just because you dont like them, you delete them without any support (5 other votes?), you only harm this website. The sad part is that you probably believe that you are doing good and your deletionist policies are "correct". Maybe you could simply stop editing articles on wikipedia and set about:blank as your homepage? There nothing has to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.102.207 (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I don't think I even want to know what this is about. Five !votes is a clear consensus, especially if they are all "delete", so Mark did nothing wrong. If you disagree with an outcome feel free to put the article at WP:DRV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't hate the player, hate the game. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hate the llama that won't stand up just because it thinks it's going to rain! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to air out that sock drawer...hmmm... Yes, Llamas... Montanabw^(talk) 22:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice circlejerk of sockpuppet accounts you have there.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology closed

An arbitration case regarding sexology has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia).
User:Jokestress and User:James Cantor are banned from interacting with each other, commenting on and/or commenting about each other including their professional lives, works and on-wiki activities. This applies to all namespaces, but excludes dispute resolution that explicitly relates to both parties.
User:Jokestress is indefinitely banned from the topic of human sexuality, including biographical articles.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 12:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Favor

Hi Mark, how are you? I hope you are doing fine. I need a favor from you, can you please protect Right Now (Rihanna song) and Unapologetic? IP addresses keep making the song single, however, there is not a reliable source. Thank You :) — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you are simply the best. ;) — Tomíca^(T2ME) 21:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A help

Hi Mark, a favor... as it appears that my related topic at ANI was fully ignored, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesca Hogi (3rd nomination) and stop that silly sockfest, as a minimum with a semi-protection? I am a bit tired of reverting socks that remove templates and warning them... Thanks in advance for your attention to this matter. --Cavarrone (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. I guess everyone at ANI is preoccupied with the account sharing scandal. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed it. Many thanks. Cavarrone (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

authorative party says public domain

I strongly dissuade you from making false claims of copyright, Inspire Magazine is public domain.

Can you provide evidence of that? I can't really just take your word for it. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes. call them yourself.

http://archive.org/details/Inspire_Magazine and http://al-Malahem.com (and the 3 other mirrors)

You'll have to be more specific, who released it into the public domain? Where can I find clear evidence of who the original copyright holder was and that they released it as PD? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, prior to Al-Aulaqi's death, contact was made to the university in Saana, and directly with the editor (both now deceased) to verify the appropriateness to mirror their publication and the correct form for citation in journal publications. Al-Aulaqi indicated that the content of the magazines shall be openly distributed and is public domain. On the release date of #10, mirror sponsor received a message from current editor and distributor indicating availability of #10 and requesting open distribution. The majority of their content is released initially via various forum sites due to infrastructure failures, posted to archive.org, and sent to various mirrors for public redistribution, directly from the source producer. There is public logs of exactly this announcement process from the originator.

Again, that may or may not be true, but I can't just take your word for it (you could be lying for all I know). It's very rare for magazines to be released into the public domain, so I'd need to see clear evidence of the original copyright holder releasing it into the public domain before I could be convinced of its status. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eye color IP again

Mark, the eye color IP that we've talked about before is being disruptive again, except now he's constantly fouling up the talk page (including having removed my comments twice thus far). Flyer22 (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page for more. Flyer22 (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I took the unusual step of semi-protecting the talk page. Might get some complaints about that, but I think it was warranted. I revdeleted an edit on your talk page but then saw you keep it there and reply, so I undeleted it. Let me know if there are any more problems on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. I was also thinking that semi-protecting the talk page is needed. But since Alison blocked the IP for a week, and your semi-protection of the article talk page wears off on May 13, it seems like a waste to have the talk page semi-protected at this time. Unless it were extended and/or the IP were one to change IPs. But I understand why you didn't put semi-protection on for too long. Flyer22 (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, why is the edit option now on the left side? It's annoying because I keep initially trying to edit articles or reply on talk pages by clicking the edit option to the right, only to remember that it's now to the left. That, plus our new notification system, makes me wonder how many more things are in the process of being changed at this site. Flyer22 (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had to strike my comment out above. I see that you actually protected the Eye color article talk page until June 6, 2013. I must have been looking at something else on my watchlist when I believed you gave it a May 13 date. Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Archive I Archive II Archive III Archive IV Archive V Archive VI Archive VII Archive VIII Archive IX Archive X Archive XI
The llama of drama is all tired out, time to give it a rest.