Jump to content

User talk:Mark Arsten

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 91.75.83.63 (talk) at 07:19, 26 July 2013 (request to add Naik Foundation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

The llama of drama is all tired out,
time to give it a rest.

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

Negative national stereotypes in CoH2

Why did you deleted all information about uproar, evoked by the game in Russia and other countries? What does it mean "delete; talk page discussion first" - if there is a talk page discussion? This information was about point of view, expressed in review articles, popular blogs and petitions with thousands of supporters!

FC-Persepolis

Shahin.shn & Maardep have lied to you about Squads of Persepolis. My last edit was correct. You refer to official web site of FC-Persepols. I did not want to vandalize but they want. For example Karim Ansarifard was Player of FC-Persepolis last Season but he is not going to be a player of FC-Persepolis anymore and The Captain of this team has changed after election on this week. This election was asked by Ali Daei: Coach of club.

I hope you do best.

My advice is to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. It's best if you can cite sources to back up your arguments. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red Cord Record deletion

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

http://www.redcordrecords.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_and_Ink_Records  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.137.34 (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are the names of the magazines? How detailed is their coverage fo the label? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The above comment is not only unsigned, and needlessly sarcastic, but also inappropriate. WP:AGF. WP:CIVIL. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 11:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit, my Georgian is a bit rusty. (It's been some time since I visited Atlanta.) Seriously though, could you provide a link to the page in question? Or one to the source you refer to? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


The Ascension Deletion

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

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

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

Admin

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

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

Restore Deleted Valley Bulldog Article?

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

Links:

1. Book - The Great Book of Bulldogs

2. Book - Valley Bulldog

3. Site - IOEBA Breed Standard

4. Site - IOBEA Breed History

5. Site - Bulldog Breeds

6. Probably not a good source - Yahoo Link

Thank you for your time.

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

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

Saurabh Choudhary

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

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

Hiram Wesley Evans

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

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

History of Gibraltar

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

Iambic pentameter

Oh wow, that is pretty good. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good question! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).

So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:

  • Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
  • Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
  • Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)

This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Solfeggio frequencies

Hello Mark Arsten,

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

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

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

Main Page appearance: Hiram Wesley Evans

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

Hiram Wesley Evans

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Press (magazine)

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

Well, I guess I agree that the strength of the votes was somewhat weak. Could I suggest opening a Merge discussion? It looks like Free Press (magazine) would make a great candidate for merging to Vinod Jose. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that sounds like a good idea. Would you please initiate the discussion? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've referred to this conversation in the proposal to merge that you placed on Vinod Jose's page. Are you also the admin who reopened the AfD after it was closed? Crtew (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I only closed it once. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, you saw its muddled history? Crtew (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadleaf Commerce

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

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

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

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

I'm a little confused

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

I don't think he did, I think he just rev del'd an IP edit. PumpkinSky talk 15:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jimbo, I didn't think I'd be seeing a message from you on my talk page today! What happened was a user accidentally edited while logged out, exposing his IP in the page history and signature. So I revdeleted the IP in the page history. Then I realized that the signature was still visible on the page so I removed it and revdeleted the whole edit. So I actually kind of made a mistake and did the revdelete twice. I guess my edit summary wasn't very clear, sorry! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When Jimbo posts on one's talk page, the llama is rarely far behind! Of course, the llama does not say "I'm a little confused", but, instead, "I'm a little llama". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance please

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

I have several questions about this closure:

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

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

Regarding (1), Geo Swan was always able to edit the article, and indeed continued to do so.
Regarding (2), the fact that the list was a synthesis of two different topics is the fault of those responsible for creating it in the first place - it cannot be a justification for keeping it.
As for the rest, I get the strong impression that Geo Swan is attempting to Wikilawyer around what looked a clear consensus that the article raised substantial WP:BLP concerns. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Geo Swan and Andy, thanks for stopping by. I do not plan to reconsider my close in this case. I find the subject of this article very interesting and have read several articles about it in the past, but my close is based on what I find the consensus to be among the participants in the discussion. In this case, most participants felt that listing very negative information about otherwise low-profile individuals was an insurmountable BLP issue. There were also significant concerns about whether this article adhered to our best practices for the notability of stand-alone lists (WP:LISTN). I think these are valid arguments, inasmuch as there is a difference between notoriety and notability. So I think my close reflected consensus, but you are free to open a DRV if you disagree. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting help requested

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

Agreed. Various other pages are getting Archived and Deleted. Permission to fix the formatting is granted to you, I do not mind one bit. I would like All to understand the arguments here and who supports them.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, pasting text like that irritates people. I've added a collapse box so it's clearer now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the hatting. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Archived?

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

In hindsight, it looks like I've made a procedural error. I should have posted to AP:AN not ANI. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you can just pull it out of archives if you want and relist it. I've had to do that before with low-traffic topic ban discussions. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just wait and see; he has been inactive for the past couple of days. I've partially cleaned up a few other articles where he was active (Rainbow Herbicides, Agent Orange, Biological warfare, Project 112, etc.) 86.121.18.17 (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Alex Goot

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

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

Omar Todd

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

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

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bystander Theory

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

Not at all, go ahead. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will do... and I will leave a note on the AFD's talk page. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Masks Case deletion

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

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

Deletion review for Lead Masks Case

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

Johnny Squeaky

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

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

Hmm, interesting. I'll take a look at it and get back to you later. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. I'm not too sure what to do honestly. I'd lean towards RFCU as an option based on my brief examination of things. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. Thanks for looking this over and offering your take on it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Project A119 - Might need protecting as well

Hi,

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

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

Requests for lesson protection

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

Sure, I think semi is Ok in this case. I've just done the nine you listed at RFPP. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Garvey

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

I usually allow for speedy merger discussions after a no consensus close. There doesn't seem to be a broad agreement about whether to keep this content or do away with it entirely. Merging the content to another page would be a middle ground of sorts, so I don't feel like that should be ruled out, considering the lack of an actionable consensus thus far. 22:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
There is zero content of any sort that could be merged over to any article. So its just a stealth delete and shouldn't be encouraged. Dream Focus 22:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then !vote against a merge if one is proposed. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why repeat the entire AFD all over again? You do it once, you shouldn't have to repeat it. Some determined people will probably just wait a bit for attention to die down then try again this way, to try to get rid of the article with less people noticing. Just gaming the system. Dream Focus 23:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an Afd closer, I'm not saying it should be merged or even that a discussion should be held on a merger. It's just that one can be held. What I'm saying is that a no consensus close doesn't preclude the opening of a merger discussion as a matter of procedure, like a Keep closure usually does. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though I !voted delete, I must say that Mark has made a good call on this one. Reading through the discussion, I don't see enough support for either of keeping or deleting. Merging is an option but there it isn't addressed enough in the discussion for the closer to recommend it explicitly. Good call. --regentspark (comment) 12:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert (character)

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

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

Oddball Barnstar

The Oddball Barnstar
What more deserving person is there for this? I can't even begin to count the topics you've improved that fall under this. Keep at it! PumpkinSky talk 23:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
lol, thanks. This is a fitting barnstar. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very fitting ;-) PumpkinSky talk 23:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old Afd (June 18) still open

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

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

Kate Garvey renominated for deletion

Courtesy notification: Since you closed the previous AfD discussion, notifying you that a new AfD discussion has commenced: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Garvey (2nd nomination). Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 23:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The person starting it has no edits outside of the previous AFD and some vandalism. [3]. Suggest speedy close. Dream Focus 09:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close is right. Mark Arsten was absolutely right with his initial no consensus call. Kudos on being willing to wade into a controversial area Mark. NickCT (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. It took some work but I was able to do it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet theater

I saw that you declined my request to semi-protect Gus Fring. Each one of that person's edits was performed from a different IP, and no attempt at a discussion was made, other than via edit summaries. If they want to create an account and at least pretend to have minimal respect for their fellow editors, fine – but I believe that the appropriate measure for now is to semi-protect the article until they've done so. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with editing via IP, nor with having a dynamic IP. Keep in mind that IPs are human too. It was wrong of the IP to revert three times, but it was not vandalism either. Please review WP:NOT VANDALISM for details. It looks like the IP has tried to start a discussion on the talk page so I suggest you engage there (Talk:Gus Fring#Antagonist). In the future, please try to follow best practices for edit wars, WP:BRD. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Tunisia Scandal

I just saw this. In my view, the challenge was perfectly reasonable, and the only objection was to the identity of the challenger and the reason given. Were I to have notice the article independently, I'd have listed it for G10.

To start with, have you any suggestions for a name change? With the present name, its in my opinion unrewritable, and, as you probably know, I am not in the least a friend to subject influence on articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's a good point. I moved the page and made a couple tweaks for neutrality. Let me know what you think. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I pruned it some more. I think it reads fairly neutral now. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yes, much improved.'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of the Confederate States of America

You earlier blocked user CountryboyCS for edit warring at Flags of the Confederate States of America. The edit warring has been resumed by the IP that is probably a sock puppet of this user. Any action you deem appropriate would be appreciated. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note,  Done. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DRV -- Kate Garvey

Deletion review for Kate Garvey

An editor has asked for a deletion review of PAGE NAME. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bacon Avacado Burrito (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this template was for the Deletion review on Kate Garvey, from 4 July 2013. I can't figure out how to use the template. Bacon Avacado Burrito (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perceived Vandalism regarding the Jewish Bolshevism Article

May I ask what you perceive as vandalism on that page? The edit warring I can see, but I don't see any vandalism. Does that prevent non auto-confirmed accounts from commenting in talk for the page? I submit that would be inappropriate.

It seems to me that the IP accounts have been respectful, and I assure you that none are sock puppets of me. On the contrary, Galassi appears to have clearly violated the 3RR rule.John2510 (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What happened was I mistakenly semi-protected it with a "persistent vandalism" note but then realized my mistake and fully protected due to the edit warring. I suppose I should have left a note or made a null edit explaining my mistake. So no, I don't think there was any vandalism there. I don't believe that Galassi broke 3RR though, since the rule prohibits 4 reverts within 24 hours while his were spread out over several days (although that's still not an excuse to edit war, it just doesn't trigger an automatic block). The protection does not apply to the talk page, so anyone is free to comment there. Let me know if there are any more issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks. I reread the 3RR rule and realize now that it's only the 4th that's prohibited. John2510 (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Fran Hauser

Mark Arsten, it seems that you closed the deletion discussion of Fran Hauser and speedliy deleted it. I am asking you to undelete this page so I can further work in improving it. Can you please userfy this article? I'll keep working on it in my user space and will move it to production after the page will be reviewed by other fellow Wikipedians. Thank you very much. --agringaus 13:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC) -->Agringaus (talk)

Ok, it's now userfied to User:Agringaus/Fran Hauser. Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I'll read the documentation on notability to see which resources I should add and how to prove that the article did not intend to be a promotion of any sort. --agringaus 07:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Review of [[Glenn Ballantyne]] Page

Mark Arsten, I am very much interested in contributing to Wikipedia in the most concise and correct way possible. I am the author of a page about the Songwriter Glenn Ballantyne. The page was deleted so quickly, I didn't have time to edit or add references. May I have a chance to edit my work and possibly have the page restored? Mr. Ballantyne has written songs for The Brady Bunch, The Ovations, Nancy Wayne, Roger Williams and is currently working on a project with Bobby Hart, of Boyce and Hart (They wrote songs for The Monkees). As I am new to this, any information/feedback you can give will help me to continue to learn and hopefully make helpful contributions to this encyclopedia. Thanks for your time. --Epom33 (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I moved it to your userspace at User:Epom33/Glenn Ballantyne. When you're done working on it, you can apply at WP:DRV to have it moved back to mainspace. Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll get started on the edit! I appreciate the quick response.Epom33 (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hi Mark,

I just wanted to clear something up with you. I have always understood that if you are an IP editor you cannot blank your talk page (especially warnings) as technically it doesn't belong to you as your IP could change and it could be assigned to someone else. Can you confirm/deny/berate me if this is incorrect please? I don't want to get in trouble over it in the future. Cheers. -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looks like you're technically not supposed to do so: see WP:REMOVED. It is somewhat counter-intuitive, so I wouldn't worry too much about not knowing that. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thank you :) MisterShiney ✉ 21:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Yeti page

Hello! Im new at Wikepedia.When I went to the page Yeti,I noticed that in the section Yetis in Film,it listed the film Monsters University. This is OK. However it listed the film as being made in 2012 which is incorrect. The page was semi-protected by you so I was hoping that you would edit this error Kind regards, Asmym xix (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for protection review

Hi, I was just hoping that you might be able to review my request for some temporary protection for the page Indonesian Navy. It is suffering a level of vandalism similar to the page Robots (film) which you approved a request for temporary protection. A variety of ip addresses keep changing the page to state that indonesia has the largest navy, when the evidence that I have collected and posted in the talk page suggests otherwise. The only other place that I could find this claim (besides various sites that have copied and pasted the complete wikipedia intro) is a fan page for the Indonesian navy. They have changed it 3 times without ever attempting to engage with my request for them to talk to me on the talk page about it, and all evidence suggests that it will continue. All the edits are coming from a variety of ip's based out of Germany, same provider ect.   Cheers for taking the time to consider this. The Australian Red Man (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an admin has declined your request for protection here. I suggest you discuss the matter with him on his talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for that mate. The Australian Red Man (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't stop Project A119 edit war

Open your eyes, Mark. Blocking IPs is a dead-end. No pun intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.211.108.228 (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I hadn't realized the protection expired. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more please

See also THE PLEASERS, I also suggest a block for repeated copyright vio over 3 years and promotion onlyHell In A Bucket (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, let me know if they try any other variations. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peru national football team, FA review

Dear Mark,
How have you been?
The contributions you provided to Pisco Sour were well-thought and now the article is a FA (which will be showcased in July 15). I believe your suggestions were invaluable in its improvement. I was wondering if you could please take a minute to provide input at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru national football team/archive2.
Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, good to hear from you. I might be able to get to that this week, no guarantees though. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Murder of Shaima Alawadi

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Murder of Shaima Alawadi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be watching with interest. You might want to notify User:Roscelese if you haven't already. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not, is that a requirement of DRV? If so I have not seen it, or is it more a courtesy?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a requirement, but I'm just curious what she'd say. She both created the article and nominated it for deletion, if memory serves. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Monteith page protection

Mark, is there any way to extend this protection to Finn Hudson, the article for Cory's role on Glee? The editing is already showing the same kind of issues that were causing problems on the actor's page before you protected it. Thanks for your consideration. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone beat me too it. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some bubble tea for you!

For your great work here, specially on page protection. Thanks! Tolly4bolly 09:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING! Protection of "Chinatown, Manhattan" has failed!

Your temporary protection of the "Chinatown, Manhattan" article (exp. July 14, 2013) against block evasives 173.63.176.93 and 66.108.119.85 has already failed. 173.63.176.93(actually a sockpuppet of blocked user Thmc1) immediately reverted 66.108.119.85's edit under username MazabukaBloke the day after protection was enacted. It should be duly noted that 173.63.176.93 is only used by Thmc1, who was blocked from editing on WP for sockpuppeting in 2010. There have been a total of 3 sockpuppet investigations against this user. The most recent investigation in 2012 concluded that 173.63.176.93 was, in fact, blocked user Thmc1. As a result, all known IPs and usernames were blocked, with the exception of 173.63.176.93(temporarily blocked). An examination of the logs will show that the kinds of edits and articles by both are are more or less identical, with a few slight discrepencies to throw off investigators. I strongly suggest that you permanently block IP 173.63.176.93, and, if possible, all associated usernames. This individual has already had plenty of warnings and sockpuppet investigations to warrant such action. A 4th sockpuppet investigation would be a farce. Why were there 3 to begin with, in the first place? Please refer to Thmc1's sockpuppet investigations log WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thmc1/Archive.
MBaxter1 (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, thanks for the note. I disagree with you though, I think another trip to SPI might be a good idea. The last SPI investigation was almost a year ago, so having another one now may be warranted. Also, it would be a good idea to make a comment to MazabukaBloke with your concerns, even if it doesn't seem very helpful. I see User:Dennis Brown was active on the SPI, he might be a good admin to discuss this with if you need a second opinion. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Delta Sigma Iota wiki page

Hey I would like to appeal the deletion of the Delta Sigma Iota Fraternity Incorporated wiki page. We are a legitimate greek organization that has been accepted in many greek councils at our respective universities. Yes I admit that we are smaller than the rest, but we would like to still have a wiki page to share to the word what we do. If you could review the appeal that would be great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidhartha1894 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To restore the page I'd have to be satisfied that it meets our notability guidelines, WP:CLUB & WP:GNG. Can you offer evidence that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beachwood New Jersey

I reverted the edits prior to seeing your note. I can provide a legal document from the municipality as to its public domain status. I also find Alan's opinion to be closed minded and obstinate, and have actually discussed this with the town in question and they feel the history is an accurate and logical addition to their municipal page here and wish it permanently restored in original format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.129.134 (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I have been unable to get a response at the user's talk page, I will respond here. Sorry, MA, to clog up your talk page. Even if the material is public domain it's not encyclopedic. As I've suggested numerous times, the material that has been inserted into the article is filled with trivial minutiae and needs to be drastically cut down and summarized, with a focus on significant events in the borough's history. Even if every anecdote and story is true, and even if every member of the Beachwood Borough Council votes in favor of a resolution supporting the text as is, the material focuses excessively on details that simply do not belong in an encyclopedia article. If the choice is all or nothing, the article is far better off without this lengthy screed. As I have suggested, the far better compromise option is to review the material and summarize it in your own words, compressing out about 90% of the material that has been repeatedly dumped into the article. Alansohn (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee Mailing List for Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case

As you were the filing party, I feel that you should know this: due to several members of the Arbitration Committee recusing on the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case, the Committee is using an alternative mailing list at arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org. If you have any questions, please don't be hesitant to ask. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 11:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)==[reply]

Matt Eliason

Hi - Could you copy the deleted Matt Eliason article to my userspace please? Thanks. MikeOtown (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's at User:MikeOtown/Matt Eliason now. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Coin Toss

Since you protected this can you please remove the image as it violates WP:NFCC#9. Thanks. Werieth (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Fylbecatulous. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Rosin Jolly, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Fylbecatulous talk 16:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rosin Jolly

Hello, Mark Arsten. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Rosin Jolly, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Rosin Jolly to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Fylbecatulous talk 16:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check the page history, I didn't write the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Faith Academy" Edit Rejection

I would like to attest the rejection of my edit on the article for "Faith Academy". I have sadly been so unfortunate as to forget to add citation for the sources I used. Here is a list of my sources:

Sources: http://www.4chan.org/ http://9gag.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.232.197 (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but 13chag isn't a reliable source. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes ArbCom case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 17:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete Matt Kalinski

Could you please undelete the article Matt Kalinski. Since his discovery Trojan wave packet is notable he is notable. It does not matter if he is or not tied currently to academia. It is occasional that the discoverers become notable despite their discoveries were done under their PhD supervisors. Other examples are Ising model of Ernst Ising who discovered it in his PhD under Wilhelm Lenz and Rudolf Mössbauer who discovered his effect under Heinz Maier-Leibnitz. Also the fact that he was deported from the United States in 2007 has absolutely nothing to do for the lack of importance of his discovery worldwide. I only proves that US became totalitarian and unfriendly to immigrants and foreigners as a result of Islamic terrorism. Mattedia (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there was a strong consensus at the Afd that Kalinski did not meet our guidelines. You'll have to apply at WP:DRV to try to get the deletion overturned. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of page 'Rosin Jolly'

Hey I would like to appeal the deletion of the 'Rosin Jolly' wiki page. Don't know why this page getting deleted. She is an actress and is a genuine one. Yes I admit that she is a beginner in the film industry but a famous one because of the reality show she doing.I would like to have a wiki page, will you please explain what to do next to keep this page alive. If you could review the appeal that would be great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otnaesehgrav (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you reviewed the WP:NACTOR guidelines? Can you provide evidence (in the form of reliable sources) that she meets them? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


kindly go through this references

Her Malayalm movies are track, hero, Annum Innum Ennum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otnaesehgrav (talk • contribs) 04:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I will restore the page by myself. But you can still apply at WP:DRV to have the deletion overturned if you like. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of page Jesse Ronson

Hey I would like to appeal the deletion of the Jesse Ronson wiki page, I truly don't understand why this page is getting deleted he Mixed martial arts fighter and is a current MMA World Champion holding the AFC Lightweight Champion fighting for Aggression Fighting Championship he fights on network television on TSN2 in Canada and is a top ranked fighter in Canada he is ranked number 2 as the top lightweight in North American. what to do next to keep this page Active If you could review my appeal I would really appreciate it greatly. JMichael22 (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you reviewed the WP:NMMA guidelines? Can you provide evidence (in the form of reliable sources) that she meets them? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for bringing a very necessary case to arbitration. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Filing Arbcom cases isn't fun, but it's sometimes necessary. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

trayvon martin edit warring

User_talk:26oo is continuing to edit war on the exact same content you page protected the article for. Please address. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A. you only have to tell me once. B. I've left another warning on his talk page. I'll watch the page to see if disruption continues. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
mea culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa! I was getting database locked, please retry! I thought it wasn't getting posted, so I was retrying! abject apologies. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it's kind of funny now that I think about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He just did it again, adding the same thing in that everyone on the talk page was against having in there, and then after I reverted him he put it back in yet again. Please stop him from adding that nonsense back in when everyone else is against having it. Dream Focus 17:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just beat me to it! Added it twice more today! Gaijin42 (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I thought my warning to him yesterday would be enough. Well, he's blocked now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding vandalism

I recently posted a message on the wikipedia help desk, about nefarious editing of a user. Though the matter got resolved for the time being, yet now i see that my help plea has disappeared from the page. Could you please tell why it must have been deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anami6ka (talk • contribs) 07:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the messages are automatically removed after a few days. I very seldom visit the help desk though. When dealing with "nefarious" editing, you might consider posting to WP:ANI though. Usually that will get a quick response from admins. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mark Arsten. You have new messages at Benfold's talk page.
Message added 18:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Benfold (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Locked?

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the global locking standards, so I don't think I'll get involved further. Sorry! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fate/stay night scenarios article -- put in my user space?

Hey, Mark. I just saw that this article was deleted back in April 2012: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fate/stay night scenarios (2nd nomination). I remember the article being useful to me, especially as someone who had never played the Fate/stay night visual novels, and had only watched the anime (still have not played any of the games). And I'm sure it was useful to others as well. I want to know if you wouldn't mind restoring this article, but in my user space (a subpage, of course). I may be able to create a decent article out of it (whenever I get around to doing that). Flyer22 (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a copy of it here, and there are very likely more WP:MIRROR copies, but I'm not sure how up-to-date it/they are. Flyer22 (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, not a problem. I've just userfied it to User:Flyer22/Fate/stay night scenarios. Let me know if you need anything else. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits warning missuse

IP User 114.164.113.153 added a warning to my talk page that was missused, as he did with multiple rollbackers that got sucked into his edit war. Can this warning be removed?TRL (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can remove any warnings from you page, actually, whether they're warranted or not. Especially so in this case. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarification. Did not to remove hastily. --TRL (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Italian resistance movement

Hi, the article right now contains some neo-Nazi bullshit inserted by Daufer (who is blocked) and it needs to be removed. It's the both claims credited to Frank Collin ("Frank Joseph"). Thanks. --Niemti (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

You recently blocked User: 114.164.113.153 for edit warring, he has recently been edit warring via IP hopping at Ghostface Killah, and like I suspected he was back at the page via User: 114.164.140.103 under the 24 hour block period. A range block seems to be appropriate. If you want proof see the talk page, as he responded there making it pretty clear that it is the same person. Thank you. STATic message me! 02:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now that Ghostface Killah was protected because his block evasion he is trolling my edits and reverting them for improper reasons. See [4] and [5]. I honestly do not know what to do and it is really pissing me off. STATic message me! 03:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, a range block might be the best thing to do here. I'd ask about it at ANI. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do I really have to go through ANI for it? If he comes back again I might have to do that. STATic message me! 04:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't have to. You could ask any active admin with expertise in range blocks. To be honest, I've never done one, so I probably can't be of any more help. I just figured ANI would be a good place to find a more knowledgeable admin. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering you are one, do you know any off the top of your head? Now that he is going to "114...." and "118...." I do not know if it is even possible. I am just crossing my fingers he gave up for the time being. (Watch me wake up tomorrow and every edit I made today been reverted by this vandal-.-). STATic message me! 04:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best thing to do would be to go to the list of active rangeblocks and ask some of the admins who have most recently imposed them (which I guess would be the bottom of the list/higher numbers). Mark Arsten (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A user had mentioned in the James Pants AfD that the sockmaster behind the IP is banned user User:Cvlwr. If this is true we might have a bigger problem than I thought. But he is back at 118.6.203.31 so if you could give that a block too. STATic message me! 22:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just asked another admin about a rangeblock. In the meantime, I guess we'll just WP:RBI. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help, I will drop a message here if he comes back again considering you understand the scenario. STATic message me! 23:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catlvr6969

Don't know where else to put this, but the name stuck out at me, as sounding awfully familiar.

The account could be a tribute to an ancient (predating Wiki) USENET troll, generally known as cattlovrr or some variant. Roughly the same MO as this one. Insult anyone, everyone, everything, persisting indefinitely. Even mentioning the connection is probably as helpful as sticking beans up my nose, but if they weren't using a proxy; might be worth checking for sleepers?--R.S. Peale (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that is very interesting, thanks for mentioning it. You'd have to talk to a checkuser though about the sleeper check, I can't do that. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you in...

I've mentioned your name a few times here, and at least once in a less than positive way, so it is only fair to point to the discussion.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I appreciate when people tell me that I'm being discussed. I also welcome feedback about my admin actions, and considering the negative feedback I've received about the block you mentioned, I have no plans to do anything like that again. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I still don't get it. I barely know you (sorry, but that may be a good thing, I tend to be aware of the, uh, more colorful contributors). I do see you have an enviable unopposed RfA, which made the decision all the more inexplicable. I wish SG would stop hinting that you should apologize, it would be better if you did it without prompting. I think it is unfair to you that this incident may be the one thing I know about you, so I'll endeavor to pay more attention.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, I'll take this as a sign that I should do a better job explaining my actions in the future. I believe my record is pretty good overall, just a few mistakes in the past year, I think. Well, I hope we see each other around more often. I'm always surprised how many long-term users, and even admins, there are that I'm barely familiar with. Most of the time I do stay out of the spotlight, I'm mostly active at Afd and Rfpp lately--not much controversy there. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That may explain it. While I agree with the importance of AfD and RfPP, I've decided to allocate my admin work to CP issues. Every once in a while, I feel guilty about not doing more at AfD or RfPP, and pop in, but I haven't done much there.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's good though, CP is a very valuable area! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(watching) If you don't know another editor, you may want to find out why he is precious ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gerda, I appreciate it :) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani people

Hi Mark, 'Oghuz Turks', 'Ethnic groups in the Middle East', 'West Asian people' category must be removed from Azerbaijanis page.There are already 'Turkic peoples' category in tHe page for Oghuz Turkic and I will add 'Ethnic groups in the Middle' East to 'Iranian Azerbaijanis page',because Northern Azerbaijan(Azerbaijan Republic) is not Middle East region,Caucasus is Eurasian. Hami232 (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about this subject, so I'm afraid I can't be of any more help. I suggest you try to form a consensus about the issue on the article's talk page. Or perhaps pursue dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Savannah Smith Boucher

Given the nature of the situation (persistent blanking by a person who was claiming "identity theft" on behalf of a purported relative), I'm uncertain as to whether I'd feel comfortable unprotecting it at this time. I won't object if you or another administrator feels comfortable doing so, but I don't think I'm at the point of being willing to do the deed myself yet. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I didn't realize that was why it was protected. I see now that a user was making that comment on a couple Boucher articles. I vaguely remember seeing something about this now. Odd situation, but I guess I won't pursue it further if it might be controversial. Thanks for the help. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Heffernan

I'm having trouble with this page. I know you locked it a couple of days ago because of edit warring, so I'm hoping you can give me some advice. This writer's piece on Creationism is philosophical. Many editors (and many commenters and many readers) have interpreted the piece very literally. But there have been some who've come to her defense (and I've cited them) and elaborated on the issue by saying it was controversial and linking to those who defended her and those who criticized her. I've also added biographical information, which has been deleted twice. I feel like this is unfair to this writer, and I know I seem outnumbered, but this is wrong. What can I do? --bsnyd 00:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briannasnyder83 (talk • contribs)

Hmm, there are a couple places you could go to get more feedback on the issue. There's the biographies noticeboard, WP:BLPN, where they watch out for unfair coverage of living people. I'd try that first. There's also the dispute noticeboard, WP:DRN, which could also be helpful. Good luck, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks protecting Mujaddid

Dear Mark, thank you for protecting the page Mujaddid against anti-ahmadiyya abuses/vandalism. BTW I am sure you would need to extend the protection beyond 29 July. The section had been under abuse since 2009 (if you would go through the talk page. Be well. --Drali1954 (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me know if disruption continues after the protection expires and I'll re-add the protection for a much longer period. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking over BBC page

Mark, I really think you're 3rr blocking of me was not fair. I followed all required steps, In so much as I posted supporting evidence and attempted to seek a resolution by posting on the talk page of the user in question. As such it's unfair that despite me following the requested steps, you blocked me from the site for a 24 hour period, yet took no action against the other user. If Wikipedia is to continue to be the success that it has been to date, abusing people making a minor edit to a page (With supporting evidence) that is both proportionate, in context and not offensive is unfair. Ultimately I do understand that you wish to to protect and preserve wikipedia as a source of information for future users, but you don't achieve this by becoming the thought police and attempting to edit out mild criticism of an organisation or individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.155.125 (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi IP, thanks for your comments. In this case, you were blocked because you violated the "three revert rule" (WP:3RR). None of the other editors involved broke this rule. You were blocked for edit warring, not for the content of your insertions. Even when an editor is inserting valuable information, they may still be blocked for edit warring if they keep reverting and refuse to discuss disagreements. In this case, a user attempted to convince you to discuss the matter instead of continually reverting, and your failure to do so resulted in the block. In the future, please discuss disagreements on talk pages instead of continually reverting, and you won't be blocked in the future. Let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, thanks for taking the time to come back. I wanted to just make a couple of points, firstly I reverted an auto change (bot) and sent through a note explaining why. Then then one user TRLOVEJOY, decided to revert me. I went onto his talk page and commented, did not revert again. He then came back and I provided evidence, I then reverted it as it was obvious my point was supported. He then reverted me, I went onto the admin forum he created and commented about the reversion. But In fact he did not move the chat across to the article talk page, until after he had me blocked. So as such his version of events was both dishonest and unfair, I attempted to discuss this but he simply undertook to lie and have me blocked. I feel I did all I could to engage and the edit war was one sided, i.e the other side! How do I complain about this action? Wikipedia should not be abused in such a way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.155.125 (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried talking to the user? You might be able to reach an understanding with him. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote on his talk page at the time, he then without responding basically had me blocked! He then moved the discussion onto the article talk page after he had you block me. So basically, I abide by the rules and try to discuss, he keeps reverting me and then I get blocked! I understand you have a task to undertake, but he did mislead you and is just as guilty as I am. So as such I would ask that you give him a warning also, as otherwise it's just simply allowing the system to be abused. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.155.125 (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Hold'em King

Why was this page considered biased? It simply stated facts about the release date and platforms it is on.

Thanks and let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.Magmic (talk • contribs) 18:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seemed to me like you were using promotional language to try to get people to buy the product. Like when you wrote:
  • Enjoy a tight, fast paced and immersive 6 player table experience 
  • Get free chips every day to keep the fun flowing! Create you own table and invite buddies with BBM or NFC! 
In encyclopedia articles about products, we try to neutrally state the facts about something. Using "Enjoy a ..." or "Create your own ..." and using exclamation points seems like you're trying to advertise this. Stating facts is ok, as long as you use reliable sources (WP:RS). You may also wish to review our conflict of interest guidelines (WP:COI). Let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the dispute

Hello,

Last Sunday you locked the page Azerbaijani People and said to try to discuss it on the talk page. The 3 days are almost over now, but there has been almost no discussion going on the talk page; I only got a single response by one user. And the two users whom I reported didn't even participate at all. The dispute has actually been going on for over a month with a few different users, but the same problem keeps on occurring after every report. This is that halfway the discussion the other party ceases to discuss (like now) or does not go against all my arguments, whether it is on the talk page or on the DRN. I think it would therefore be fair if the description would be changed to the original for now. And that the other party should start a discussion and defend himself if they disagree with the change, instead that I have to continuously do it while the other party ceases the discussion half way. Or perhaps you have other advice to give me? Thank you. Verdia25 (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tough situation. But if someone is refusing to discuss the matter and keeps on disrupting the article, you could ask for a topic ban or other sanctions for that user at WP:ANI. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Free!

Hello. It's been slightly more than two weeks since you semi-protected Free! - Iwatobi Swim Club for three month. Since it's been two weeks, would it be a good idea to (at least temporarily) downgrade it to pending changes at this point, or when the one-month mark has passsed? If vandalism picks up, the article can always be re-protected. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've downgraded the protection to pending changes. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peru National Merit Award

The Peru Barnstar of National Merit
Per the guidelines of Wikiproject Peru, and for the major copy-editing work done at the articles Pisco Sour and Peru national football team, you are hereby awarded Peru's National Merit Barnstar. Congratulations!--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although Peru's nft candidacy has not yet received much support votes as of this message, your contributions to it will certainly be of great help. Thank you, Mark.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mark Arsten. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection.
Message added 04:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion

If you'll recall, a week ago you declined to block Xenophrenic or issue a topic ban, after he violated 1RR article probation and the page was fully protected by ArbCom member SilkTork. Instead, you issued a final warning.

Since then, Xenophrenic has been the lone dissenting "vote" on two different editing proposals (the "vote" is either 4-1 or 5-1 on both), and we now have a stalemate. We have a non-admin moderator who has recognized consensus on one of the edits. If Xenophrenic had been topic-banned a week ago, the "vote" would be unanimous and this would not be happening. The page is affected by community sanctions and you, as an admin, are authorized to issue blocks and topic bans as you see fit.

Please visit the Moderated Discussion page linked in this section header, and review Xenophrenic's recent contributions to the discussion. Then please take whatever action you feel is appropriate. When you gave him a final warning, you trusted him to accept that final warning in good faith, and control his behavior. Our Moderator, C678 ("Cyberpower"), could certainly use your help. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try to check it out tomorrow. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Naik Foundation

Hi. about an year or sometime ago, we created an article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naik_Foundation) and it was deleted due to lack of reference - this article was moderated by yourself. Currently we have got more reference in the internet and we believe that this article would be more significant then the last time. Please would you have a look at it approve?


Ramsubhash123 tc

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mark_Arsten&oldid=565858887"