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 68.57.226.96 (talk) at 17:59, 17 August 2013 (→Richard M. Stallman). 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

Such wow

Hi Mark. You edit my page again and I will cut you. so wow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.13.144 (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should spend your time contributing somewhere else instead of Wikipedia? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Talk

Hi Mark. Please extend the semi-protection of the Apollo 10 Talk to all Apollo Talk pages. An IP hopping, block evading vandal[1][2][3] keeps adding the same German conspiracy spam to all of them. Thanks, Yintan  19:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I took care of all of them. Let me know if he comes back when the protections expire. We might want to consider a range block though, but I'm not sure if it would be feasible in this case. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think a range block is not such a bad idea. Guys like this are usually pretty stubborn. We'll see. Yintan  19:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very much a novice at rangeblocks, but any of these folks could probably help. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking at the range but it is so wide (here are just two[4][5]) that it would basically block every Deutsche Telekom dial-up IP. Which would shut out many, many German editors. O, how I love the brilliant idea of allowing anonymous IP editing on WP. Sigh. Anyway, let's hope the protection helps. Thanks again. Yintan  19:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the addition of 93.202* is the problem, I think. He seems to be the only one editing from the 93.23* range, but blocking that might not stop him. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, thank you for the semi-protection of Apollo 10-17 Talk pages. Please do the same thing with Apollo 7, 8 and 9. Thanks Susanne Walter (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I got them all now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tranquil Pepere

Any chance you are willing to impose a topic ban on User:Tranquil Pepere? This is starting to get a bit tiresome... It seems he has also been blocked on the French Wikipedia for basically the same behaviour [6]. —Ruud 08:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can unilaterally impose a topic ban here, but if you go to WP:ANI I suspect you'd gain consensus for one rather quickly. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

Hello again . Thanks for protecting the article. One request: could you revert to my latest revision[7]? That's the one a consensus was reached about, regarding the infobox. (See also the 'Reverting?' discussion on my Talk, and this[8] RfC). Thanks, Yintan  15:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant to revert to a particular version for fear of seeming like I'm "picking a side" in this dispute, sorry! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough. BTW, I haven't picked a side either, I just followed the RfC. That war itself is irrelevant to me. Yintan  15:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On Second thought, it probably is best to restore the version that the Rfc supported. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think so too but I can't do that. By the way, the discussion has been moved from my Talk to the article's Talk, should you wish to read some more before/if reverting. Cheers, Yintan  20:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kon Wapos Lodge

There is no citation for the edit I made to the Bay Lakes Council page because there is no citation existing. I was a voting member at the Merger meeting when we decided details about the lodge- including the number. Alex Derr, the current Awase Lodge Chief, along with Rudy Mosca, current Ag-Im Lodge Chief, said that there will be no number for Kon Wapos Lodge because the lodges would like to come in on equal footing.

Yours in Scouting, Preston Podolske Manakua Chapter Chief Awase Lodge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.222.13 (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do require citations to be added to support facts though. See our WP:OR guideline for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Jensen

Hello, I noticed you reverted my edit to this page. I replaced it, including several new citations, despite the fact that i was mostly rewording for clarity that which had been documented in the footnotes already present. I also rephrased a sentence which was making a very dubious assertion that was neither cited nor capable of being cited (paraphrased: "most feminists believe Derrick Jensen [a relatively obscure author, even within the feminist community] is transphobic"). While it would be impossible for me to provide a citation proving that this statement is absurd, it would be equally impossible to prove it is in any way accurate. I had reworded the sentence, going into more detail, and now I have added 2 more citations which express both sides of the issue. I hope these changes are now satisfactory. Feel free to remove my changes again, but either way, the aforementioned statement ("Most feminists...") is a blatant exaggeration, is unverifiable, and is part of a concerted effort to publicly and libelously discredit this person, and should definitely not be restored.

Thanks! Painted raven (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as long as the sentence is clear and supported by reliable sources (WP:RS) I probably won't have a problem with it. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banc de Binary libel

Hi Mark. The page protection you put on Banc de Binary protects edits made by Rybec that libel our company. Specifically, Banc de Binary does not have an F rating with the BBB. It has no rating. I respectfully request that you revert Rybec's edits and block him, Hobbes Goodyear, and MrOllie-- who added and supported those edits--from editing the page. Libel is an actionable offense in the United States. http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/45a.html

Is anyone looking at what these people are doing on Wikipedia? They are a huge legal liability for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.75.179 (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a few things: 1. for legal issues, please contact the WMF's legal department instead of individual admins like myself. Note that we don't allow people to edit while they're pursuing legal actions. 2. for content-dispute issues, you want to post on the article's talk page with you concerns: Talk:Banc De Binary. You'll have the most success if you explain how the article doesn't line up with what reliable sources say. We generally don't allow people to edit article's about their company, but if you disclose your ties on the talk page you're free to make recommendations. 3. I don't see anything about the BBB or an F-rating on the current version of the article, so I can't help you unless you're more specific about what you object to. Let me know if you have any more questions. If you're going to be editing regularly, I highly recommend registering an account. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T-REX Helicopter

Can you undelete the information? Or can you put this in its place? http://www.rcheliwiki.com/Align_T-Rex_450 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-Rex_%28RC_helicopter%29#T-Rex_450 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.137.2.50 (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was a consensus to delete the article during the deletion discussion, I can't just restore the article. To have it restored, you'll have to apply at WP:DRV. Let me know if you have any questions, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP range 108.128 and sexual orientation

Hey, Mark. With regard to this matter concerning the Heterosexuality article, you told me, "Let me know if it shows up elsewhere and I'll look into a range block." Well, the IP range has now showed up at the Sexual orientation article; see here, here, here and here, or just click on the edit history, for details. And since sexual orientation is a contentious topic and there is currently a pedophile matter (for example, see here) going on at that article, it might be best to give the article long-term or indefinite semi-protection anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And given what the IP asserts about heterosexuality/homosexuality, at least now I have a better understanding as to why he or she was removing the sexual orientation aspect at the Heterosexuality article; to that editor, sexuality expressed between people of the opposite sex is the only natural type of sexual orientation-based sexual expression. Flyer22 (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree, this is a high-enough profile article that continued disruption is more or less inevitable. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the same user has been hitting a bunch of articles, so I guess we'll just keep our eyes open. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I also watch and occasionally edit the Janice Dickinson and Adolescence articles, and, from the link you provided above, I see that the same person may have edited those articles as well (the Janice Dickinson article needs a lot more work than the latter, though). Flyer22 (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, sometimes I wonder if you have all 4 million pages on the wiki watchlisted... I can't tell you how many times I see you reverting vandalism when looking at page histories! Mark Arsten (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL!! Yes, you've told me before...albeit with different words. Flyer22 (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I forgot I said that. Well, we need all the help we can get some days! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a sock to me.

Hey Mark, recently User: Weeman666 begun randomly blanking articles such as 2009 in hip hop music, 2012 in hip hop music, 2011 in hip hop music as you can see here, then after a final warning from me at 23:48 on August 5, 2013, he ceases editing. Then next morning User: Sntayhts94 is created and continues doing the same thing here, here, and here. Not to mention the only other article Sntayhts94 edits besides the 20-- in hip hop music articles, is Point Grey Pictures an article Weeman666 just recently created. Looks like a pretty clear case of WP:DUCK to me. STATic message me! 23:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sock-blocked the new account. I'm not the the old one qualifies for a vandalism only or edit warring block though, so I guess just keep your eyes open going forwards. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thanks, the master account has received a final warning, and if he vandalizes again he will be blocked anyways. STATic message me! 00:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recently ran into User: Thatproducer adding himself to the article Almost Home (Kid Ink EP) such as with this edit. At my talk page he claims to have produced the song, even though no reliable sources mention him. Then just the following day User: ActualFactual1 who has not edited in 8 months (with only a few edits prior) adds the same unverified content. Nowhere in the past has anyone IP or otherwize ever added this producer in. I can tell it might not necessarily be a sock, but definitely some meat puppetry. I do not know if you think one of the accounts should be blocked, or what. Thoughts? STATic message me! 17:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, does look like WP:MEAT. Just make sure to warn each account first and then if they keep it up blocking may be in order. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fondant

You cannot needlessly advertise one company's 'Fondant' products. This is an encyclopedia not a commercial website. Please rectify the source immediately; there are many other fondant companies out there in the market. As it is, the information cited to that source does not reveal anything factual about 'Fondant' as fondant recipes differ from company to company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.154.211.108 (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand what you were doing now. You are free to remove advertising sources, but please use an edit summary ({{WP:EDITSUMMARY]]) to explain your changes. Repeatedly removing the references section makes it look like you're vandalizing. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal and Maratha.

Hey, first off I want to thank you on the protection log you put on the page List of wars involving India but I want to know the reason to why it is also on Mughal Empire and Maratha Empire pages?? Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I protected those two pages because there was edit warring over the inclusion of Nepal. Please try to work towards a consensus on the talk page before adding or removing it again. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to resolve the issue by providing proof that parts of Nepal were part of these empires but the person who keeps removing it won't accept it and besides Nepal was put in the page before I even knew about the page. So don't you think that Nepal should be included in the pages until someone provides evidence that it shouldn't? Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that you stop reverting and hold an WP:RFC on the talk page to get more input from other editors. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I will do that thank you very much Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

The Admin's Barnstar
I just wanted to say thank you for taking care of those tagged articles. It's greatly appreciated! Ishdarian 17:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, it's fun to tackle a backlog like that. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing and edit warring by user:Chaipau

Hello, as per your directions, we go through dispute resolution on Kamapitha, after consensus reached, user Chaipau again indulge in edit warring here. Please encourage him to accept DR process.Thanks भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try to look into it later. Just try to practice WP:BRD for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike BB's claim, no consensus has been reached. BB submitted the issue to WP:RSN after I asked him to do so (diff). The only objection to Gait came from user:Sitush, who associated Gait with another British officer and provided a blanket objection to all writings by British officers (diff). I have provided evidence that Gait has been quoted by other respected historians in recent times, and precisely on this very issue. Sitush has since neutralized his objection and that any consensus would now be acceptable to him diff). Chaipau (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inspite of two RSN recommendations, User:Chaipau is in no mood to comply. Please, intervene and resolve the issue once for all, by enforcing RSN recommendations. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should consider having a talk page WP:RFC to get a clear consensus on it? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a talk page RfC on (Talk:Kamapitha#RfC:_Should_one_definition_of_the_boundary_override_all_others.3F). Chaipau (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great minds think alike, I guess :) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Friedel

Hi Mark, Thanks for stepping in to sort this. I thought the others who had commented were Admins so my mistake in trying to be helpful if in trying to help I overstepped the mark. Some advice please. As the IP will not engage despite being asked and encouraged by me to do several times now how do I proceed? I was hoping by the way they were claiming knowledge they might Share to provide some new insight into how things have moved on and so they could help to find a more recent article to provide a more up to date version of events. However, it is clear they do not want to participate in any dialogue anywhere or collaborate on improving the article. Moreover it occurred to me from the nature of their subsequent edit summaries that the IP was possibly closely connected to the subject of the article and was just set on wiping away the event from the record. As there are several alternative sources out there many of which are in the US that do not just regurgitate the Mirror article but record the basic facts relating to the case one of these could be used. So is it in order whilst the protection is in place for me to try and provide an RS for this brief event and add in a new sentence that meets NPOV replacing the currently deleted sentance and citation? Tmol42 (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing to do while it is protected is to get the best sources together, write out a proposal on the talk page, and then get feedback about whether it's unproblematic BLP-wise. Again, the IP was definitely disruptive, but it's worth paying attention to his concerns regardless. Let me know if there are any more issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, some sound advice. I have found a source from the New York Times and have posted this plus some proposed text based on this at Talk:Brad Friedel. I have notified and invited the folk involved in the Noticeboard discussion to visit and comment. Cheers, for now at least. Tmol42 (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

In your highly regarded opinion, does this edit justify reversion per (Personal attack removed)? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's sufficient to merit the rpa template, no, but that doesn't mean it's Ok to say either. I'd have to look into it further to be able to say more. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so maybe not the template, but is it alright to revert it based on the fact that it does not pertain to content and only disparages an editor? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't revert it quite yet, just object to it and then save the diff in case you have to bring him to ANI or something. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

Mr. Mark thanks for protecting the article. But this edit was not justified. The view was not endorsed in the RfC. The RfC was only concerned with US, not with other countries. THe RfC's reslut clearly explains that. I have opted for further discussion at the article's talk. Faizan 06:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, see my response a couple sections down. But so I understand: you think the removal of the US from the infobox was justified but the other countries should stay? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Liberation War

User Faizan has launched an edit war again over the most ridiculous issues. Can we have your opinion on the matter.--Bazaan (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that you should be careful not to edit war or breach 3RR, so you'll have clean hands if you have to report anyone else for doing so. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection-2013 Teen Choice Awards

Now that the event is over, can we get protection lifted early? --72.64.251.152 (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure,  Done Mark Arsten (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello, on this page Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 you had made the last edit by referring to the Rfc, well i would like to let you know, that the Rfc was only meant for Bangladesh Liberation War, which is different part of conflict than Indo-pakistan war. The other guy started editing every page which would be related to India - pakistan war of 1971, which would be his own misunderstanding. So kindly revert your last edit back, as per it's requested in the talk page, you can have a look at it. Thanks Capitals00 (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 was essentially part of the Bangladesh Liberation War and was thus covered by the Rfc. I normally wouldn't have reverted like that, but it seemed like an attempt to game the system by pushing for the same rejected change on a similar page. It seems like your request on the talk page doesn't quite have consensus yet, so I'll hold off on reverting for now. If you'd like to get another opinion from an uninvolved admin that would be fine with me too. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi PP at Electronic cigarette

Hi Mark, I saw you semi PP'd Electronic cigarette, but don't understand why. There's definitely a lot of back and forth happening at this article but almost none of it is coming from IPs or non-autoconfirmed users--I see only two IP edits in the past 2 days/100 edits, and all the rest of the edits have come from well-established editors. Can you pls drop a note at the article Talk page explaining the action? (Did you mean to full-protect it? That wouldn't be a terrible idea, honestly...) Thanks. Zad68 18:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, going back a week or so there have been a few problematic IP edits, one a day or so. That usually meets my standards for when to semi. It's hard to find them since there have been a high number of autoconfirmed edits, basically I didn't want any IP vandalism getting overlooked since the edit rate was so high. I was on the fence about whether to full protect it, I might still do so... I'll keep watching and if more reverts pop up I'll full protect it. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm worried about protecting the wrong version. Usually I don't worry about that, but I'd hate to freeze a high-visibility article it with junk science in place etc. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable, thanks for the explanation! And, definitely, please keep an eye on it, it's undergoing an uncomfortably high level of churn. Zad68 19:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, sounds like a pretty interesting top. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Palestinian elections

Hello Mark. Thanks for protecting this template and requesting that BRD is adhered to on talk, but unfortunately it's now locked on the version that is a BRD violation, which could potentially lead to problems when the protection expires. Could you restore the stable version? Thanks, Number 57 19:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally hesitant to revert to a preferred version unless it's been endorsed by an Rfc or some broad consensus. I don't think I'm comfortable doing so in this case. Sorry! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, that if there is no forthcoming consensus on the talk page, then I will simply revert back to the stable version as soon as the protection expires to ensure BRD is adhered to. And like I said, you're asking for Wickey-nl to apply BRD, but effectively sanction his blatant disregard (3 reverts after being bold) for it. Number 57 19:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying, but I generally want to see consensus on the talk page before going to the "right" version. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And if there is no consensus? What seems to be the message here is that if you keep edit warring long enough, articles will be locked on the version of the transgressor - I purposefully gave up reverting and asked for protection because I wanted it to stop. Number 57 20:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but keep in mind you can report consistent edit warriors to WP:AN3. You might also ask for input from a relevant Wikiproject. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did report him to AN3, but the report been ignored for almost six hours now. Number 57 20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, you can ask for a second opinion from an uninvolved admin. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have done. I understand where you are coming from re WP:Wrong Version, but I just can't reconcile telling editors to follow BRD but then allowing the BRD violating version to stand. It's not as if there isn't a stable version of the template - it's been almost unchanged for 11 months. Number 57 20:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (History merge on Russell Hobbs Inc)

Thanks for merging the above article history. All the best! Ubcule (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, let me know if you run into any similar situations. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your semi-protection of Electronic cigarette

just fyi, this doesn't really do anything for ratcheting down the disruptive editing, since all the parties are autoconfirmed themselves. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 23:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to Zad above for my perspective. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bhaskarbhagawati

BB has been removing referenced texts in Kamapitha (diff)and Kamarupa Pithas (diff). BB does not like Sircar because he does not agree with what Sircar says, and so he is removing all the references in these pages. As you very well know, the issue of Sircar is under discussion at Talk:Kamapitha#Article_protected. Chaipau (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already addressed the concern in talk Kamapitha. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 04:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time-challenged

Time-challenged ought to by undeleted. I could not find better sources, so according to Wikipedia's written policies, the sources were good enough and the writing was also. Also, the article gives the opportunity for the word Time-challenged to show up in an objective place from an internet search. Without it, it might only show up in time-management ads, which are wrong. --Truexper (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but there was a pretty clear consensus in the deletion discussion. To have it overturned, you'll have to apply at WP:DRV. Let me know if you have more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ACS Poli Timişoara

This is the correct version, you added protection to wrong version with abbreviations and without the city name. Example: Poli is the name and Timişoara is the city name, it's like change the of page Manchester United in "United FC". I waiting you message, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.216.199 (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a consensus on the article's talk page to prefer one particular version? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Acornboy is the fan of that team. Poli Timişoara is the correct name, and no another team used this name ever, it was only a nickname used ilegal by FC Timişoara, In England for example exist three teams from Sheffield and three name on template is Sheffield for Sheffield F.C., Sheffield United for Sheffield United F.C. and Sheffield Wednesday for Sheffield Wednesday F.C., here why do not "confuse" teams names? And primarily FC Timişoara aka Politehnica Timişoara was dissolved last year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.126.12.5 (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The site of Professional Football League of Romania, the only one authorized uses the correct name POLI Timisoara, see here, not a newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.126.12.5 (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For your work over at WP:RfPP. Keep up the great work! -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, thanks for the barnstar! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, I was just thinking that you deserve a barnstar for your work there. LuK3, you beat me to it! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for salting several spam subjects I brought to RFPP. —rybec 02:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for working on the considerable spam issue we have of late! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current AN/I thread

I just want to note that I'm trying to explain why I think abandoned boundary proposals are worthy of note, but sadly debate has not been joined. Meanwhile I am not going to contribute to an WP:AN/I thread which I have reported for oversight for reasons which may become apparent. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine, you have every right to avoid ANI. I would suggest that you make a note on the talk page of the article about why you reverted though. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As it seemed to be a matter of general policy I raised it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Sixth Periodical Review (abandoned) instead (on July 3 and today) but I'll add a link. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The arbitration case you filed regarding Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, and for bringing the project into disrepute, Ironholds is desysopped and may regain the tools via a request for adminship.

2.2) For his history of incivility, which includes logging out to engage in vandalism and to make personal attacks on other editors on other Wikimedia projects, Ironholds is strongly admonished.

3) For numerous violations of Wikipedia's norms and policies, Kiefer.Wolfowitz is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Heights, Los Angeles

Did you get a chance to read my comments regarding the deletion of the Hollywood Heights, Los Angeles page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samp4ngeles (talk • contribs) 04:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments: This page should be restored.

One of the suggested reasons for deleting it was that it's not listed in Mapping L.A., but Mapping L.A. explicitly lists Hollywood Heights as one of the neighborhoods in the Hollywood Hills.

Most of the other Hollywood Hills neighborhoods included in the Mapping L.A. project have Wikipedia pages:

Hollywood Heights has been referenced numerous times in RS, such as books and the Los Angeles Times, going back decades.

The neighborhood also appears on Google Maps

I'm not too familiar with the subject area, but if you'd like I'll move the page to your userspace so you can add citations to it. Then we can talk about moving the draft to articlespace. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sounds good. User:Samp4ngeles (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.204.202.118 (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the draft is now at User:Samp4ngeles/Hollywood Heights, Los Angeles. Please add citations to reliable sources. See WP:CITE and WP:RS for details. Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

You asked for reminding, that Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 needs to be semi-protected, after the full-protection expires. --SMS Talk 07:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks a lot for reminding me. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaan Chawla Article

Hello Mr.Mark Arsten, As you have mentioned on page that I have removed comments and deletion notice, so for that I am very sorry as I was not aware that I can't remove comments by people. And for Ayaan Chawla article I have removed deletion notice, but when notice added again I haven't removed as in history of article I can see that has it been removed by some ip.

Regards

Ron Gates — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Gates (talk • contribs) 07:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bigkhan.com

This page doesn't satisfy WP:GNG; it is an ordinary website. It was created by the website's founder himself who even removed the speedy deletion tag from the page. Fideliosr (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looks like it's deleted now. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted Outing issue

Hi Mark. I originally put this on Tarc's talk page, but you may be the better person to address it. In the talk section on the Th3j35t3r page (the last section) the user Anonymous4223 responded to me and added a first name not associated with my user account in what looks like an attempt at "OUTING" me as someone else. I'm guessing this is all spillover from the flame wars on Twitter, etc. Could you take a look? I don't know how to report it otherwise. Thank you Ellie Dahl (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I revdeleted it and warned him. Let me know if there are any other issues and I'll consider blocking. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just mailed oversight on this too, guess you got to the ball quicker. :) Can you remove the post on my talk page too? Ms. Dahl posted it verbatim there. Tarc (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I got the stuff on your talk page too. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. Ellie Dahl (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mark. Ellie forgets to mention that she and her friends have tried outing me as several people themselves over the last few days, including accusing me of being Rachel Marsden. My issues with this editor have nothing to do with "flame wars" or any other toff, but with her complete commandeering of the Jester page as a personal project. The Jester page is about an identified, self-admitted criminal, so his purported identity is certainly worthy to note. This complaint has nothing to do with any outing (I certainly did not 'out' her), but with her attempt to prevent me from adding material to a narrative she wishes to control. Anonymous4223 (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OMG

OMG, sorry I nominated ANI for deletion. Besides being stupid in the ordinary way, I'm new to Twinkle. Bishonen | talk 17:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

No problem :) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the problem was I put it on AfD instead of MfD. Apart from that, I haven't been so fêted since the time I blocked that arbitrator! Bishonen | talk 18:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
LOL, I recall reading about that that back when I was still a lurker with no account. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Support deletion of ANI. Actually if it succeeded, it could have been one of the biggest benefits to hit the 'pedia in many years. Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  18:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nidhi Razdan

Thanks for semi-protecting this article I was just about to ask someone to do that now I have to find which revision is factual. Whispering 18:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Choosing the right version can be hard! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you went and did my work for me woot! Off to check out new pages. Whispering 18:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sinitta's date of birth

I am not sure if I'm supposed to post here and on the Sinitta talk page or just there or just here. So to be safe I've posted both.

My take: There has been much discussion on Sinitta's date of birth here and in the press. 1963, 1966 and 1968 have all been mooted. Sinitta and her representatives claim 1968. Last week, The Sun published online and in print a copy of Sinitta's birth certificate, which showed it to be 1963. That date tallies with her appearances on television when if the 1968 date was correct, she would have been 13 or 14 but was actually 18 or 19. The 1963 date would tally with comments in Tom Bower's biography of Simon Cowell. Although the book is said to be unauthorised, Cowell has admitted spending much time helping Bower. Since publication of the document, Sinitta has not denied the veracity of the certificate nor has her PR company nor has Syco. She has not issued or even threatened to issue a libel writ (for The Sun suggesting she is a liar). I believe the case has been proved for the date being kept at 1963.--The Totter 00:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC) --The Totter 01:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telegraph Totter (talk • contribs)

Ok, it's best if you make your case on the article's talk page. Then if you've got consensus after three days the DOB can be restored. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing unrelated to American singers: why does it say "— Preceding unsigned comment added by Telegraph Totter (talk • contribs) " when I clearly did sign it? - --The Totter 01:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC) --The Totter 01:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, what you do is write out your message and then follow it with four tildes, like this. ~~~~
So your message should look like the line above this in the edit window when you hit save. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more history merge

Dear Mark:

If you are not yet sick of history merges, here's one that is a little strange. This article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Guns and Robots was developed up to a certain point in Feruary, then the changes pick up with the same editors at Guns and Robots (video game) until a few days ago, and a redirect was created at Guns and Robots pointing to this article. Then a totally different editor, transferred all of the text to the redirect page and made a redirect out of the page which had been the article. No reason given on the talk pages. I personally feel that the pages were correct before the move, but I am not an expert on the conventions of page naming. In any case, the history of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Guns and Robots needs to be appended to Guns and Robots (video game), not to Guns and Robots as it would appear from a casual look. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 04:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll take a stab at it later. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I merged the Afc page and Guns and Robots (video game). Do you think I should move all the history to the current title though? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Liga I pages

There are multiple IP edits made by 86.126.12.5 on all the Romanian teams templates, after the ACS Poli was protected. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.126.12.5. Acornboy (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no vandalism, I just updated the page after ACS Poli model, I removed by near team name the city of origin and added the abbreviation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.126.12.5 (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's really hard from me to tell constructive edits from disruption here, since I know nothing about Romanian Football. I suggest asking for help at the football wikiproject. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection request

I know you just answered the question regarding the full page protection on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Lanci, but I would like to talk you down from the indefinite protection to an expiration of September 1st. I picked the 1st because that would still give advocates who want to make a legitimate effort on the page before the election (on September 10th) time to work and undo the burning of good faith that has already occured. I'd even be willing to letting the full page protection stay untill September 12th (when all the results for the primary are in) so we can re-evaluate the worthyness then. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I shortened it to a month. Let me know if you want it unprotected before then. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tubod, Surigao del Norte

Our old friend, 122.144.64.116, appears to have created an account (Rickmendezdaposala) and is once again adding OR to Tubod, Surigao del Norte. Regards, --Forward Unto Dawn 13:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, warned and protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protection Templates

Sometimes, when an article has been protected, semi-protected, or pending-change protected, it doesn't always display the expiry dates regardless even if it does have an expiry date. Is it just me or are the bots and the administrators inexperienced about putting the expiry dates on the templates. Just want to give you this feedback about some articles that are protected are missing the expiry dates even if they do have any expiry dates. Thanks a ton. 69.122.190.4 (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just use the tag function on twinkle when I'm semi-protecting, which I think usually includes the date. If you protect and add the tag in two separate actions the date won't show up though. So good reminder. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Harrison

Hi Mark,

I was in the process of trying to add a new page for our organization/website, GoAbroad.com, and was having some trouble as this is my first time trying to add anything to Wikipedia. I saw on my notifications that you had deleted the page. Could you let me know why, or what I can do to better understand how to add a new business page? Any information would be appreciated. Thanks!

Did I delete that? It looks to me like here User:GTBacchus deleted it and User:Centrx deleted it here. But, anyway, we usually try to discourage people from writing about their own company, see our WP:COI rules for details. To justify having a page on a group though, we look for what we call "reliable sources", which generally means book, newspaper, or magazine coverage. See WP:RS and WP:CORP for details. You might want to ask for help at the WP:TEAHOUSE as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joefromrandb

I don't mind users amusing themselves, but outright lying is something else. You really think that was I? How about I agree to be checkuser'd right now, with the condition that whichever of us is wrong is site-banned for a year; you up for that? Joefromrandb (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, a couple things: A. Concerns about socking should be handled at WP:SPI--you have to go through the proper channels if you're going to bring this up. I'm not a checkuser or an SPI clerk so I can't help with that. B. If Joe has a habit of saying things like "grow the fuck up" then I'd definitely suggest you go ahead with the RFC/U you were thinking about. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Mark Arsten. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- LuK3 (Talk) 20:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it and replied. I check my mail pretty regularly so these templates aren't needed in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to heed your warning

Two weeks ago, I filed a WP:ANI report regarding an editor (Gunbirddriver), trying to remove all instances of blitzkrieg from the article, and kept reverting any edit I made to restore the last instance of the term.

Following that, you warned Gunbirddriver to stop deleting content from the article. You also warned me to stop making any further changes. But just three days later, with this EDIT, Gunbirddriver removed the content again without the support of any editor or admin. About 24 hours before making that edit, Gunbirddriver fabricated a "well-written" report and posted it on WP:ANI. Within minutes, before I could even give a response, I was banned for 48 hours by Bbb23. Gunbirdriver then went ahead to disobey the warning you gave us, even though he never got any "green-light" from Bbb23 to take any action. After the ban was lifted, I pointed out to Bbb23 how skewed Gunbirdriver's account of the dispute was. He reviewed it, and admitted that the ban was indeed a mistake and apologized. (See Bbb23's talkpage).

The portion of the article (see the diff) that Gunbirdrdiver removed was thoroughly referenced with reliable sources. (It doesn't even have all the citations raised in the DRN case, which number more than 7 sources). It was supported by other editors as seen in the DRN Case. Currently, only Gunbirddriver is staunchly against the solution suggested by User:Azx2, User:Binksternet, User:Magus732, User:Someone not using his real name, User:Sturmovoggel 66, and User:EyeTruth. And some of these editors were in support of the exclusion of the term, yet they are willing to reach a compromise. The solution suggested by these editors is that since enough editors and secondary sources support its inclusion, then it should included but it should also be mentioned in a note that some still contest it. Only Gunbirddriver categorically refuses to accept that solution. My goal, as I pointed out to Bbb23, is to resolve this content dispute and not to let it spiral out of control to become a ban-versus-ban war. EyeTruth (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EyeTruth (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gotten a chance to look into this in detail, but have you thought about having a talk page WP:RFC about whether to include the disputed content? Those are usually a good way to clearly establish consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have suggested to Gunbirddriver to take it to WP:RFC if he feels the suggestions provided by the majority of the editors is not satisfactory, instead him of just removing the content. When it was only three editors discussing the issue, I took it to DRN and more editors got involved and gave their suggestions. After the DRN, others in support of Gunbirddriver's position were willing to make compromises. At that point, I expected him to handle it civilly and take it to WP:RFC if he doesn't wish to go with the suggestions of the majority of the editors. So far, he has ignored my suggestion to take it up to WP:RFC. Even if I restore the content and incorporate all the suggestions of other editors, he may still delete it. EyeTruth (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will just add that another editor that has just recently joined the debate, who also happen to support the exclusion of the term, has also suggested to Gunbirddriver to go with what other editors have suggested (see User talk:Gunbirddriver#Battle of Kursk and blitzkrieg). That is, to give each side of the dispute its due weight in the article. EyeTruth (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could open an Rfc yourself, you don't have to wait for him to do it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know. The problem is that many editors involved are already tired of this dispute and would rather stay clear of it. That is the only reason we all started making compromises, including myself. Normally, I would have taken the initiative and opened an RFC. But since majority of the editors have voiced their intention to settle for a compromise (and most have even moved on from the dispute for good), I think it's up to the editor that refuses to accept this compromise to take the necessary action. But Mark Arsten, what about the edit Gunbirdriver made that explicitly violated your warning? EyeTruth (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty complicated situation, I think you should get a second opinion from another admin. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't know a lot of admins (only you and Bbb23). Do you have any other admins as a suggestion? OK Mark, to lessen the complication, let me reword my question: did you endorse the edit that Gunbirdriver made that explicitly violated your warning? EyeTruth (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I want to know because Gunbirdriver believes he got the green-light from administrators to make the changes. Bbb23 did not give any such green-light. Without clearing this up, I cannot persuade Gunbirddriver to open up for a serious discussion, in which case it would be impossible to make him chip in some compromise like almost every other editor involved in this case has already done (including myself). Excluding Gunbirddriver (and Hasteur), the only editors who have not shown their support for a compromise are those who haven't contributed to the debate for at least the past two months. Hasteur's rationale got criticized by Magus732, Binksternet and myself in the DRN case, and he never responded nor has he contributed to the debate ever since. EyeTruth (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If memory serves, User:Nick-D has considerable knowledge of WWII. He might be able to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Responding to Mark's ping) My understanding from my knowledge of the battle is that there is legitimate disagreement in reliable sources over how the German intentions at Kursk should be presented, so insisting that the article take one position or another on this topic is not helpful or in line with WP:NPOV (many elements of this battle are disputed by historians, and there have been serious problems in regards to our article previously as a result). It's certainly the case that some reliable sources, including the expert David Glantz, apply the term 'Blitzkrieg' to the German plans (albeit generally with some provisos). But other reliable sources don't. The discussion at Talk:Battle of Kursk#DRN follow up suggests that EyeTruth and @Gunbirddriver: are talking past each other in an unproductive way and are ignoring this basic fact (which they've both illustrated by presenting reliable sources, and which Sturmvogel 66 had pointed out), and have driven off the other editors who have offered opinions. The post-DRN edit warring was simply awful, but it's few days ago now. This strikes me as a situation where both editors really need to walk away from the article until they're ready to edit in accordance with core policies around how differing sources are presented. I'm not seeing a need for a RfC on content and have no confidence that it would be successful at present as this is a user conduct issue. The underlying article content issue is really simple: if some reliable sources which provide in-depth coverage of the battle describe the operation as an intended "blitzkrieg" then this needs to be noted in the article. The same applies if some substantial reliable sources on the battle use different wording or dispute the use of "blitzkrieg". Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick, thanks a lot for weighing in. I knew you'd have a good understanding of the issue. I highly encourage EyeTruth and Gunbirddriver to take your advice. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Nick-D, thanks for weighing in your thoughts. Your final advice is what I have always been suggesting to Gunbirddriver and other editors for months. If some reliable sources support the position, then it needs to be included. If some reliable sources oppose it, then it needs to be excluded or noted (preferably noted). It is a very simple solution, and after the DRN case most editors have agreed to it. Yet for 4 weeks since the end of the DRN case, one editor (who had refused to recognize the dispute as a content type in the DRN) has singlehandedly foiled every attempt to resolve the dispute in a logical manner. That is the reason I could not help getting more irritated and nastier with my tone as the drama progressed. I have always agreed with your advice. I will attempt what I have tried many time in the past few months, so just watch how things will proceed again: I will restore the content and encourage Gunbirddriver to add his text with supporting sources as well. (I really hope he will listen to the suggestion Azx2 left on his talkpage and not turn this attempt into another unnecessary war). EyeTruth (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit appears to belie what you've written above: you have re-inserted your preferred claim that "the operation envisioned a blitzkrieg" without noting alternate viewpoints. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nick, trust me, I have an interesting history with Gunbirdriver. Writing an alternate vewpoint in his place will be a complete waste of effort (this is from expereince). That is why I explcitly encouraged him to add whatever he wishes to add that is appropraite. EyeTruth (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So I restored the content and Sturmvogel 66 even helped me put the citations in a better shape. I left the following message directed to Gunbirddriver on the talkpage: "I suggest you heed the advice I've been screaming all along (which is also mirrored in Azx2's advice) and settle this dispute in a logical manner: add your own sentence or note or whatever to point out that the issue is contested, of course with citation of reliable sources." But instead he responds with this [WP:ANI report]. I gotta say it bluntly: this guy has absolutely no interest in resolving this dispute in logical manner that is in accordance with Wikipedia policies. EyeTruth (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for taking care of this. I was tempted to just remove the personal attack and leave the plans to do the same thing as evidence if needed later, but they'll still be in the history at least. In the meantime, someone is a bit sore. --McDoobAU93 01:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, always glad to help out. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this edit constitutes a legal threat. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I saw a very similar remark get posted to ANI a week or so ago: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive807#Possible_legal_threat_on_Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera. The consensus was against it being a NLT violation, although some felt it was. That's not to say it's an Ok thing to say though--I'd bring it up in your RFC/U. And otherwise, you might want to disengage from his talk page etc. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiefer Wolfowitz

Would it be advisable to remove the contents of his userpage (sans the banned user template)? hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 10:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) Why? Imagine readers would like to find out who wrote some excellent article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, I'll leave it as is then. No point in denying recognition in this case. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 12:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm both impressed by and grateful for your mature, well-thought response.Joefromrandb (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit deletion decision for Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability

Hello,

About a year ago, you handled the deletion discussion about "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability". The latest version of the article is here. I would like to revisit this decision. (I confess to not fully understanding the appropriate process for doing so, but it was suggested to me that talking with you was the first step. Although I think your decision was a reasonable one, I think that the decision is worth revisiting because the process --- and this was mostly my fault --- was somewhat sloppy. The article evolved throughout the discussion so that many people voted on a not-final version of the article. I cleaned up the article, both during that review and some more in the last few days, so I think that it would be worthwhile to revisit. If you don't object, I think that the next step (I could be wrong) would be for you to bring the discussion to deletion review. Thanks for your time. Yfever (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as there was a clear consensus in the deletion discussion, I don't think I will personally restore the page. To have it restored, you'll have to apply at WP:DRV. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I will do as you suggest. Yfever (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability. 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. Yfever (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit history and Talk page recovery for County-unit system/County Unit System

I totally messed up both the move on this article and my subsequent attempts to fix it... sorry about that. The article is now at County Unit System, which is where it should stay, but could you merge the edit history and talk page from the deleted County-unit system into the new location? Thanks for you help with fixing the mess I made. -Jhortman (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I can do that. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at it, hope everything's in the right place now. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks perfect! Thanks again for your help! -Jhortman (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism from 98.225.98.100

Hi, I received a message for editing the Ecosystem article. This was my 11 year old brother. We have told him that vandalism will get our IP blocked so it hopefully should not happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.98.100 (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good to know. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drymobius margaritiferus

Hi you removed my edits to this page for lack of reference, I added captive information derived from my own experiences breeding this snake, how do I reference myself? 71.163.101.128 (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Ricardo Gordon[reply]

Sorry, but we discourage people from adding information based on their own experiences, see WP:OR for our guidelines on the matter. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard M. Stallman

You undid my edits on the RMS page. These are significant social issues that I have personally verified via email that are accurate. I asked Richard if he was quoted accurately in the Wikiquote topics on necrophelia and pedophelia, and he replied yes. I asked him if there was anything else he'd like to add to that, and he said no. The references on the Wikiquote page link back to his own stallman.org page archives, one from as recent as January of this year. This is not vandalism. It is published data on a man of prominance, a position he still holds, and something people looking up information on RMS should know about in addition to his hacker and activist roles. [9]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mark_Arsten&oldid=568963261"