User talk:Mark Arsten

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

Berkeley Hall School

Dear Mark, I am writing to you with regards to deletion and redirection of the Berkeley Hall School wikipedia article. Berkeley Hall School is the oldest coeducational school in Los Angeles which was founded 102 years ago (in 1911). The fact that it was the first and oldest co-ed school in Los Angeles with it's history makes it a notable school and I believe that an article should be dedicated to it. --Azakeri (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you offer evidence that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I hope something close to "university" is meant by "school", here, otherwise the claims seems somewhat implausible too! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Appy Pie Deletion

Hi Mark. I see you're the one responsible for deleting the above mentioned article. I was the author of this page and if you see following references are from highly reputable news sources where journalists have featured mentions about the Company http://technorati.com/technology/cloud-computing/article/appy-pie-makes-making-an-app/ http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/04/16/appy-pie-launches-its-cloud-based-mobile-app-creation-tool-with-opentable-and-soundcloud-support/ http://www.veterinaryteambrief.com/article/it-time-app http://blog.mobpartner.com/2013/04/05/top-5-app-builders/ http://techcircle.vccircle.com/2013/08/29/diy-mobile-app-developing-platform-appy-pie-secures-10000-on-kickstarter/ http://yourstory.com/2013/04/mobile-app-building-platform-appy-pie-is-now-open-to-public-use-initial-thoughts/ Please advise me steps to recover this page? • Cxs107 (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I suggest you create a well sourced draft in your userspace and then we can work from there. See WP:USERSPACEDRAFT for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mark, As Suggested I created a well sourced draft in my userspace and here is the link for your kind review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cxs107/sandbox/Appy_Pie. Now please advise me on next steps.• Cxs107 (talk) 2:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I guess the next step is to file a request for undeletion at deletion review: WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, As suggested I filed a request for undeletion at deletion review and following is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Appy_Pie , Do we just wait Now? • Cxs107 (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.63.144.42 (talk)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but the request has to be filed at WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Time for a block

Can you look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#‎User:212.9.8.161 reported by User:Moxy (Result: ) - Thank you -Moxy (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like someone just beat me to it! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hi, can you please protect Alice (Avril Lavigne song) with expires two years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.178.130 (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't like to protect pages long term like that usually. I tend to prefer short protections, at first, anyway. I've protected this page for one week. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A cookie!

Blakegripling ph has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thanks for helping out on the Jade Pettyjohn article, that's much appreciated.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Blake Gripling (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Another Request

Hi, I have a request, and I'm not sure how else to place my requests in these regards. I see that you are busy on Wikipedia, so I thought I might get lucky if I ask you... I am trying to make my own User page. I haven't done much on it, just gave a few basics. But I don't know how to go further. Could you please help? I'm sure you will be able to see Freddie de Lange...

11:49, 14 November 2013 (South Africa)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddie2012a (talk • contribs)  

Generally, the best way is to find a userpage of someone else that looks good, and try to copy how they made it. But changing the specifics of course. Are there any users whose pages look good to you? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for all of the work you do at the perennially backlogged (before you get to it) WP:RFPP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, it feels good to clear out a backlog like that! Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sock at work

Hi Mark: You blocked Moshiach101. It looks like he continues as Himynameismoshiach plastering the same slogan/s on the Hanukkah page. Thanks again for all your help, IZAK (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, looks like the same user. I've blocked him. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Not only for having a sharp eye at the SPI, but also for all your work in general all over the place, all the time. Widr (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thank you too for all the work you do around the wiki. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A sockpuppet

Hey, do not mean to bother, I just know your online frequently, but yesterday IP address User:187.109.228.3 was blocked for disruptive editing and today the same person returned under IP address User:187.109.228.4. Notice the similarity in their edits and IP address. Notice both accouts immediatly remove warnings/notices on their talk pages [1], [2], they both WP:OVERLINK frequently and remove content from articles without giving a reason. Also making many edits in great succession to the exact same topics. Not sure if we need to do a range block yet, but if they return it might be necessary.STATic message me! 22:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I tried some rangeblock magic on 187.109.228.0/24. Let me know what else turns up. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverted my edit

Hi, you just reverted [3]. I'm not sure why. Please un-revert it or explain what I did wrong. Cheers. 80.195.244.108 (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: Never mind, you've explained on my talk page. Thanks! 80.195.244.108 (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Mega Dereio

I'm from Mega Dereio . I just do some updates the page but you didn't accept it. They're all true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.174.52.235 (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as this is the English Wikipedia, we only allow text to be added in the English language. I'm sure there is a version of Wikipedia in your native language that you could contribute to though. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The annoying IP from ANI

Hi Mark, here's another article they've vandalised Historicity of Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, good catch, I've semi'd it for a few days. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tichester

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

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

A tag has been placed on Tichester, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 04:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Note that I merely redirected the title, someone came along later and turned the redirect into an article. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, it was an IP that recreated it; the content was from the previous version, so I have re-deleted. Risker (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright, works for me. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this Hounding?

Recently, I was involved in a sock-puppet dispute. I was wrong and you blocked my account for a week. I did paid editing and caused a lot of problem on Wikipedia, but I wasn't aware with the guidelines then. After my block has expired, I came back to edit Wikipedia, but an editor is hounding me.

I voted keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Q Mobile because I have a QMobile cell phone and because the company is very notable. Everybody else is voting keep, but as I voted keep, this user came and posted Comment the above editor is a sockpuppeteer and paid editor. [4] It is unclear whether he has WP:COI on this article.

I created The Future Project and he marked it as COI and tagged the article with multiple issues. I didn't take money to write this article. I read all the guidelines and read a lot of articles about non-profit organizations to make sure that I write what is accepted at Wikipedia and what I get is a COI tag. He put the sock-puppet investigation link on the talk page of the article. I'm sure that he didn't even bother reading the article before tagging it.

I agree that I was wrong for making multiple accounts and doing paid editing. I did actually apologize to another user who had to do a lot of work to fix things from my horrible editing. But now this is unwarranted. I am feeling humiliated, specially because of the comment made by this user on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Q Mobile. Am I not allowed to edit Wikipedia any more? I just came to you because you blocked my account and I didn't know anyone else to go to.Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I left a message on the Afd. If he keeps it up you can report him to WP:ANI. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Can I remove the COI tag on The Future Project now?Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk)

I wouldn't recommend doing that yourself, maybe go to WP:3O with the issue? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

What Harrasment ? I demand a understandable answer.

I want a specific answer to why I was blocked for harrasment.--MRivera25 (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)MRivera25

You were blocked for this edit. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems some one is angry on you

Don't what was the intention of this User:75.171.195.138. Has removed contents that belongs to you. --    L o g  X   18:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

About 1800 people are angry with me :) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That's really great Mark! :) --    L o g  X   18:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

2013 Owner

Dude, you blocked the account of the brand new owner of Wikipedia! He said he was going to upgrade my account "for brand new amazing features" and put money on my credit card because I'm so great on Wikipedia! You owe me, Mark Arsten, you owe me... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

lol, sorry about that! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

WT* --    L o g  X   20:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

AfD comments

Thanks for your comments here. I respect your contributions to WP and I thought your comments were nuanced and basically right on. I will keep these points in mind. With that said, if no one had been "following him around," you would have never blocked him. He would still be sockpuppeting, writing spammy articles, and lying to fellow editors to cover up his COI. As for what he will do in the future, your guess is as good as mine. Cheers. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, all I meant was that you didn't have to leave a disclaimer after ever edit he makes. It's fine to observe him to make sure he's adhering to community standards. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

You may see that I rolled back one of your edits a few minutes ago. That was a completely inadvertent misclick and I've reverted your edit back in. Sorry for any inconvenience. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't notice, but thanks for the note! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of reliably sourced content

User:Haldraper has three times removed reliably sourced content.

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

He also misrpresents the consensus on the talk page. which was to remove it from the first sentence, not from the entire introduction. I left a message on his talk page but he did not reply. Whats the best way forward? Pass a Method talk 11:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like WP:AN3 might be a viable option if he keeps reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Perri Reid

Hello. You locked Perri Reid. You said IP edit warring which I think refers to me. If you look at the talk page I am trying to discuss the edits. summerphd feels she owns the page and wont accept any one else contributions. summerreverts to its version. I feel until there is consensus it is best that you clear the page and just have on it that Perri Reid was an 80s pop/RB singer. To save her version--which is disputed-- over mine and others I feel is bias. Thank You. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you try to get more input from other editors on the talk page. You could ask for help at WP:BLPN, WP:3O, or on the talk page of a relevant wikiproject. Or you could hold a talk page WP:RFC about the disputed content. Let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of page GoldCoin - Discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goldcoin

Result you found was against general consensus...

In your reason you state "The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)"

When in fact the general consensus was to keep the page.

Please explain yourself and why you purposefully and unilaterally closed a discussion in minority favor despite Wikipedia criteria.

And if you will argue something about notability please look at the following list of cryptocurrencies and note that several currencies have pages that have lower marketcaps than the one in question.. Not to mention that there are currencies on that list that are simple litecoin and bitcoin clones with virtually no improvement over them whereas GoldCoin is the first proof of work currency to have virtual immunity to majority hashpower style attacks. This alone makes it more notable than the previous currencies.

Also I believe there is some bias on your part as towards what is and what isn't notable,

For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_warp_(science_fiction)

Has only one reference, but this is deemed enough to keep the page with a citation needed notice...

It's important to understand that in the portal of cryptocurrency GoldCoin is extremely notable even though this may not be the case in the general public, it is notable within the context that it applies to.

Similarly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protostar is notable to astronomers.. but not necessarily the general public.. It also has few references and yet is not marked for deletion nor is there a citation notice.

Unless you have substantial proof that the article reads like an advertisement or promotion I recommend the article be restored.

Well, consensus in deletion discussions is not determined by how many people vote for keeping vs how many people vote for deletion. Consensus is determined by the strength of the arguments made by the participants in the discussion. In this case, the supporters of deletion argued convincingly that the subject had not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Although many people supported keeping the article, they did not provide evidence of significant coverage, thus limiting the strength of their argument. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what arguments where made, I still don't see how the article warrants deletion... would not vague citations tags along with a notability tag be sufficient until the article was cleaned up?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Notability

From what I can gather no where near enough time was provided for the participants who helped write the article to establish proper notability. I suggest we give them more time.

Will you consider restoring the page provided a notability tag be attached? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefifthlord (talk • contribs) 19:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

When there is a consensus in an Afd that an article is not notable, we delete the article. It doesn't matter how much time we give it, if there is not significant coverage in reliable sources it should be deleted. If you can offer evidence of significant coverage, I may be able to undelete the article though. Or you can apply to have the deletion overturned at WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark Arsten, I see you keep stating that“…the supporters of deletion argued convincingly that the subject had not received significant coverage in reliable sources.” U repeated yourself when u said, “…if there is not significant coverage in reliable sources it should be deleted.” However, there are plenty of extremely reliable sources that were provided. In other words the real question is who is deciding what is “significant coverage in reliable sources” and what isn’t. Here is a link to the GoldCoin Official Repository https://github.com/goldcoin/gldcoin where you will find detailed information about what the program is and what it is actually doing. Here is a quick explanation “GoldCoin (GLD) - an improved version of Litecoin using scrypt as a proof of work scheme. • 2.5 minute block targets up till block 45000 • 2 minute block targets there after • 504 blocks per difficulty re GoldCoin (GLD) - an improved version of Litecoin using scrypt as a proof of work scheme. • 2.5 minute block targets up till block 45000 • 2 minute block targets there after • 504 blocks per difficulty retarget up to block 45000 • 60 blocks per difficulty retarget thereafter • target up to block 45000 • 60 blocks per difficulty retarget thereafter“ You can also contact the developers of this program at http://gldcoin.com/contact-us/ who would be more than happy to explain their work to you ;) Nihondino (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)nihondino

I'm sure it's a great program, but that's kind of a red herring here. Whether something is ingenious or junk doesn't affect its notability. What we look for is coverage by established sources that are independent of the subject, i.e. newspapers, magazines, etc. If you can point some of those out to me, there's a chance the article could be undeleted. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Challenge Deletion of Article: Peter Pakeman

Hi Mark, I’ve revisited the criteria for an athlete in Wikipedia:Notability (sports) and would like to challenge to the decision and have the it reversed, because I'm confident that the subject of the article meets one or more of Wiki’s notability requirements: (1) Association football (soccer); and (2) Amateur sports person/ College athlete. Clearly, the subject of the article is not a super-star. He is not famous or popular. His professional career was brief, similar to the subjects of other Wikipedia articles, where their notability was as brief and where, in some cases, a single link or reference is provided. However, unlike the subjects of other articles, the article about my subject provides references about his success over a period of approximately 10-15 years. In your deliberations I would ask that you keep in mind the saying that “the sum of the parts is greater than the whole.” Below are the relevant criteria and explanations about how the subject of my article meets the criteria.

Association football (soccer) - Players who have appeared in a fully professional league (list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football), will generally be regarded as notable. EXPLANATION- The subject of the article was a call-up, and played three games with the North York Rockets in the Canadian Soccer League (CSL). Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above. EXPLANATION- As an amateur (youth), the subject of the article played with the Toronto Falcons and Toronto Italia in the National Soccer League (NSL), a professional soccer league in Canada that existed from 1926 to 1997. In 1977 and 1978, he played with the Toronto Jets, a farm team to the Toronto Falcons and Toronto Italia. During those years he was called-up to play on the parent teams. Amateur sports persons- College athletes are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other coverage. EXPLANATION- In his senior year (1983), the subject of the article he received an individual award at the national level, by being selected to play at the ISAA Senior Soccer Bowl Classic, a forum where top college soccer players could compete in an all-star game and where professional soccer scouts could come to see America's best players. Both the NCCA and the ISAA also have longstanding roots in sports. However, unlike the NCAA, which has its roots in rowing and football, the ISSA, which was founded in 1926, was created for and supported soccer, only. The first NCCA, All-American award/selection occurred in 1973, a year after the first ISAA the Senior Soccer Bowl Classic game was played. While the NCAA All-American award may be more widely recognized, individuals selected to play in the ISAA the Senior Soccer Bowl Classic were also being recognized at the national level. Notwithstanding the fact that the some of the article's references came under scrutiny, they were credible/ non-trivial sources related to the subject: playing with the North York Rockets in the Canadian Soccer League (CSL); and being recognized at the national-level by playing in the ISAA the Senior Soccer Bowl Classic.

Note #1: The subject of the article assures me that he is confident he can obtain the appropriate permission for the recently deleted reference that confirms he played with the North York Rockets.

Note #2: The subject of the article also assures me that another reference can be provided to confirm his selection to playing in the ISAA the Senior Soccer Bowl Classic.)Xave2000 (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, first of all, you have to provide sources to back up your claims. Can you do so? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Europium

You recently reverted some vandalism to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europium, but missed some in the Europium as a nuclear fission product section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.80.25 (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that might actually be on a template or something, I'm not seeing it in the article itself. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be gone now... how strange. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway Talk/FAR

On the FAR you said "I've reviewed the article and the comments here and have concluded that this FAR is completely meritless" and also "Animosity ... also seems to be motivating some of the above comments". I had quoted the main editor on the page: "(redacted quote, Overagainst)"

He decided to leave that on the talk archive, and stood by it as representative of his sense of humour. You may have had thought it poor form of me to bring that up. Yet when Anthonyhcole (who had a lot of hard work ahead of him) was a bit mocking and disrespectful about another editor you slapped him down hard on the Talk page, then judged him very harshly: "In my experience, few good-faith editors begin their involvement with a dispute by announcing their intent to mock the other participants."

Etiquette is a means, not an end in itself. Keeping everything serene on talk pages is desirable to produce better articles, sure. (It's also good tactics, I regret some of my remarks.) But most important is keeping the article encyclopedic about real people in the real world who are not hiding behind pseudonyms. The lack of drama at the 'Death of Gareth Williams' may be because there is nothing there about his parent's private lives (though newspaper coverage critical of them of them has appeared). While an editor's etiquette on talk pages is indeed relevant to the quality of his edits, BLP issues ought not to be judged simply by determining who is being most disrespectful about another editor .Overagainst (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, your concerns have been noted. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

There is some concern over that quote so I have taken the liberty of redacting my first comment, if that is OK. There is a discussion of the matter at BLP Noticeboard here.Overagainst (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be getting further and further from a discussion of the content of the actual article... Mark Arsten (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

List of aircraft carriers in service

I have another editor opposing Enok edit, so I shouldn't need your assistance. Thanks anyway, Rob (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

afd closings

On the log for Nov 10, I'd guess you started at the top, not the bottom, and ignored the time stamps, as of course you know that except for explicit SNOW or speedy, 7 days = 7 times 24 hours, not the beginning of the 7th day. (I do not have any objection to any of the actual closings). DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't agree. If the outcome is clear, I don't think it matters if it has not been exactly 168 hours since the discussion was opened. If it has only been 165 hours but the outcome is clear, what is the harm of closing it then? I'll make sure I work from the bottom of the list in the future though. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you can point me to a discussion where there was a solid consensus behind an exact 168 hour rule, I will certainly abide by that. But looking at the WT:AFD archives here and here I don't see a solid support for that. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

?

Adeptzare3 (talk): Why were my edits to 91730738691298 considered vandalism?

The text of the article was "In base 36, 91730738691298 is WIKIPEDIA." That is not a helpful contribution. Articles in Wikipedia should be about notable subjects, not just random facts one has learned. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Adeptzare3 (talk): All right, but you shouldn't have considered it vandalism. —Preceding undated comment added 00:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

My apologies if you were offended by my remark. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you please look at this archival

I suspect you left a line or two off when you archived Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PrincessKannapolis. I could probably have made a decent fist of adding it, but I think this is an area of Wikipedia where the well meaning editor is best speaking to the archiving admin instead. It seems to me that the link does not link to the archived case. Fiddle Faddle 09:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, good catch, I'll blame that on a script error. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be showing up now, oddly enough. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's go with "I blame MediaWiki software" then! :) Fiddle Faddle 10:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Request page unprotection

I wanted to suggest you that this page Singh Saab the Great should be unprotected because it is a very small stub , and chances should be given to the users who are not autoconfirmed to provide content for this page. If it is possible then please unprotect it so that more content can be added on this page. --Param Mudgal (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The protection should expire shortly, I believe. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Really good work against vandalism! Keep it up! :D Vapenhandelkosovo (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Jenna von Oÿ

This has been vandalized for a long time. Is longer protection necessary? --George Ho (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll take another look through the history later. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

KITTEH

I gives yuh kitteh!

Vapenhandelkosovo (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Review: Carol Kicinski

Hi Mark, I wrote to you last week about the Carol Kicinski article. I read your reply about needing additional sources and I'd like to request that you open the article back up so I may go in and add some more sources. During the time that I was first writing the article I had a few other projects I was working on and I wasn't able to pay as much attention to the sources and other information in the article but I recently found about 8 more sources and I'd like a chance to add them to the article to see if that improves it. Also, I'd like to combine the Carol Kicinski article with two others that I've been working on and that should also help add additional sources and notoriety as well. I would greatly appreciate the chance to improve this article, as I mentioned before this is my first article and I'd like to get it right.

Thank you, --M.Renae (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

So what are the sources that you'd like to use? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Here are some of the links I'd like to add: http://www.celiaccentral.org/NFCA-s-10th-Anniversary/10-Years-of-NFCA-Personal-Stories/10-Years-of-NFCA-Personal-Stories/925/vobid--10025/ (shows she is in with the NFCA, a major organization in the gluten free & celiac world) http://wholesomesweeteners.com/Recipes/FeaturedChefs/featuredchefrecipes/tabid/178/UserId/68/Carol-Kicinski.aspx (shows that she does recipe development for them) http://www.americanpistachios.org/users/carol-kicinski(shows recipe development) http://www.san-j.com/carolkicinski.asp(shows recipe development) http://www.oregonlive.com/foodday/index.ssf/2011/07/with_a_nut_crust_mascarpone_be.html (book review written by Oregonian) http://tbo.com/dining/dunedin-author-offers-recipes-for-gluten-free-goodies-243413 (book review written by Tampa Tribune) http://www.tonawanda-news.com/feature/x1909739832/SIMPLY-GLUTEN-FREE-Get-ready-for-football-season-with-a-delicious-dip (shows that she has been published in newspapers, this is one of her published articles in the Tonawanda News in New York, I have at least 5 more links for different articles that she's had published) http://gfafwellnesspresentations.blogspot.com/ (shows her as a presenter for the Gluten & Allergen Free Wellness Event) http://www.youtube.com/user/simplyglutenfree (Shows her Daytime TV show segments. I know this is content posted by her company, but the videos are from Daytime TV. This is an important source in establishing her notability because one of the main ways she is known is from this syndicated show. I would use Daytime's website for this instead but they update their site so often with new clips so if I put a link to one of Carol's clips it might not show up later when someone goes to visit the site)

Let me know what you think. I'm still looking for more in the meantime. Thanks, --M.Renae (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent socking

Hey, Mark. Thanks for cleaning up the dirty sock drawer. I am pretty certain that Mrwallace05 is indef blocked User:Plant's Strider. Will the old CUs on PS confirm this, or will I need to open another SPI? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, you could try filing a new SPI, but the data on him may be stale at this point since he hasn't edited in a while. How certain are you about the behavioral similarities? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)