User talk:Mark Arsten

—Welcome to my talk page, Please start new sections at the bottom  MarkArsten 
22:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article for deletion: Propane Studio

EricaHugh (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC) Hi, regarding the article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Propane_StudioI was hoping you could clarify your decision and help us restore the necessary information needed to keep it in existence. Please let me know the reasons for deletion, and what I would need to provide to reinstate the page if there is an opportunity to do so. Your help is greatly appreciated and I hope we can come to an agreement. Thank you, EricaHugh (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Erica, I'll move the text of the article to a page in your userspace (WP:USERSPACEDRAFT). It's at User:EricaHugh/Propane Studio now. To have the page restored, please add citations to reliable sources for each statement that the article makes. WP:RS, WP:V, & WP:CITE are good starting places. WT:ARS is a good place to ask for help, too. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Romney tax returns redirect

Hi Mark, sorry to bother you. I see that about a month ago you protected Mitt Romney's tax returns, which redirects to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. I could be wrong but it seems it should redirect instead to Tax returns of Mitt Romney. Thanks, Nstrauss (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. It was actually a candidate for G4 speedy deletion, and I've redirected it to the same location as the previous version. This page has some of the details of the situation... a user didn't get his way at Afd and kept recreating a page that had been deleted. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the explanation. I'll stay out of that mess, thank you very much. --Nstrauss (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, American political articles are going to be a mess for the next 6 weeks or so... Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead

Given that you've been actively involved in the article's promotion and reviews; your opinion at Talk:Eraserhead#Character naming would be a huge boon. Thanks for any time you take on it. GRAPPLE X 22:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll check things out. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine

We can do this the hard way. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If you insist. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with you here, Mark. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Now we need to remove that extra content... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• I just did, unless someone put it back again (I really don't want that article in my watchlist). GRAPPLE X 04:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, looks like it's gone now. It will be nice to have these elections over with, but possibly not so nice though, depending on who wins. Hopefully, the American people will support the only reasonable candidate in the race! Mark Arsten (talk) 04:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Why am I feeling this odd sense of deja vu. GRAPPLE X 04:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• There's already vermin everywhere, Mark... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

AfD closing

Can you please explain how you decided that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Balkanic Europe is a clear keep? I see three people saying delete, two people saying keep, two people saying weak keep, and my questions to elaborate those keep !votes all went unanswered. I see no strength of argument in the keep !votes there, and even if I'm biased, how strong can their arguments be if they couldn't even be bothered to answer questions about them? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the keep !voters were that weak, they were arguably in line with policy. Two of the delete !voters did make pretty weak arguments, it's hard for me to count them for much. 5/3 is usually a split that allows for consensus, given near-comparable strength of arguments. Sorry for the brevity, but I've been pretty busy. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

re Main page Lynching of Jesse Washington

Hi,

The blurb is really awful. Who writes those? I didn't see it anywhere. The real article is so much better. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm the one to blame for the blurb. If you want, I can edit it some if you make suggestions. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm at least somewhat innocent, since the lead sentence was revised by someone else after I wrote the blurb. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) @Matthew: the blurbs of TFAs to come are in the link "archive" under every TFA right on the Main page, discussed at TFAR. Some think the blurb is final at suggestion time (and write that in the rulz), I rather think it's where open discussion should start. Visit again!

@Mark: you were bold, precious, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Now here's controversy... wow. Look at Talk:Main page and the article. Someone I've never heard of wants to take it to FAR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  Where have I heard those threats before... They're never followed through on; some people just don't like "controversial" subjects making FA, while others don't like seeing a version that isn't "theirs" getting the star. It's just posturing usually. GRAPPLE X 15:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  Mhm. Mark seems to get all the dramaz. No wonder his llama is so tired... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, I doubt they'll defeature it for not having citations in the lead! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  Indeed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, the BBC helpfully screened Mississippi Burning at just after midnight today. Either a coincidence, or they integrate their schedules with TFA plans, or there's an anniversary that I'm not aware of being marked? (The Little Rock Central High School desegregation?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that is interesting. I hadn't realized the Little Rock date, either. I wonder if Dabomb was aware of that when he scheduled the article? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

With and without knowing, he did well, - I wanted to give him Precious for it, but found out that - naturally - I gave it to him before, on 30 June ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

editing the blurb

Hi,

TFA blurbs can be edited on that page, right? But what about the blurbs for articles not on that page? Where are those? I tried to edit the one for tomorrow but I can't.

Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The links for those is on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2012 (or on whichever month). They are full protected as the date draws near, let me know if you want to make an edit to them though and I'll implement it. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

ok, thanks. Seems like I prefer more concise wording than most. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I think they're just protected a day in advance, so there should usually be a few days available for work. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

there's a discussion going on at TFA. Since it's unclear to me how all this is decided. Now it's just scheduled to the end of the month. So then suddenly a bunch of new one's will be scheduled? Is that how it works? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, basically. The two people who are allowed to schedule them both have demanding schedules and can't spend much time on Wikipedia, so the community basically has to take whatever it can get from them. My thinking is that they should give the FAC and FAR delegates permission to do TFA delegation work. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

architect Steve Chilton

Hi Mark,

Please can you let me know why the above article was deleted?

The individual in question has been the author of numerous competition and award winning buildings and structures and has been recognised as such by institutions such as the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Royal Academy of Arts.

Architecture is a multidisciplinary activity, but never the less, the underlying concept of any particular building or structure can be the product of a single individual. In the case of the above architect, he has been solely responsible for the design of many notable buildings and proposals.

To discount his achievements on the strength that a number of his designs have not been built is absurd, there are numerous examples of notable architects who have never built yet have been recognised for their work by their peers and critics in their field of work.

I hope you will look closely at the reasons this article has been nominated and look at the individuals recorded achievements and reassess your decision to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.134.40 (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the article wasn't deleted because I decided to, it was deleted because there was a consensus to do so (Wikipedia:Consensus). At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Chilton, the wikipedians who weighed in cited a lack of significant coverage by outside sources (WP:SIGCOV). Hope this explains things, let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Tomorrow's FTA - Toothcomb

Has "A toothcomb is a dental structure most commonly known in lemuriform primates (which includes lemurs and lorisoids). Similar dental structures can be found in other mammals, including colugos, treeshrews, and some African antelopes" - too many "includes/including" in that first two sentences. Terrible, terrible! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, four instances of a form of "include" in the blurb, that's some repetitiousness right there. I just took out a couple, hope that helps. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

thanks! I feel that it's important for the blurb to be enticing, not a boring put-off! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at a couple more blurbs... not encouraging: "Rhyolite, Nevada, is a ghost town ... in the U.S. state of Nevada." Who would have guessed that Rhyolite, Nevada is in Nevada? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Ziptask page deletion

Mark,

I'd like to retrieve the content of the deleted Ziptask page. I, unfortunately was made aware of the deletion too late and do not have a backup copy for personal use. I dont agree with the deletion, but what are you gonna do.... just want to save the work. Is there a link where I can still get to it?

Regards, SethZiptask (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I've userfied it to User:Ziptask/Ziptask for your reference. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Turban Tide and Hindoo Invasion Page Deletion

Hi Mark,

I'm like Seth, the user above. I'd like to retrieve the contents of this deleted page for personal use in a historiographical novel which will not quote Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Turban_Tide_and_Hindoo_Invasion

I too don't agree with the deletion - even though Melanie N suggested they could not find any references to Turban Tide, I found this:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:jRSS7kmSnmYJ:www.wce.wwu.edu/resources/aacr/pdf/documents-east-indian-tide-of-turbans-1910.pdf+&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjGUbSbOCLWgrYwGg_d82oDudQfe2RcmOk13LUYWsNhwVCfKIhRjsfKtAXTfSBQsijVWLKUJbuxbm_15TZn9F_3aoimGePbipFLn3ysn42cF5m_94CQidOYds79dNNiJqBXdIzP&sig=AHIEtbTH0yijBuEb5reZX-7Kx5o89Yn3RQ

Scheffauer's article refers to an episode in this article from the Overland Monthly by Buchanan (Scheffauer 618; Buchanan 312):

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:7xCYPjEW85IJ:www.lib.washington.edu/exhibits/southAsianStudents/images/buchanan_overland_monthly.pdf+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj8S_j7pZHQu6FeA5B2znKTDIycXEEPXeC2Wy_APiChgZTil03WVIkXnmJm5aZb-_ZHYNb6mxJLi5zqe6eX_SCI-X9MOOCeEYRaLh9N4zORMngo7iWkvo6PfHuc7e-DLKb1Eafe&sig=AHIEtbQ6ERRs73t2Wi_3n2SFEMxKYwA4xA

Both articles are mentioned in this paper to Oral Roberts University:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:vb0a6VfhX18J:www.thekkattil.net/documents/1093377527_content.pdf+&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg8mnNMMuJks44NUjudZUpIMaNBO2RFMcXD9F8FCwEmRAMV4b10zdpWohwLEOn37eFb212FpmG6mSPdSb2d_PN4SNtPcuEj2BkAhjo2EU8n8zYgLLv-vtd83_T4kNbXVBAP7yMg&sig=AHIEtbRp5f0ErLzZBj4VZtVfumFPsVvPDA

And cross referenced with other similar articles from 1910 (which is the year of the original, contentious SF Chronicle article) in this book, which mentions Strangers from a Different Shore by Ronald Takaki:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_7CgVnNG9J4C&lpg=PA261&ots=SIFni5R4MM&dq=herman%20scheffauer%20tide%20turbans&pg=PA261#v=onepage&q=herman%20scheffauer%20tide%20turbans&f=false

I also found a reference to Scheffauer and anti-Indian sentiment in this PhD thesis from 2008:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Omjs0yHWHqcC&lpg=PA132&ots=zDkSQJUwAX&dq=herman%20scheffauer%20tide%20turbans&pg=PA132#v=onepage&q=turban&f=false

The page Hindoo Invasion - and the alleged SF Chronicle article – are also referred to in these notes for Indophobia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indophobia#cite_note-2

Also, Joyce Westrip and Peggy Holroyde's excellent book Colonial Cousins: A Surprising History of Connections Between India and Australia (Wakefield Press, Kent Town, 2010) mentions the Anti-Asiatic League in Australia, similar to the American and Canadian Asiatic Exclusion Leagues, which discussed the "Hindoo Invasion" in the context of The Immigration Restriction Act (1901) (better known as the White Australia Policy) - similar to the US Supreme Court decision of 1923, US v Bhagat Singh Thund (261 1923 204) - and based on similar legislation from South Africa.

What if the title of the page was amended to Tide of Turbans?

PS - Sorry if I haven't added the refs correctly, it's my first time writing to Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunbad (talk • contribs) 04:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, this is the last version of the page, for your reference. To have the page restored, you should create a draft version in a sandbox (WP:USERSPACEDRAFT) and then apply to have it reinstated via WP:DRV. Sorry if this is too complicated, let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Dude.........................

Wow — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Impressive! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Number six on the list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• Project Quality article improvement is proud! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• I wish I could get those numbers. Chrisye got like 22k. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I was pretty surprised by the high numbers. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Now, if we wantz the dramahs... He's lonely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• That would probably do it, I wonder how meth mouth would fare? That might be my next nomination... not sure about how well it would go at FAC though. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• If Sandy still exists, drop her a line; medical articles were her speciality. GRAPPLE X 01:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• She's... probably not on speaking terms. Have you tried Questia? There's a couple sources here you didn't touch (on Evans) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

For example, The Ku Klux Klan in American Politics states that Evans claimed to be surprised by his sudden ascension to leadership. It has numerous mentions of him which may prove useful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Well, in any case, she hasn't been very active lately so she probably wouldn't be around to help. RE: Evans, part of the problem was that I found several sources I hadn't used yet--so it would be a lot of reading to get through them. Rjensen might help if I asked him though. Thanks for the tip on that source, I think there are a few on highbeam too. There's one fairly substantial recent book about the Klan that has some good info, I'd have to take a trip to a library an hour away to get it though. Not impossible, but not terribly easy either. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Well, for Questia I'd be glad to help you (might even add the info myself if my schoolwork isn't flooding me) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the offer, I'll definitely keep that in mind. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Don't mention it, you've helped me a lot too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Article you requested per fair use

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TV1htN0ZCTkdiVm8

That is the book chapter one. Please let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Revert

Umm, hi, mark. you sent me a message telling me that you deleted something that i edited. and please dont erase my stuff any more, because i obviously put it there for a reason. thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpaj (talk • contribs) 20:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I've replied at your talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

unreliable sources tag

Hi Mark,

I noticed you closed the deletion discussion session on this article. I have been working a lot on the improvements, I hope I made some progress. Please let me know if you have any suggestions, maybe I can improve it better. Also, according to discussion there are enough relible sources in that article; do you think this tag

should be still there? Many thanks for your contributions and advice! -- Helen-Heller (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the tags for now since it's been changed a lot since they were added. (I don't read Georgian, so it's hard for me to verify a number of the sources.) There's no guarantee that everyone will agree with me though, but hopefully WP:BRD will be followed in any case. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable company

Hi Mark,

My name is Sam and I am the head of Communications for Affiliate Window, the UK's leading performance (affiliate) marketing network.

You recently deleted our page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affiliate_Window) citing the reason we were a non-notable company. Given that we work with over 1,600 advertisers across the UK and US and talk to a network of over 80,000 online publishers, from cashback sites to bloggers, I would argue this is simply not the case.

Is there any way to revert your deletion? If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a line.

Kind Regards,

Sam e: sam.surry@affiliatewindow.com w: www.affiliatewindow.com f: www.facebook.com/affiliatewindow t: www.twitter.com/affwin b: http://blog.affiliatewindow.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Surry (talk • contribs) 08:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sam, yes, there is an easy way to revert my deletion. Just post to WP:REFUND and ask for your article to be restored, and someone probably will reinstate it, although that doesn't preclude future attempts at deletion. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Inquiry

Hi, your name was mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:RFA#Statistics_.28and_lies.3F.29, so I decided to stop by and see if you might be willing to answer a couple questions?

1. What motivates you to do a lot of deletions? Is it your primary manner of participation on Wikipedia or a smaller part of your overall work?

2. What sorts of things or interactions make your deletion work less pleasant? What sorts of changes or occurrences would make you less likely to perform the number of deletions you presently perform?

3. Do you have any suggestions on how the deletion process or conduct policies surrounding deletions could be improved to encourage greater admin participation?

Feel free to respond here or at WT:RFA, if you decide to respond. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 15:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

donation

This is to inform you that a donation has been made in your name to the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Erm, oh my. Mark, you want me dead? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, you can live, it's your hypothetical future offspring that VHEMT is concerned about. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  I assume it wasn't a sperm donation. GRAPPLE X 21:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mathew, that was kind of you... I guess. It reminds me a little of when I used to send $1 donations to my alma mater--it didn't accomplish anything, but it felt pretty good to do. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• They take that? Interesting. Doubt I could get anyone to take 1 rupiah donations — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Snow Keep

What's a snow keep? I'm new, just curious. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:SNOW. Although "snowball" was originally a term implying the certain failure of something ("a snowball's chance in hell"); it has evolved that "snowball X" or "snow X" now means "guaranteed X". "Snow keep" is basically "this is an obvious case of a unanimously-supported 'keep' decision". Half the battle, red and blue lasers. GRAPPLE X 01:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, yes, exactly. Knowing is half the battle, the lasers are the other half. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks very much. Feel free to delete if you choose, it's all good.AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same question and see that Abstract is going one step ahead of me. (Indeed I was going to ask this late last night but couldn't as my wife said to me: "Is it again WP this late, it is not a blond encyclopedia right?" So I had to go to sleep... :-) All the best. --E4024 (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"snow keep" - a fortified tower made of snow. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, that sounds like a great setting for a fantasy novel. Almost as good as a "sunny pleasure dome, with caves of ice". Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you please apply the same "snow keep" practice in a discussion on which I am at the "keep" side now and it looks really more than clear that the current name of the concerned article has no problem at all. (So we can delete one unnecessary discussion from our watchlists and continue developing the encyclopedia.) Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It depends, to which discussion are you referring? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Forget it, I have no doubt you would not do anything if you are not convinced about it, but they will all the same "snow stones" on my head for alleged canvassing. Take my previous request words as a joke please... --E4024 (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road

From a votecount point of view, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road is quite clear cut. However, repeated requests from e.g. Sudoghost have not yielded any response as to what would make this a notable street and which sources people are basing their votes on. As I indicated repeatedly, the article consists mainly of unrelated or wrongly interpreted information, which was not corrected by anyone (I didn't feel that, as the AfD proposer, it would be wise for me to remove half the article). It looks as if the vast majority of keeps just was a GibraltarpediA-based keep, and was totally indifferent to which article was actually being kept and whether the article was correct or not.

I have the impression, from your close and the lack of elaboration, that you mainly did a votecount and didn't take these points into account. I would urge you to elaborate on your reasoning and on why the points raised by the peopel proposing to delete the article were not considered as being strong enough. Fram (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, you're wrong--I did more than a vote count. My close was basically "Keep or Merge", in that I judged there to be consensus not to exclude most of the article's information from the encyclopedia. To be honest, none of the delete !voters effectively countered the Keep or Merge proponents' case for the inclusion of this information in the project, and one "deletion" proponent explicitly endorsed a merge. So I find it hard to conclude that a consensus for total exclusion has been reached. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with the information that is not about the road at all being included in the encyclopedia if they are about notable subjects (note that we have articles for the notable Flat Bastion and the barely notable school already). So there was hardly any need to counter that. This information, not about the road, was only added after the AfD started and was hardly a reason to keep an article on the street. SudoGhost's reply from 04:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC) seems to be a quite conclusive counter to the case for inclusion: none of it is notable in the slightest. The keepers ignored the repeated requests to give examples of the sources they believed esablished notability (e.g. my request "Which article discusses the history of this road?" in reply to LauraHale. Colonel Warden's claims were incorrect as well, as I pointed out. SudoGhost also asked again "Which sources?" and "Can you point out a single reference that contributes towards the notability of the article? " Ryan Vesey, which is hardly a deletionist or anti-Gibraltar editor, concluded " I hope that it is kept even though I disagree with any argument offered so far for keeping the article. My comment earlier and now isn't based on my desire for this to be an article, but is based on my interpretation of policy which I feel doesn't allow this article."

Basically, everybody wanting to keep the article made empty statements, and none of them presented any sources that could back up their claims, while pointedly ignoring all counter-evidence and the fact that more than half of the article had nothing to do with the road. Fram (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Fram, I believe you do have a valid point about how notable the road actually is (I had confused it with Europa Road when I started it) and a point that some of the sources don't discuss the road in detail and are only indirectly connected, but you can't complain at Mark for closing it as a keep. There is a clear consensus to keep, no doubts, and it would be counter-productive to keep the AFD open. I think generally you'll find that there is enough mention of the road in numerous sources as Ipigott says to make the content accepted on wikipedia even if it isn't exactly the Champs Elysees. At the start of the AFD I was actually considering moving it into a general article as I did have doubts, I'm sure with the benefit of hindsight you'd at least have preferred a merge than for the whole article to have been kept but I did suggest it...♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

(multiple EC's) Why would it be counterproductive? I just posted a version of the article that should have been the true basis of the discussion, not the puff piece that was created during the AfD. The discussion was largely based on incorrect information. Creating a list of non notable roads isn't the way to go either, lists are way too often used as dumping grounds for information on non notable subjects to "preserve" it somewhere anyway, as if the information suddenly becomes worthwhile and thee sources become better when bundled with other non notable subjects. Fram (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Why would it be counterproductive? Chiefly because the article had become a vehicle of angst and seen as part of the anti-Gibraltarpedia movement which are lot of editors resent who've put in a lot of work to Gibraltarpedia articles with no hidden agenda. They likely see it as representative of an attack on the project. You have a point as I say, and I think Ryan Vesey too can see through some of the sources and is also not sure if it should really have its own article. But more productive would be to open a discussion on the talk page of the article proposing a merger and a possible Roads in Gibraltar article which would provide an outlet to cover such roads on wikipedia briefly without having their own articles. The argument that such roads should only have a brief paragraph specifically about the road in a general article is a much stronger one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good points, that's excellent advice, Dr. Blofeld. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Well Fram, I'm of the opinion that if a subject is mentioned in multiple reliable sources then it is probably worth a mention even not a full article. There are many such cases where it would be more productive to have a general article covering such subjects briefly without the "puffery" needed to sustain it as a separate article. Me personally I have no problems with having a well sourced article on such a road, there are far worse things to worry about on wikipedia, but I do think probably the most productive solution would be to strip to bare facts and mention those roads covered in multiple reliable sources in a general article. Then if the road is truly notable it can be started in its own right. Europa Road 100% without a doubt in my opinion is notable as is Main Street, Gibraltar and Queensway Street probably too, most of the others are questionable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like a good close to me. — ChedZILLA 17:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Not to me though. I'll wait and see how this discussion evolves, but for the moment I an thinking about starting a DRV with the desired outcome of "overturn, close and restart from scratch", because the AfD (and most of the comments) were not based on reality, but on a puff piece full of sources which had absolutely nothing to do with the subject, full of completely incorrect information as well. I don't know whether the editors of the article who added all this were incompetent or simply dishonest, but it is not the kind of article a fair AfD can be based on. A minor error here or there is no problem, but this was such a blatant case that it shouldn't be accepted, since it opens the way for group-created fabrications surviving simply by the power of numbers, not by meeting our basic policies. Fram (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Where you and I differ Fram, I am open to changing my mind about something if I find the evidence compelling. You'd never change your mind on anything even if you were proved wrong about something. You still think the article on bristol Hotel is non notable when its bleeding obvious it is but you wouldn't admit you were wrong about it. Flat Bastion Road even if the "puffery" was whittled down would still have enough mention to validate at least a brief mention on wikipedia in a general article. I watched a film called 12 Angry Men (1957 film) last night and #3 reminded me of Fram, would not change his mind and change to "not guilty" through the entire film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, a road which had a) a minor, local dispute about its parking places, b) resurfacing, and c) one listed building has to be included somewhere in Wikipedia, where would people otherwise find this information? This is knowledge that just has to be preserved for posterity! Wuoldn't it be better if you first removed all blatantly incorrect information from that article you created? What is worse, losing such a tiny bit of correct but utterly trivial information, of keeping the rather large amoubnt of totally incorrect information that is included in the article now? Better no information than wrong information. But of course it's easier to attack an editor than to make the necessary edits. You started doing that in the AfD, and you continue here, all in defense of an article you created as the result of an error on your part. Fram (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Fram, I'm neither defending Flat Bastion Road nor wikipedia containing false information! If the information is 100% known to be false, remove it. I haven't looked into it as intensively as you have.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll pass. I don't want the other editors of the article to go mad. It has been noted at the talk page of the article and in the AfD for quite a while, it somewhat amuses me (in a despairing way) to note that all the people rushing to defend and expand the article can apparently not be bothered to check whether concerns raised are actually valid, and to do something about them (or to reply why they aren't valid concerns). It gives a very string impression that a number of people are more busy with keeping gibraltarpediA articles at all costs, than with having a correct, reliable article and encyclopedia. As if removing an incorrect sentence or paragraph from an article is an unacceptable attack on their project, and as if their project is somehow separate from (and more important than) Wikipedia.

I have presented an improved version of the article, they can use it or not, I still want the article deleted anyway but it would at least give a better impression if they tried to get it right instead of inventing stuff to make the road look much more important than it ever was. Fram (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I really am not the sort of guy who dwells on things and I hope not to come into conflict with you over it or anything else further. Take care.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I will not go looking for articles you created which can be challenged; but I'll not refrain from nominating an article for deletion or otherwise tagging it only because you were the creator either. Luckily most of your articles don't need to be deleted at all of course. Fram (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Flat Bastion Road

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Flat Bastion Road. 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. Fram (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Rihanna's seventh studio album

Someone reverted what you did when closed the AFD. Should I leave a message to this user? Or you take care of it? Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I've reverted and warned him. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Reach

Thanks! I'll let you know when I've read through and addressed them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, could you take another look? :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

blurb talk

What bothers you about the blurb for Fertilisation of Orchids, one of my very favorite articles on all of wikipedia? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Overall, the blurb was very good. It was that one long sentence that bothered me, so I was curious what Tony would say. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thinking back ...

I should have seen it coming. :) — ChedZILLA 22:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, the idea occurred to me around then, I never got around to doing it. This way though, if I reply to you you'll know you're not a fool. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Woooo hoooo ... Chedzilla runs in circles .. thumps tail ... I'm not a fool ... w00t w00t .. I'm not a fool I'm not a fool ... if I say it enough then it makes it so!!! — ChedZILLA 13:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, David had an interesting perspective on the definition of a fool, but his daughter's definition is probably more widely agreed upon. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey mark

hey mark ....who are you bro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.94.207.38 (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't tell anyone, but I'm one of these. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Evans

I pumped it up by 1,500 characters. A couple thoughts

• His brother Cecil appears to have been a democrat (worth adding a new book just for this?)
• A bit of information about the downfall of the Klan after Evans left may be just what the doctor ordered, as Evans himself seems to have just disappeared into obscurity.

Wadya think? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for helping with that, I appreciate it. I'll try to get around to adding some more sources too. I bet Wehwalt will peer review it if I ask him. Maybe Noleander will too. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I pinged him about an NYT source that looks interesting (nice to have contemporary criticism and praise, methinks). Noleander avoids religious-related articles, widely construed, so I dunno how far he'd be willing to go. I'll have a go at Meth mouth tomorrow, methinks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• As a side note, I'm too far gone to review that article at FAC. I'd perhaps be co-nom, but I don't think 1.5k characters counts (unless we count the images...) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think you might just get co-nom credit with that one :) That's a good point, but the restriction isn't "widely construed", it's "broadly but reasonably construed". Reminds me about the joke I once made about "reasonable, but broad, Wikipedians". I think I was the only one who found that one funny though. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• LOL, I'm getting to be less broad right now. Have to park off campus and walk it, so... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I can sympathize, I had a looong walk or two during my stint in grad school. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

A belated thank you

Hi Mark. Thanks so much for the barnstar. You're very kind! I was about to archive my talk page today and realized I had completely missed it. I was happy to help with the Caputo bibliography, and if you see any more issues like this languishing at copyright problems, don't hesitate to get in touch. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I recall that you helped me with an image way back when, almost two years ago, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

RPP

Would you mind looking at RPP, in particular Kai Greene. There's a slight backlog and the vandalism on this page is particularly out of hand. You're the only anti-vandal I know working atm. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I got it. Not sure why there was so much today on Greene. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I am putting it on my watchlist. Churn and change (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the Mr. Olympia competition is this weekend, that explains it. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for protecting UFC on Fuel TV: Struve vs. Miocic.
LlamaAl (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, anytime. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you..

..for creating fine essay Ignore all fools. Have added good shortcut. darwinbish ^BITE 21:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC).

You're welcome, that was my pleasure--thanks for the shortcut. The idea just popped into my mind on the way to work for some reason one day this week. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ignore all tools

Could you also develop a "something" with the above title, for users like me who do not know the difference between a template and a tag and to be able to use anything underlined (printed in blue) should go to the page where s/he saw one, press the "edit" button, copy that acronym or "thing with some strange brackets around", than go to the other page -hopefully waiting in another window, without accidentally logging out- where s/he needs to place it etc. (In case in between s/he does not touch the "Destroy WP" button everything will be allright... :-) Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh hey, that is a good idea, I should work on that. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Do be aware that in some circles, the use of the word "tool" to describe someone, is recognised as a slang insult. (e.g., "that guy is such a tool"). I think it might be a reference to part of the male anatomy. This could make an ignore all tools link confusing if ignore all fools already exists. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, that is a good point, I guess I'll avoid that one. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Mark, I am afraid you could be a good politician... Everybody is right for you; how come? :-) All the best. --E4024 (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

lol, I guess so. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For your extensive working in fixing minor errors and typos etc. Excellent knoming! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the barnstar, I find fixing minor errors to be a stress-free way to improve the project. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Stress free, indeed. Very important...♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit

Hello, Mr. Arsten! I'm Redyka, a friend of Chris. I want to you to help me copyediting this, since Chris is busy right now. Could you help me? Thanks in advance. Sorry for bad English, either on this request or the article I've developed. Redyka94 (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I can help, I should be able to get to it over the next few days. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Mark, and sorry for bothering you. Redyka94 (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Professionalism and civility and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll check it out after I finish my coffee. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Here, have some baklava with your coffee please. :-) --E4024 (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, thanks, that sounds good. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Church of the SubGenius

Your edits/rewrites to the Church of the SubGenius page seem rather radical. Perhaps you can discuss them on the talk page? Centerone (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Really? The four paragraphs that I replaced were completely unsourced, so I didn't expect that anyone would mind my replacement of them with sourced content. Do you have any concerns about the information that I added? Let me know, and I'll do my best to work it out. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ugh, I'd hate to see what happened at Tree and Information technology happen there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

{{multiple issues}}

Just curious as to why in this edit you changed {{multiple issues}} from the new syntax to the old, deprecated syntax. Anomie⚔ 02:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I was using AWB to fix typos and didn't know that there was a new and an old version of the multiple issues tags. I wonder why it does that. Ok, so {{multiple issues|{{coi|date=August 2012}}{{copy edit|date=September 2012}}}} is good and {{multiple issues|COI = August 2012|copy edit = September 2012}} is deprecated? I very seldom do anything with maintenance templates. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Is your copy of AWB up-to-date? If so (or if upgrading to the current version doesn't fix this), it should be reported to the AWB devs.

Yes, {{multiple issues|COI = August 2012|copy edit = September 2012}} is deprecated. See Template:Multiple issues#Old syntax. The output of {{multiple issues|COI = August 2012}} kept getting out of sync with {{COI|date=August 2012}} for all the different maintanence templates, and there kept being new templates created that didn't get support in {{multiple issues}} in a timely manner if at all, and all the various synonyms for all the maintenance templates weren't supported as parameters to {{multiple issues}} either (e.g. {{multiple issues|selfpromotion = August 2012}} or {{multiple issues|conflict of interest = August 2012}} wouldn't work, even though {{Selfpromotion}} and {{Conflict of interest}} will work as well as {{COI}}). So someone asked if we could do something like {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} does: just automagically reformat {{COI|date=August 2012}} and every other maintenance template when used inside {{multiple issues}}. And it turned out we could, so we did. In fact, now {{multiple issues|COI = August 2012}} actually does the same thing as {{multiple issues|{{COI|date=August 2012}}}}. Anomie⚔ 03:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the detailed explanation, I'll check that I'm up to date and then keep an eye on the template/talk to someone about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page. Kevlar (talk) 04:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

your closing of Windows 9 AfD

The term redirect is a word of ambiguity at AfD, as some people use it in the sense "delete and redirect" and others use it in the sense of "redirect with edit history intact".  But this is not a reason to freely mix the two.  Why did you close against the majority at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 9?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, for one, it's a viable search term so a flat deletion would be out of the question. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Let me see if I understand, you're not complaining that I redirected the article, but that I left the edit history intact when I did so? If you feel strongly about this, I suppose I could delete the edit history, I'm not sure why this matters at all though? (Deleting before redirecting is important in some BLP situations, but I can't see the reason for doing so here). Mark Arsten (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liana_Werner-Gray on 16:08, 27 August 2012

Greetings Mark,

I am writing in regards to your deletion of the Liana Werner-Gray(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liana_Werner-Gray) Wikipedia page. I went to visit the page last week and noticed this message "concern was: spam lacking a solid claim to notability. awards shown are not major. packed with deceptive and misleading sourcing, verging on a hoax article. full of sources that verify associated aspects but not anything to do..." I'm not sure what led you to this conclusion, but I assure you, the information shown on the page is 100% legitimate, and I am requesting you to put it back up. The awards listed, while not major according to your opinion, are real awards so there was nothing deceptive about mentioning them. I'm aware that as a wikipedia administrator you probably don't get your kicks by arbitrarily deleting pages so I'm sure you had your reasons for coming to this conclusion. However, I must respectfully say that I disagree with you and will back up my opinion with proof if need be. I just hope we can come to an agreement about this.

Thanks,

Sal SFiteni (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sal, that was actually not my conclusion, but a statement that another editor added. (I see why you would think that was my comment though.) As this was a WP:PROD deletion, you can have it restored by filing a request at WP:REFUND--although it's restoration does not preclude a future deletion discussion. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I will do that. SFiteni (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Die Young

Hi! There are a few of us interested in editing Die Young (Kesha song), but it was deleted and protected. Would it be possible to have this page undeleted or, at the very least, unlocked so we can recreated? The topic has definitely achieved notability since it's deletion and has already charted in Belgium. Here is a list of reliable sources we would like to use to fix up this article: source list. We would also like to redirect Die Young (Ke$ha song) (also sysop-locked) to Die Young (Kesha song), as per the discussion on Talk:Kesha and various deleted talk pages linked to Die Young (Kesha song). Please get back to ASAP. Thanks. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, your best bet would be to create a sandbox version of the article and then get it sourced and cleaned up first (WP:USERSPACEDRAFT), then ask to have it reinstated at WP:DRV. I'm not terribly familiar with the song guidelines, so I'm hesitant to act unilaterally here. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Meaning of Roses

Dear Mr. Mark: This is opal2star. I sincerely apologize about the post that I placed up about you today. Yes, it was deleted, and it was wrong of me to do so. So I apologize. Sir, I am on Wikipedia as a user is because my professor wanted us to post up a Wikipedia post as an assignment, so when my post was deleted my assignment was deleted. And I was very upset because I do not like to fail. But I was wrong for what I did and I am sorry. Oh, and by the way I actually love Wikipedia. I use it all the time for just reading. I read about all kinds of things on this website. So I am glad that you do what you do. And thank you.

You're welcome, don't worry about it. I hope you stick around. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Church of the SubGenius, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sherman, New York and Eris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lance Easley

Hi Mark. Should the outcome instead be a redirect to List of 2012 NFL replacement officials? 2012 NFL referee lockout makes no mention of Lance Easley, and probably never will unless you are anticipating a merge from WP:Articles for deletion/List of 2012 NFL replacement officials.—Bagumba (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a tricky situation, since the most logical merge target is up for deletion itself. I think what I'll do is wait to see if the list survives the Afd, and then change the redirect if it does. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

My only problem with waiting is that the 100s of viewers each day of this article will get redirected to page that makes no mention of his name.—Bagumba (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, that article's Afd is due to be closed in 12 hours, so I don't think waiting is too bad of an idea. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If we redirected to the AfD article now, I would assume the admin of the AfD article would properly handle any incoming links if the article was ultimately deleted. I'll leave it to your discretion. Thanks for discussing.—Bagumba (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Grumpy change-averse Wikipedians' opinions wanted ;)

Your input would be most appreciated here. Talk page stalkers also welcome :) Cheers, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'll check it out! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		To Mark Arsten, for accepting criticism graciously. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that "Meth mouth" doesn't have enough suitable sources. In any case, thank you for improving the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! Mark Arsten (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Christian Storm Page

Hi Mark,

My page on the UK Choreographer, Christian Storm has been deleted. It was flagged previously and I talked with the moderator who gave me suggestions on how to improve it. Would it be possible for you to at least temporarily restore it so I can get the content back to improve on it?

I requested that it be undeleted over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Christian_Storm. Could you take a look and consider this please?

Thanks Kurt K Hahn (talk) 08:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Broadleaf Commerce Page

Hi Mark,

Our page on Broadleaf Commerce has been deleted. We attempted to put our content inline with other similar products (e.g. Magento) and are not sure for the reason for removal.

Thanks -- Bcpolster (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Two out of the four you asked for ...

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TcXdsX19kTWJ1MVE https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TcTFycVdadEk4Z00

Please lemme know when done. Churn and change (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, was that ever quick, thanks for the help on these. I have downloaded them both. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

AfD Closure

Excuse me. Regarding the AfD closure of Thulasi Nair, I added three references from a national newspaper to the article just before voting in the AfD (Mine was the last vote). It is highly possible that the other three voters in AfD who voted before me were not aware of the sources that I added. In that case, relisting would have been appropriate. You have deleted an article which has three reliable references from a national newspaper. --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you ping the delete voters and ask them if those three pages would change their minds at all? If any of them give that impression I'd be willing to relist. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)