# User talk:Mark Arsten

Welcome to my talk page, please leave new messages below.

Hello Mark. I have a question. how can i complaint from wikipedias admins? iranian admins deleted a page that was constructed 6 years ago. They do not do their tasks properly and insult me.They do not know the rules of wikipedia and act in a taste. What should i do? they deleted an old page belong to a great musician.Arassaeedian (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

## Formula for differential cross section

Hey Mark, you gave a formula for differential cross section in particle physics on 17:56, 4 March 2017 in the page "Cross section (physics)" in the section "Classical scattering" which has since moved into the section "Differential cross section" as of today. I am curious how this happened, it seems wrong. :${\displaystyle {\frac {\mathrm {d} \sigma }{\mathrm {d} (\cos \theta )}}={\frac {1}{2\pi }}\int _{0}^{2\pi }{\frac {\mathrm {d} \sigma }{\mathrm {d} \Omega }}\,\mathrm {d} \varphi }$

The starting equations are ${\displaystyle \mathrm {d} \sigma =b\,\mathrm {d} \varphi \mathrm {d} b}$ and ${\displaystyle \mathrm {d} \Omega =\sin \theta \,\mathrm {d} \theta \,\mathrm {d} \varphi }$.

If ${\displaystyle \mathrm {d} (\cos \theta )}$ is required, ${\displaystyle \mathrm {d} \Omega =\sin \theta \,\mathrm {d} \theta \,\mathrm {d} \varphi =\,\mathrm {d} (-\cos \theta )\,\mathrm {d} \varphi }$. So, ${\displaystyle \mathrm {d} (\cos \theta )=-\mathrm {d} \Omega /\mathrm {d} \varphi }$. Now the correct equation should be :${\displaystyle {\frac {\mathrm {d} \sigma }{\mathrm {d} (\cos \theta )}}=-{\frac {\mathrm {d} \sigma }{\mathrm {d} \Omega }}\,\mathrm {d} \varphi }$, without any integration and with the minus sign. Do correct me if and where I went wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MycrofD (talkcontribs) 11:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

## Deletion "Sambhav Ratnakar"

Hey Mark, you deleted a page named, Sambhav Ratnakar a while ago. Please consider revisiting since the deletion took place a while ago and notability of the person has since increased. Here's him on The Huffington Post, amongst many other sources. 188.135.12.230 (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, simply writing a blog on the Huffington Post isn't quite enough for an article. Has he received significant coverage from media sources? See WP:BIO for our guidelines on the issue. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Mark, thank you for your prompt reply. From what I can find, he has written a book, The Covert Perspective (recognised by Google), writes for numerous newspapers and magazines, including DailyO, YouthKiAwaaz, NewsLaundry and his articles have recieved significant notability, being acknowledged by a prime ministerial candidate, current Chief Minister of Delhi and numerous other celebrities, including Vishal Dadlani. His articles on social media propoganda intitiated by political parties are widely appreciated and commenced a retaliation against unethical means of promotion employed by polticial parties in India. His book has been reviewed by leading newspapers[1]. He has been dubbed as one of the youngest published authors in india. He has also founded a social network which is "aimed at connecting writers with readers" and contains some of India's most respected national bestsellers. [2]. I understand that notability is isolated to south-east asia, specifically India and so some sources/ news coverage might be in an Indian language which might be a reason why notability was not recognised.

82.178.183.145 (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, sorry for the late response. I guess the best thing you could do would be to pull together a few of the best sources about him. Try to find ones from the most reputable papers. Basically, what matters here is having a lot of coverage of him in mainstream sources. Books reviews can also help. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Mark. The page is protected from creation and can be made by administrators only. Request if you can alter that so I can collate some reliable sources and proceed. Thanks.

85.154.201.233 (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, the best thing to do might be to create Draft:Sambhav Ratnakar. Or create a page in your userspace (if you have an account). That way we can see a draft of the article before it goes "live". Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

## Deletion "Jennifer Leonhardt"

Hello Mark, In December 2015 you deleted the above article, citing dead links and that the topic didn't pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO criteria. There are multiple links that were not included in the review and one of the reviewers used an incorrect spelling of the subject's name in their research in News, Newspapers etc. A brief search revealed that Jennifer Leonhardt is/was included in an independent label list also here on Wikipedia for Waterbug Records, as well as their website, the Category:Waldorf school alumni page (now removed since her page was deleted), a listing on AllMusic.com , the reference site for musicians, including a review of her music by their chief music editor, inclusion on Pandora’s Music Genome Project, a SingOut! Magazine review, numerous folk and roots music radio charts, Paste Magazine’s Recommended artists, the WIKI Notable Waldorf Alumni page, the Waldorf School of Baltimore's Notable Waldorf Alumni page on their website, among others, all demonstrate that her notoriety is established and is based on generally available music across all sources (Spotify, iTunes, etc). and so I believe a page describing Jennifer should be undeleted and updated. If you or any other administrators require any further info or sources on her career to help update her page once reinstated, please contact me, I am happy to help. Thank you Wiikstaat (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

## Deletion "Jon Barnes"

Hi Mark, In December 2015, you deleted the above article, citing that Jon Barnes was only previously active in national amateur motor racing. However Jon is racing currently - In 2015 and this year, 2016, Jon is racing as a 'Pro' driver in the British GT Championship in a GT3 Aston Martin. As well as having a very successful and relevant early career, Jon is also currently recognised as the sole works driver for Caterham Cars LTD and tests and develops all of their new road and racing cars. A quick search of Wikipedia shows just how many other pages contain his name/race results and thus I believe a page describing Jon should be undeleted and updated. If you or any other administrators require any information/sources on his career to help update his page once reinstated, please contact me and I will attempt to help out. Best regards Jmbcar33 (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. I'm not too familiar with the notability standards for this subject. The best thing to do would probably be to open a request for undeletion at WP:DRV. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

## Warning

Really, you only protected Donald Trump's talkpage only till Friday? Thats a very short wait for us to continue destroying his talkpage (like how hes destroying humanity) 137.122.64.12 (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't like to protect talk pages for a long time usually, but I suppose I could be convinced to do so in this case. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

## Bikeheight.com

Hey Mark, Pl explain me the reason for deletion of bikeheight.com. Very first bikeheight.com is a complete business portal having more than 20 international bike brands with more than 500 motorcycle and bulk data of dealers, price etc. Its media reference was there which includes AutoCar Professional (Haymarket Group, a famous, British automobile magazine ) report, its promoter Nitin Vats is a celebrity and ex-researcher of Microsoft research, he has been interview by CNN and all big media in the world. We gave proper media references, we linked word to Wikipedia internal and external links, it was in proper shape. Pl share us the valid reasons for its deletion.

Can you point out to me to some detailed media attention that Bikeheight.com specifically has received? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the coverage of Deccan Herald, a reputed newspaper of India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkik13 (talkcontribs) 18:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not a bad source, but we really need more than one article to have a page about it here. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

## Category:Rhubarb

Hello,

I recreated a category you had speedy deleted for being empty (WP:C1). I was able to populate it pretty well but, if you have any concerns, just tag me on my talk page. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem, looks good. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

## How to insert a photo/file

Hi Mark, I have tried to insert files from my laptop but am definitely missing something- even after reading from the Help tips. Can you help? Many thanks and sorry to bother youMelroross (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It has been a while since I did this. Are you using the file upload wizard? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

## Editing a Portal

Hi Mark, I just wanted to edit info in wiki portal "Military of India" which has some incorrect info. The portal is semi protected and can be edited by only auto confirmed users as updated by you. I have corrected the same in Wiki article/page by citing authentic sources & duly following protocol. I would appreciate if you help/direct me how to edit the portal or what has to be done to correct it. Thanks Hvvk89 (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If you post the changes you want to make on the Portal's talk page I (or anyone else who sees it) can copy them over for you. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

## 3RR ?

Mark, can you or one of your stalkers look at this series of reverts by IHTS? I'm rather busy at the moment: [1]. Montanabw(talk) 05:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about how things turned out with that RFA, this place can be terrible sometimes. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Nuked, but I'm still standing. Now to get the trolls to simmer down, sigh.... Montanabw(talk) 23:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

## Budapest bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics

I would like the subject page Budapest bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics to be undeleted since the five candidates cities have now been announced. Since you deleted this page in the first place, can you do please do this or whom should I contact ? Hektor (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Hektor: Sorry for the delay, I've restored it. Might need a bit of cleanup now though. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

## Deletion "Hikmet Geckil"

Dear Mark, I will be happy for the reconsideration of inclusion of my name, Hikmet Geckil, in Wikipedia. Best wishes, Hikmet https://www.inonu.edu.tr/en/cms/hikmet.geckil Hgeckil (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hikmet, it may be possible to restore the page if you can offer evidence that the nominator's rationale is no longer valid. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikmet Geckil for details. Feel free to ask if you have any questions about our notability policy. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

## This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

## Suspected sock

You worked on some sock puppet investigations for User:2sc945. I am quite confident that IP 120.16.88.202 is this user evading the block. If you look at article Jerome Randle, his editing choices are exactly the same as the sock master and sock Energy110. Rikster2 (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it! Mark Arsten (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

## Deletion of Mitzura Arghezi

I'm thinking of writing an article on Mitzura Arghezi and I saw you deleted this article in the past can I have a reason why and/or a cache so I don't recreate the reason it was deleted the first time. Zppix (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It was deleted because it didn't have any sources cited in the article. The only text was "Mitzura Arghezi (born 10 December 1924 in Bucharest) is a Romanian actress, politician and daughter of poet Tudor Arghezi." You're free to recreate it if you can add some sources and hopefully some more details. Let me know if you have any issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mark Arsten thanks man ill look into it a bit. If another editor sees this and wants to recreate this page let me know or I may. Zppix (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 14, 2015

Mark, a summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 15:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice one Dank, and thank you Mark. There is a ref broken which will of course need fixing before the big day; I'd do it myself, but coding was really never my strong point. 17:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks guys, it had been a long time since I looked at the article, really brought back some memories. I'm not sure about that reference error myself, @Diannaa: do you know what's causing the issue? Mark Arsten (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes I do; I have been working on fixing these errors, so I got it. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Diannaa, you sure have an eye for details! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Precious again, your Elias Abraham Rosenberg, who "went from a humble peddler to royal adviser in a very short time, using only his charming personality and ability to predict the future"

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. So far, not much trouble with vandals at all. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

## Diwali

 Happy Diwali!!! Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
Thanks, you too. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you've revdeleted a post on Montanabw's talk in the last few minutes. I have zero doubt you had excellent reasons for doing so. Is there a specific reason why you've chosen not to leave some kind of warning or notice on the ip contributor's talk? When I revert the normal range of vandal contributions, I always leave a UW so that the next vandal fighter who comes along can see the track record. Is this some sort of "don't feed the trolls" situation? I'm just curious. If for reasons of propriety you'd rather not reply here, I'd welcome your email. Thanks BusterD (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression this was an LTA with a number of IPs so I didn't bother with the usual steps. Maybe I should have though? Open to advice as always. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
As an admin, you do more of this than I do, so I was just asking. One of the reasons I add user warnings automatically is that it puts the ip address on my radar via watchlist. Periodically I delete such ips from the watchlist, but I find that in the short term, watchlisting the talkpage is a handy practice, a form of mapping. (As it turns out, the only reason I witnessed the action was because M's talkpage is on my watchlist--as is yours.) Thanks for logical answer. BusterD (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Not a bad point there. I haven't been doing too much on Wikipedia, so I have to make sure I still remember how to do admin stuff right. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

## UFC 193

This article has been suffering from numerous disputes. I don't see the heat cooling down soon. Can you extend protection? --George Ho (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi George. There is a lot of reverting going on with registered users, not sure how much trouble IPs will add to it though. Cotto vs. Canelo might keep them occupied tonight, at least. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

## Reference errors on 21 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

## ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

## ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I heard you the first time :) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

## Nice to see you back

Welcome back Mark. Thank you also for the help with the socks. Take care. Dr. K. 16:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess all the hubbub about the Arbcom elections drew me back in :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
In that case we should hold these elections more often. :) Dr. K. 17:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Some baddies over there could use some blocking Thanks. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

## William T. Anderson Research

I look forward to your comments about the family group of William T. Anderson. I understand that Wikipedia sources are limited to published research. Information from original research of primary sources is discouraged. The 1860 census of Breckenridge County, Kansas, shows an additional child, Charles, of William C. Anderson and Martha Jane Thomasson. The 1850 census of Randolph County, Missouri shows W. and Mahala Thomason living in the household of William Anderson. The 1840 census of Liberty Township, Marion County, Missouri, shows that William C. Anderson and William Thomason were heads of household. It seems reasonable to assume that the maternal grandparents of William T. Anderson were William Thomasson and Mahala Baker. Bill Anderson’s birth year of 1840 is widely accepted, and is found in published information and on memorials and monuments. Two contemporary records exist that indicate his birth year was before 1840. The 1850 census of Marion County, Missouri, shows that William Anderson was 11. The 1860 census of Breckenridge County, Kansas, shows that William T. Anderson was 21. 1850 and 1860 census instructions to enumerators: Under heading 4, entitled “Age,” insert in figures what was the specific age of each person at his or her last birthday previous to the 1st of June. (Commencement of the census was to begin June 1st.) William T. Anderson was born after June 1st, 1838, and before June 1st, 1839, IF the respondent provided the correct age of William T. Anderson to the enumerator, and IF the enumerator accurately recorded the information. Perhaps a more accurate source of the birth year of William T. Anderson exists. Published accounts of the life of William T. Anderson state that he married Bush Smith in Grayson County, Texas. That is confirmed by a Grayson County marriage liecense issued to Lieut. William T. Anderson and MIss Bush Smith on 2 March 1864. Published accounts of the life of William T. Anderson state that his brother, Jim, brought his surviving sisters, Mollie and Mattie, to Grayson County after the death of William T. Anderson. That is confirmed by Grayson County marriage licenses for A. V. Doak and Mollie E. Anderson; E. G. Douglass and Mattie G. Anderson; and James Anderson and Mary Erwin, and several census records. Published accounts of the life of William T. Anderson state that Jim Anderson married his brother's widow. That is possible. There is a Grayson County marriage record for J. M. Anderson and Malinda Anderson, but there is insufficient information to identify them as James Monroe Anderson and Bush Smith Anderson. There is very convincing evidence that Mary Erwin was not William T. Anderson's widow. Published accounts of the life of William T. Anderson state that he built a house for Bush Smith in Sherman. No tax or property records have been found to confirm that claim. Thanks, BBAhistorian (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)BBAhistorian 27 November 2015

Hi again, thanks for all the details. I'm a little unclear though about which changes you would like to be made on this page. Could you suggest some specific edits? Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Mark, thanks for the response. Possible edits. His siblings were Jim, Ellis, Mary Ellen, Josephine and Janie. Suggested revision: His siblings were Ellis, James Monroe “Jim”, Mary Ellen “Mollie”, Susan Josephine, Martha Jane “Mattie”, and Charles. (Justification: 1860 census record and Breckenridge County probate record of William C. Anderson’s estate)

Anderson married Bush Smith, a woman from Sherman, Texas. Suggested revision: Anderson married Miss Bush Smith of Sherman, Texas, 3 October 1864. (Justification: Copy of marriage license issued to Lieut William T. Anderson and Miss Bush Smith)

“William T. Anderson was born in 1840” Suggested revision: William T. Anderson was born about 1839. (Justification: 1850 and 1860 census records do not support the 1840 birth year)

By 1860, William T. Anderson was a joint owner of a 320-acre (1.3 km2) property that was worth $500 and his family had a net worth of around$1,000. QUESTION: Adjacent entries on the 1860 agricultural census of Breckenridge County, Kansas, show Wm. C. Anderson as the owner of 160 acres, and Wm. T. Anderson as the owner of 160 acres. Each acreage was valued at \$500. Does this constitute joint ownership? 2602:301:774E:F040:7D88:78C5:390:4F08 (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)BBAhistorian 29 Nov 2015

Oh thanks, that is helpful. I see what you mean now. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm just thinking about how to add this to the article. Do you know the preferred format for citing census records and so on? I've never done it. Of course, if we could find sources that mention them it would be much simpler. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

## SPI clerk list

Hi Mark, it's great to see you contributing again. Would you like to be moved back to active on the SPI clerk list? If so, you can do it yourself, or I can do it for you, whichever you prefer.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it feels good to help out again. Sure, I think I will be around enough to be "active" again. I'll move myself over. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hooray! throws confetti--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
:) Mark Arsten (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Another hooray! 18:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

 Thanks for the block. Any chance you could please rev'del the material inserted by the IP on Muhammad? Thanks! GABHello! 03:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
No problem, glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

## Good to see you back!

It's always nice when one of the more proactive Admins returns. Welcome back! JMHamo (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to be back. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

## Category:Fomboni FC players

Can I please ask why Category:Fomboni FC players was deleted as empty (and @Liz: even tagged in the first place) as C1 when it was not empty? GiantSnowman 08:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I would have only tagged the category if it appeared on Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories and I found it empty. Then it sat in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for four days before being deleted. I regularly check this category and remove categories that are no longer empty so I don't know why I missed seeing that this category had one assigned article. I don't know how this one category slipped past us both if was not indeed empty. Liz Read! Talk! 08:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, that is odd, not sure what the issue was. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

## User:Johannesgotha

Hello, you recently blocked Johannesgotha for three days for edit warring at List of Star Wars Rebels episodes, the second such block he received within the week. Well, as soon as the block expired, the user went right back to making the same edits. I have reverted him, and request a re-block, for clearly he intends to continue disrupting the page. oknazevad (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I blocked him indef. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

 Great administrator work :-) Keep it up! Simeondahl (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, there sure is a lot of it to do! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

User: Mark Arsten Just recovered my wiki account from 2013 (e.g., community integration, family support) after being blocked by Beetlebrox at Long Term Services and Supports (LTSS) and the Special Population groups and US Direct Support Workforce (Here, this time; updates at mental health workforce and dual inclusion educators). I was delighted that Urie Brofenbrenner (Urie Brofennbrenner Translational Center at Cornell Plantations), Judith E. Heumann and Ed Roberts (World Institute on Disability, and the former, Clinton, Bush and Obama Administrations), and Carl Rogers (I was with his Nat Raskin at Northwestern University, also American Association of Psychotherapists) were prominently featured. I was over at the American Society for Public Administration, and am on through March as Health and Human Services Administration (HHSA) Executive. Today, I was blocked at Andrew Cuomo, Governor, who is in my book, Public Administration and Disability: Community Services Administration in the US (Racino, 2014); the site needed the minimum wage legislation, supported housing, and the environment, among others. JulieAnnRacino2018 User:JulieAnnRacino —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

## Orphaned image that was deleted

I have rewritten Friends of the Earth Scotland. The article had previously been turned into a redirect page, making an orphan of the non-free image that had been used on the previous version of the page: File:Line Colour weblogo.jpg. The image was deleted shortly after. I was wondering if it was possible to restore the deleted image. Can you help? Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I've brought it back and added it to the article. Let me know if you need anything else. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting this out. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

## Thanks

Thanks very much for cleaning up my Open wirld video game Open world video game mistake. —DangerousJXD (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. We had one guy recently who created a ton of totally implausible redirects on purpose, so I was happy to see that's not what was happening here :) Mark Arsten (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

## Edit warring MRT lines

Hello Marks Arsten, there seems to be going on some edit warring right now for a while already at two Articles by the two same people: one IP and a registered user, I have no knowledge on the subject so I cannot say much and username perhaps does not know he can report at a noticeboard. The 2 Articles are Downtown MRT Line, Circle MRT Line, just check their history. Since I am not involved I do not think I should be the one to report to noticeboard but at least you might be able to help being an admin :-) Alternatively maybe a page protection might help one cool off (edits do include rude language like this one from IP [2]. Thanks for looking. Poepkop (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like they both have technically broken WP:3RR on Downtown MRT Line so they could be blocked at admin discretion. The best thing to do at this point would probably be to drop them each a talk page note telling them that they've crossed the line and hope that causes them to back off on the edit warring for today. Obvious vandalism is an exception to 3RR of course, but I don't think changing "Change to [[Circle MRT Line<nowiki>" to "Crossover to opposite platform for [[Circle MRT Line</nowiki>" would count as obvious vandalism. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Can any user do so (leave them a note on their Talkpage for this purpose), or only admins? I have bad memories trying to calm down other people's arguments. Oh well. Cheerio Poepkop (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, any user is free to leave talkpage warnings about edit warring and so on. Twinkle has a warning function that's helpful, {{uw-3rr}} is usually what I use. With established users it's often better to write out a note than using a template though. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm one of the users that is engaged in the edit war. I have talked with the IP Address user to no reply. I have contacted the other registered user which I've resolved in a civilized manner. I'm sorry if you think that my reverts has caused this confusion. My revert from "Change to [[Circle MRT Line<nowiki>" to "Crossover to opposite platform for [[Circle MRT Line</nowiki>" is done as it does not make logical sense and I'm not trying to imply its vandalism. Putting a station name which has not been confirmed is considered to be vandalism and that explains my numerous reversions. I hope you guys understand my intentions and I'm NOT trying to engage in a edit war or argue with another user. 33ryantan (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, your changes may be correct, but please be careful of the 3RR bright line. Merely reverting incorrect changes is not an exception, they have to be apparent as deliberate attempts to damage to project. It is frustrating dealing with someone won't communicate, so you might want to post on a relevant wikiproject talk page to try to get more input or ask people who have edited that article or similar articles to weigh in. (I suspect one user is using both an IP and an account to revert here, so I'll treat them as the same individual for revert purposes.) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

## SPI of Nmzbnmzbnmz

Hi, I noticed that you closed the SPI of Nmzbnmzbnmz. I didn't notice that the SPI was closed because I was typing a comment which took me 4 minutes long while you were blocking the sockpuppet. I think the SPI requires a checkuser because one more account is missing. Please see the investigation for explanation. Thanks. Ayub407talk 18:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Good catch, looking at the deleted revisions now I see I missed a couple socks. Will update the SPI. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

## Contact me!

Hi Mark!

I'm a reporter working on a story about the Wikipedia page for Han Solo. I'd love to tell you more over email. Mind dropping me a line?

daniel.duray@gmail.com

Thanks and happy holidays!

Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:814C:1A00:5864:B0BE:2DE2:28C4 (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to. Just sent you an e-mail. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

## SPI mismatch

You archived Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ethan.A.Gray of Craiglea/Archive but the closing admin comment mentioned that the socks are listed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ethanagray which doesn't match. I think the easiest fix is renaming the SPI. Regards, Bazj (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I must have mixed that, I'll move it over to the right title. Thanks for pointing that out. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing. Bazj (talk) 10:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

## sockpuppet

I believe I will not used puppet of me Please dont block me I will use 1 user. (Parintar (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)).

No worries, just stick to one account from now on and you'll be fine. If you do have to use two accounts for some reason make sure to follow this guideline. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I want to Open that by final decision please Now Wiki Thai want to open them. How do you do? [3] [4] (Parintar (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)).
Sorry, but I never do anything on meta. Good luck with that project though. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Merry Chirstmas (Parintar (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)).

## Merry Christmas, Mark

And may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you to! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

## Season's greetings

 🍁 Season's greetings from Canada 🎄 Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for everything you do to maintain, improve, and expand Wikipedia.Cheers, Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Season's greetings to you too Diannaa! Mark Arsten (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

## Han Solo

Can you add pending changes? The article has been vandalized before semi-protection. --George Ho (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

## Merry stuff.

Poepkop (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Merry Christmas to you too. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

## FYI

Could you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnbiasedVictory... editor back making exact same edits. -- Moxy (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

## Season's Greetings

 Wishing you a Charlie Brown Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄 Best wishes for your ChristmasIs all you get from me'Cause I ain't no Santa ClausDon't own no Christmas tree.But if wishes was health and moneyI'd fill your buck-skin pokeYour doctor would go hungryAn' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw(talk)
Thanks, same to you! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

## Season's Greetings

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, same to you! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

## Yo Ho Ho

May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 02:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the block of the editor using my username and for the rev/del of the edit summaries. Since your present got here several hours (my time) before Santa you are welcome to the cookies and milk :-) MarnetteD|Talk 02:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome, glad to help :) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi again. It looks like talk page access may need removal. If you're off celebrating Xmas eve or day there is no hurry at all. MarnetteD|Talk 03:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

## Merry Christmas

 Wishing you a merry Christmas and a happy new year...

## Merry Christmas!

 RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) 16:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

## Harassment

Hi Mark. Recently you blocked the user Qtwe. Can you delete the page history who Qtwe edited in White Latin Americans? He attacks me in the edit summary and added an ip. Also he insulted me in my user talk in many times (in spanish) [5] [6] Thanks. --Bleckter (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I revision deleted an edit summary on the article and one on your talk page. Let me know if he turns up again... Mark Arsten (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

## Vandalism Thanks

Hi Mark Arsten, thank you so much for your efforts in preventing vandalism. I see you protected the page of the human rights activist, Majid Rafizadeh. Do you think you can address the templates in the page so people stop vandalizing the page? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E8C:D950:70B1:2C7C:4FD8:3960 (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I probably won't get involved much more with it than I have been, Melcous might be able to help though. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

## Happy New Year Mark Arsten!

.

I'll second that. Happy new year and happy editing ! BlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

## Happy New Year, Mark Arsten!

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

## Happy New Year, Mark Arsten!

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message
By the way, did you know that this edit was the last edit made in 2015, and this is the first edit of 2016? (Times in UTC, of course).k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Design42Day

Hello, I was convinced to have commented to the discussion but eventually I missed to push the botton "save page". I just found the unsaved page (one of the many open pages in my Firefox), but when I tried to save the page I noted in the meanwhile the discussion was closed. I had voted to keep and I would apprecciate my comment was added to the discussion, then you or others would be welcome to re-asses the consensus and to re-close the discussion (I would not complain if the delete close will be confirmed). For the record, this was the text of my comment: Keep, if I am not missing something, in addition to the already mentioned Vogue, the article contains multiple reliable sources, such as two articles from Corriere della Sera ([7] [8]) and an article from TgCom24 ([9]). The fact they are in Italian does not make them unreliable (eg., Corriere della Sera is the major and most authoritative newspaper in Italy). Thanks in advance. Cavarrone 07:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I'll undelete and relist it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

## Deletion of an orphaned file

Hi Mark, you recently deleted the file File:Jisedai No Tou logo.jpg. I had actually reinserted it back into the article about 10 minutes before you deleted it. I think it serves a purpose in there as the original logo of the political party. Is it possible to have the file restored? Thanks, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright, it's back. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimarey

Five or six years later, Jimarey is return as an IP 82.53.179.230 to focus on Chris Brown or others. 123.136.111.80 115.164.87.223 (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like someone already blocked the IP. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

## Protected edit request on 7 January 2016

I manage Kate Upton and she has requested to change her picture on her WIki page to something other then Game Of War. Please help me edit the image? Contact me at Todd@KateUpton.com if you have any questions

This would really help me!

Thank you!!

Toddtouron (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

You should discuss this at Talk:Kate Upton. I will copy this message there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Toddtouron, sorry about how confusing our image policies are. Is there a specific image or type of image you're thinking of for a replacement? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Mark Arsten Thanks for the quick reply, not sure how this works. Any picture that is not to revealing and is not associated with "Game of War" of Kate will suffice. Perhaps one that looks more professional and clearly captures her face.

Toddtouron, Alright, I've swapped it out for the picture of her that had been at the top of the article until last Spring. I think it's better than the Game of War once at least. We don't have too many available pictures that meet our freely licensed criteria, the ones we do have are here: commons:Category:Kate Upton. If a photographer uploads a picture of her under the free licence in the future we could add that as well, but I understand that's probably not a priority for most photographers. Let me know if there's anything else I can help with. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

## Request for copy of deleted article

Hi Mark,

Would it be possible for you to userfy a copy of the recently deleted Robin Haley article so I can see about improving it? Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I think that would be alright. It's now at User:Hmlarson/Robin Haley. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - appreciate it. Hmlarson (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

## Providence Park

I would like to retrieve the file history from File:Providence Park logo.jpg for reference on File:ProvidencePark-logo.svg. MB298 (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, please notify me when this message has been answered. MB298 (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@MB298: Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you want me to do here. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieve the table that displays the history of the uploads. For example, on File:Sunset-apollos.png, there was a previous "Sunset-apollos.gif" that was replaced with a png version. It lists the uploads of the gif file above the file history of the current version. MB298 (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I think I understand now, I've added the information. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

## Betty X Musician BLP

I'd like to request that the article for the musician Betty X be restored. In the discussion it was stated that it was an "ill-sourced" BLP, which simply isn't true. Even a cursory amount of research shows that this person is an established and notable musician that has worked with some pretty well-known people (Al Jourgensen, Martin Atkins, Patty Quatro, etc.). While the article needed some revisions to clean it up and provide sources for some of the comments (which are readily available online), I see no valid reason for the deletion of this article; it does the usefulness of Wikipedia a disservice when we remove legitimate content. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enoch22 (talkcontribs) 02:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The version of the article that was deleted didn't cite any sources, actually. If you can find some good sources feel free to create a WP:DRAFT that includes them and we can look at restoring the article. Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

## Configuring Pending Changes for Daniel Day-Lewis

Why did you configure pending changes settings for Daniel Day-Lewis, just out of curiosity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurocus47 (talkcontribs) 16:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall anything about this article specifically, but generally I would look at the history and see how many instances of vandalism/BLP violations were generally occurring and the volume of edits overall before adding PC. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

## You've got mail

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

Destiny Leo (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

## Andrew Hussie protection

Hi Mark, do you think the pending changes status on Andrew Hussie could now be revoked? The level of vandalism does not now seem excessive, with over a month without edits until one outbreak yesterday: Noyster (talk), 17:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

## Help with edit war

Hello Mark, could you do something to block the user Vuca1990, He continues to add vital information without any source on IHF World Men's Handball Championship I already told him, but it has now become an edit war, and it seems like he will never stop. He seems to be doing this on other articles as well. He goes on sports articles and credits Serbia as the official inheritor of Yugoslavia's medals, even tho the organizations doesn't agree with him, and therefore he adds no source for it, because it's just his own personal opinion. I hope you ahve the time to do something about this problem, thank you.Csknowitall (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, first things first, you have to make sure you don't edit war yourself (even if his changes are wrong you can't keep reverting). You might want to ask at a relevant Wikiproject to get more participation on the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

## Ides of March

Strange. I don't remember doing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.210.89 (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

No worries in any case. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

## Eyes

I'm sorry, but I don't think my talk page is the best place for continued discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just asking some extra eyes on Colonial Spanish Horse. Sorry to bug you, but probably some outside watchers would be helpful. Montanabw(talk)|GO THUNDER! 20:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes please. Just be aware of this and this Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you are being creepy and stalking another editor's edits LynnWysong? 20:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Because the edits involve me. What is your excuse for creeping Cassianto?
The request to Mark had nothing to do with you; you weren't mentioned, insinuated, or pinged. So go and get yourself a life. 21:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Are you for real, Cassianto? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I am, yes. Although I suspect you're more mythical. 21:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
You're calling me a troll? What is your justification for that uncivil remark? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
You start arguments, upset people, harass other editors, stalk contributions, and you do all this from behind a keyboard. What would you call it? 21:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Now you are casting aspersions? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• I looked and find this strange: "Banker horses, a well-known Colonial Spanish Horse", - "horses, a horse", but don't know how to fix it. Why do I read a Dr. title? Why are there refs in the lead which should only summarize sourced info from the article body? - Perhaps horses are different from music? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
"Why are there refs in the lead which should only summarize sourced info from the article body? - Perhaps horses are different from music?" Been trying to fix that Gerda Arendt. Not having much luck. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

## Luka Modrić

Hi Mark, I've started a requested GOCE copy-edit to Luka Modrić, which you set a stable version of on 18:55, 2 January 2014. The c/e will take me a few days; it might be a good plan to wait until I've finished befor re-reviewing the article and approving the changes. I'll post an edit summary announcing that I've finished my c/e. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall ever editing that article, so don't worry about me jumping in now. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
No worries; you didn't edit but you set autoreview protection [10]; your notice still appears in the edit window and I wondered whether you wanted to re-review. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
C/e  Done. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

## Ben 10 vandalism

The Ben 10 article has been subject to frequent IP vandalism since I've been watching it. (about October last year) Do you think you could give it semi protection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshBM16 (talkcontribs) 13:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, you might want to post a request at WP:RFPP. It's generally best to get requests logged there. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

## Request to restore deleted page - Betty X

Betty X is an influential female musician, conceptual artist, and songwriter that first made her impact in Seattle during the 1990's. She has been described by Seattle publications as a "Dangerously sexy blend of poisonous and volatile apocalyptic-metal with sarcastic aggro female vocals." Betty X has become one of the most recognized names in conceptual art, post-apocalyptic rock - not just in Seattle, but in Austin and Los Angeles, as well. She continues to be a powerful influence for female singers/songwriters/artists/musicians and participates on many panel discussions and appearances along with Patti Quatro and others, in addition to her live performances and collaborations with such bands as Ministry and Pigface.

Betty X is currently gearing up to release her fifth solo album, which is being co-produced by the legendary Al Jourgensen of Ministry fame, confirming her presence as a current and relevant musician. This article supports the claim that Betty X has played with Ministry, [3], and removes any question of the claim's validity.

This article [4], as well as this book excerpt, [5], confirm and validate her work with Martin Atkins and Pigface: Tour Smart.

From her first band, Salon Betty, which performed with Alice In Chains and other influential Seattle bands, to being featured on the new Surgical Meth Machine (Al Jourgensen's new project) to be released April 15th on Nuclear Blast records, Betty X continues to be relevant in the music industry.

Betty X is affiliated with Salon Betty, Satan in High Heels, Ministry, Pigface, Sheep on Drugs, and Surgical Meth Machine. She has current websites and fan pages including [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. It would be a detriment to the history of female artists and musicians, as well as the history of post-apocalyptic rock, music in Seattle, etc.

With all due respect, I am requesting that this page, which has been active for over 10 years, be fully restored. Any claims that were deemed to be without validation will be updated, as well as any other pertinent information. Not only does the removal of this page have an impact on booking agents, etc., to research Betty X, but it also hinders the education of younger generation conceptual artists, musicians, singers, and songwriters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terivangogo (talkcontribs) 20:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI MA this thread Wikipedia:Help desk#Deleted.2Fremoved article - Betty X has already answered this persons questions. I have directed the to WP:DRV as well. Cheers and enjoy your week. MarnetteD|Talk 21:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Alright, see my response above to the last person who asked about her, but basically I'd recommend creating a new draft. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

## A barnstar for you!

 The Admin's Barnstar Thanks for getting rid of another vandal! Promotional Attack (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

## File:Wolfgang priklopil.jpg

Hi Mark. The file is not orphaned anymore (broken file link). --Leyo 22:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like someone else took care of it, sorry for the delay in responding. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

## Changes in Ranveer Singh's page

Hi Mark, I'm Ranveer Singh's manager. (Page URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranveer_Singh ) The info panel wrongly mentions his relatives to from the Kapoor family. I tried to remove this data from the page and also change his profile picture but it keeps the original, incorrect information. Would request you to help me make these changes and get them to stay on the page. Thanks.

Ishaan2212 (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ishaan2212, I would recommend you post to Talk:Ranveer Singh to explain the changes that you wish to make to the article, providing sources to back them up if possible. That way other people who are familiar with the subject can help evaluate and make changes to the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

## Speedy deletion nomination of Rosin Jolly

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 Rosin Jolly requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "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, then please contact the deleting administrator. JackTracker (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I only created a redirect, but thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

## Reworking previously deleted Michael de Claro biography, now with references

Hi Mark, the Michael de Claro biography I wrote a few years ago was deleted due to the lack of references. I now have the references for the article and would also like to update the content but it is no longer available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medevenx (talkcontribs) 11:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the best thing to do would be to work on a Userspace draft of the article until it is sourced. I can move the deleted revisions there for you if you want. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

## Request for information

I have been editing wikipedia from quite sometime now. Could I become an admin. Is there any criteria or similar for such. I love editing wikipedia and providing positive information always. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMXVI (talkcontribs) 14:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, anyone can become an admin if they are involved with the project long enough and do good work. People who vote at WP:RFA often have very high standards (sometimes comically high) about who they will support. Generally most people who succeed at RFA have a been active for more than a year and have more than 6,000 edits. Writing quality articles and participating in deletion work and counter-vandalism is generally looked on very well at RFA. So if you enjoy doing those things, you will eventually have a good chance at becoming an admin. Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

## Closed AfD where article was never deleted?

Hi Mark, you closed this AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_de_Burgh in December, but the article still remains & the subject (it's a promotional autobio) continues to edit it. Not sure why it never actually got deleted, can you address this please? JamesG5 (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it was deleted after that Afd, but someone recreated it later and no one noticed for a while. Another admin has taken care of the recreation, thankfully. If they try to create it again we can just WP:SALT the title. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

## Dhudhi

Hi Mark, you semi-protected Dhudhi in December for three months. That expired last week and in the last couple of days one anon and one new user account have added a load of content that simply doesn't meet V, RS etc and appears in part to be likely copyright violations. I've just reverted that lot.

Of course, the anon may be the same person who subsequently registered a user account. I've left a welcome with the latter but it might be handy if you could spare the time to keep an eye on things there. I suspect we may well soon need another spell of semi, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

## Johnny Garrett

Johnny Garrett may need to be re-evaluated. In South by Southwest they released a movie loosely based on the case The Last Word of Johnny Frank Garrett http://schedule.sxsw.com/2016/events/event_FS19784 and there had been previously a documentary and a fictional novel based on his case http://www.thelastworddocumentary.com/nl.php

I could just write a new article with sourced info but I'm wondering if it's a good idea to do a DRV first? Either way I would like to recover the previous edit hitory. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother with a DRV in this case. The other version was hardly sourced at all, so we might as well just create a new article and let someone take it to AFD again if they still think it fails WP:CRIME with all the new coverage. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

## Deletion of Delta Sigma Iota

Hi Mark, I am reaching out regarding the deletion of the page for Delta Sigma Iota (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Delta_Sigma_Iota)

The page was deleted in 2012 as a result of review which stated the organization did not have a national scope. However, since then the organization has expanded and has an official presence in over seven major universities http://www.deltasigmaiota.org/chapters--colonies.html in multiple states. Additionally, the organization has also been recognized by the National Asian Pacific Islander Pan-Hellenic Association (http://www.napahq.org/about/#organizations)

Hi, I'm not too familiar with the guidelines for these types of articles. The best thing to do would be to open a section about the article at deletion review, WP:DRV. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• I've left a note for them at WP:REFUND. However my concern here is that seven chapters might not be what is considered as far as "scope of their activities is national or international in scale". They also left a link to a Google search, but a look at the coverage shows that much of it is trivial mentions by student newspapers at the handful of colleges that host chapters. The mentions are usually that they participated in something at their universities with other Greek organizations and it seems to all be in passing. They also linked to a userfied version of the page that contained copyvio from the official website - I'm more mentioning that just so that they see an explanation as to why this was deleted. To be honest, I don't entirely see where the past concerns at AfD have really been met, although I have no problem with them trying to make a new article at WP:AfC. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into that. I tend to agree with your analysis here. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

## Moose You indefinitely locked down open editing nearly 3 years ago? A bit excessive

Heads up! You locked down Moose nearly 3 years ago. Is not that excessive and against the policy of anyone can edit? You might want to reconsider your indefinite block on a species of Deer. 23.235.7.188 (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, but sometimes we get so much nonsense on a given page that we have to protect it from unregistered users. It's not actually against policy, see here for the explanation. I don't recall much about this page specifically though. Would you like me to take another look? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

## Request to move recently deleted article to draftspace or userfy

Hi Mark, would it be possible for you to move Katie Rodan to draft space or my userspace so that it can be worked on or parts incorporated in the related Proactiv article? There is a related deletion review. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

## Precious anniversary

talk ... you were recipient no. 104 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

... and six! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

## User:Dhelfond/Valley Bulldog

In March 2013, you userified User:Dhelfond/Valley Bulldog following the AFD discussion. There's been no improvements since then. I've taken the page to MFD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dhelfond/Valley Bulldog but would you consider evaluating the content and possibly reversing that decision, as is your right? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

## File restore request

Hello, can you restore the following image files?

File:Yu-Gi-Oh! World Championship Tournament 2004 Cover.png
File:Yu-Gi-Oh! Worldwide Edition - Stairway to the Destined Duel Coverart.png
File:Dawnofdestiny.jpg

Thanks, « Ryūkotsusei » 04:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I've restored the images. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

## India and Indic scripts

Hullo,

First I noticed that you blocked edition of the Wikipedia page for India indefinitely so much so that even the most basic edits can't be done

Second, there's a so-called "consensus" on Indic scripts that goes back quite a long time ago and was wondering if a new vote could be organised? (I don't think there was any initial voting to be frank)

The reasons are as follows: The consensus seems to be very strictly enforced on any India related page but Indic scripts are used broadly on say the Wikipedia page of Bangladesh, where's the logic in that?

Secondly, the ban against Indic script stemmed from the controversy of what language should be used to write the native names of Indian personalities eg local languages like Gujerati for Gandhi and Modi? Or Hindi, the official language, for everyone? But where's no language controversy like in writing Bharat Ganarajya in Hindi, why the fuss?

Thirdly, I personally favour scrapping the ban by using the same policies as applied to personalities who come from countries where there are multiple official languages or people who are of "foreign" origins when compared to their current nationality or state of residence.

For instance, Nobel Laureate Ada Yonath has her name in Hebrew despite the fact that Israel has two official languages. Her religious background was here seen as a criterion for picking the right language.

Similar solutions based on background could be used for Indian personalities.

Manish2542 (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, India still can be edited, just not by new accounts and unregistered user. I haven't been very active on this article though. The best thing to do would be to post your proposed changes on Talk:India for consideration on that article. Also, Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics would be a good place for general concerns about the subject. Sorry I can't be of more help. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
has very nice point. The consensus may have changed. The present approach makes no sense at all. Mohsinpathania (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer, appreciated. That's weird, I'm a long time editor and a registered user, I'll try again then. I'll try to do the necessary on the Talk:India page but I need the support of veterant users like you so if you wanna help, feel free

Thanks I'll need help to raise the issue and organise a vote, can you help?

Manish2542 (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

## Ashley van Haeften

Hello. Please unlock this article because I want to work on it to improve it very much. My draft is at here Mohsinpathania (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, last I recall, this article was a pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E. Has that changed with recent coverage? We'd usually need to see a lot of coverage around one event or coverage about more than one event to have an article on someone. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
That probably related to banning/resignation issue. Beyond that he is recently notable for initiating motion to remove Ammon Geshun, as most prolific Commons uploader, as a privacy expert assisting UK Parliament Committee etc. Also notability standards for Chair of Wikimedia UK should be on par with that of Chair of Wikimedia USA., see 1, 2 where the notability standards for WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG etc. were discussed in considerable length, comments were made that Chairs of Wikimedia were automatically notable, .. We extend this favour to Wikipedians with marginal notability. (Not marginally notable non-Wikipedians, though. We take care of our own) etc. Van Haeftan has many more reliable citations compared to Devouad. Mohsinpathania (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Seems like the motion, uploading, and testimony have only garnered fairly trivial coverage. I'm not inclined to unprotect for that reason. Also, I disagree that we should hold Wikipedian biographies to a different standard than run-of-the-mill BLPs. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The consensus at the last Florence Devouard DR (previously linked) was "Keep - there's is minimal enough coverage to meet the guidelines for WP:N". The same standard should be applied here for van Haeften (a past Wikimedia Chair) since there is reliable media coverage of him beyond a BLP1E event and which adequately meets the minimal coverage guidelines for WP:N far better than in Devouard's case. From Parliament TV, Text the coverage for the testimony event was not limited just to BBC Television and he is notable for at least 2 events. Luridaxiom (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
As I said before, we would have to see significant coverage for more than one event. I'm not seeing anywhere near that level of coverage. If you disagree with me on this, you are free to open a deletion review. Note that you should talk to the admin who actually deleted the article first though (User:John Vandenberg). Mark Arsten (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
IMO WP:DR is the best approach here, as the existing article covered most of the proposed article, so it should be undeleted and expanded if there is consensus for it, so that attribution is kept. Based on the sources at Talk:Wikimedia UK#Ashley van Haeften, I wouldnt undelete it, but I also would very likely vote delete wrt Florence Devouard unless I found something not already on the article. 05:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I've added several new sources over at Talk:Wikimedia UK#Ashley van Haeften and c/e'd it some. The deleted article had 2 only sources and was deleted with the summary G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: bio based on one event and very low quality sources for a bio; contributor has marked themselves as retire. All these defects have been addressed with the present BLP proposal for a notable and active Wikimedian. Luridaxiom (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Using Wikipedia Signpost as a source isnt likely to help your cause... As I said, I am not seeing enough notability. WP:BLPDEL applies. No admin is going to independently unprotect unless the proposed article is unquestionably notable. So you need to work with other editors to get consensus, either on that talk page or at WP:DR. 06:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Under WP:BLPDEL the deleting admin should be prepared to disclose if the subject had requested deletion. This also seems a case of past administrative "summary deletion" so it would be inappropriate to approach the community via DR (which is a "review" process) since this was not a community deletion. Because the Signpost report (which is intensively peer reviewed throughout Wikidom) shows you had a COI situation with the article subject, I am merely requesting you to administratively restore the article of this notable former Wikimedia UK Chair to the one proposed so that interested editors can work on it and bring it to near GA status. Luridaxiom (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Of course I am willing to declare such a thing. As far as I can recall, the subject did not request deletion, and a quick check of my emails doesnt show anything related at that time.
If I have a COI, I should be taking no action at all. 10:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. To assist, the dates in 2012 were 11.July (Fae elected), 13.July or thereabouts (An email to the private chapters list, the copy which 'Tony1' claims you shared with him), 01.August (your admin deletion of Fae's BLP article). The article as it stood then is a far cry from the present BLP proposal. So perhaps can now take the call on unlocking the article so it can be recreated for the proposed content - ie. if you have no objections ? Luridaxiom (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Neither John nor I will be undeleting or unprotecting the article for the reasons outlined above. You are free to seek outside review from admins in another venue, but I doubt you'll have much success, to be honest. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the deleted article, it was deleted as an attack page and it was entirely negative. Most of the information was written in a more neutral fashion at Wikimedia UK#Chairman resigns. Luridaxiom, if you are seeking an article on this subject, I think it would be best if you started from scratch with a draft (in Draft space, not article talk space). I can't imagine there is any material in the deleted article that you would want to use and there was only one contributor and one contribution. If you create a worthy article, that meets notability standards, then the page can be unprotected and you can move the draft to main space. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Liz. Have done so at Draft:Ashley van Haeften Luridaxiom (talk) 07:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

## A barnstar for you!

 The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar great job at keeping people like dwindu from malicious editing that damages wiki articles and violates the rules set by wikipedia Hganus (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

## Amber Heard

Since it was you who applied pending changes to Amber Heard in January 2014, this is worth a look.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

## Deletion of page for Billy Kirsch

Hi Mark,

I see that you deleted the page that had my biography on it. The page name was Billy Kirsch. In your deletion comments, you mentioned that the some of the information was not verifiable. You correctly refer to All Music to verify some of my credits. But additionally, if you do a search on wikipedia with my name, you'll see that I'm attributed as the author of many hits songs and song recordings in general. So my name and my credits are cross-reference throughout Wikipedia itself.

I'd appreciate it if you can restore my page, since it really is legitimate.

Thank you, Billy Kirsch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidbilly Music (talkcontribs) 22:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Billy, sorry for the late response, I haven't been very active on Wikipedia recently. Have you read our WP:MUSICBIO guideline? If you meet the standards there it will be possible to have your page restored. Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

## Draft:Lisa Aliff

I believe that, after the AfD discussion, the article is safe to move back to mainspace. What do you say? --George Ho (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see better sourcing, but technically it can be moved to mainspace at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

## Mark Hughes

I think this edit is potentially libelous and should be redacted. Can you help? 77.130.195.10 (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. 77.130.195.10 (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
No prob, glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

## Goodrich Petroleum Corporation

Hello. Is it possible to see what this article looked like when it was deleted (twice) please? I was just about to start a stub. I think it should definitely have an article as a public oil and gas company.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, looks like it's probably notable. I moved the history to Draft:Goodrich Petroleum Corporation for you. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

## Not Sure What to Make of This - Something Hinky:

Hello,

I don't know if this is something 'wrong' or 'bad', or something that goes against the TOS, but I came across something that just struck a chord within me that just felt wrong or 'off'. I was looking at the entry for Betty J. Sapp the current Director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NOR) and I noticed it was created by a user named "TDRSS." I Also noticed that the content of the page was an almost verbatim reproduction of her official CV provided as a preamble to an official site visit she is making. I also know that TDRSS is the name of a military satellite system: the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System and which is an NRO-owned system.

So I was thinking that perhaps it might be someone (or group of someones) who is employed by the NRO or one of their contractors, and I began a little digging. I quickly found that the user TDRSS is responsible for the creation and/or frequent editing of pages related to EVERY other director of the NRO as well: <ref>[[Bruce_A._Carlson|Bruce A. Carlson]] [16th] (Creator)</ref> <ref>[[Scott_F._Large|Scott F. Large]] [15th] (Early Editor)</ref> <ref>[[Donald_Kerr|Donald M. Kerr]] [14th] (Early Editor)</ref> <ref>[[Peter_B._Teets|Peter B. Teets]] [13th] (Creator)</ref> <ref>[[Keith_R._Hall|Keith R. Hall]] [12th] (Creator)</ref> <ref>[[Jeffrey_K._Harris|Jeffrey K. Harris]] [11th] (Early Editor)</ref> <ref>[[Martin_C._Faga|Martin C. Faga]] [10th] (Creator)</ref> <ref>[[Edward_C._Aldridge_Jr.|Edward C. Aldridge Jr]] [9th] (Early Editor)</ref> <ref>[[Robert_J._Hermann|Robert J. Hermann]] [8th] (Early Editor)</ref> <ref>[[Hans_Mark|Hans M. Mark]] [7th] (Editor)</ref> <ref>[[Thomas_C._Reed|Thomas C. Reed]] [6th] (Editor)</ref> <ref>[[James_W._Plummer|James W. Plummer]] [5th] (Creator)</ref> <ref>[[John_L._McLucas|John L. McLucas]] [4th] (Early Editor)</ref> <ref>[[Alexander_H._Flax|Alexander H. Flax]] [3rd] (Creator)</ref> <ref>[[Brockway_McMillan|Brockway McMillan]] [2nd] (Creator)</ref> <ref>[[Joseph_V._Charyk|Joseph V. Charyk]] [1st] (Creator)</ref> It struck me as highly unlikely that this person(s) is THAT uniquely interested, as a layman, in the current and past Directors NRO (most of then are downright unremarkable). The author(s) also has created or edited NUMEROUS other (NRO-related) pages, a volume of which is unlikely for a single layperson to create or maintain. Again I don't know if this is anything improper, or untoward, it just felt wrong - for whatever it's worth - but I could be completely off base. Please do what you will with this information (or even do nothing if that is apropriate).

Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or concerns:

138.163.106.72 (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Kind Regards
Jeffrey A. La Grua

Hi Jeffrey, thanks for the detailed note. This is an interesting situation. There are a couple issues that I can see at a glance. One is that this may be a case of conflict-of-interest editing, if not paid editing. The other is the apparent copying. If he is copying public domain resources then that's not as big of a deal, but still needs to be looked into. It doesn't look like he has been too active lately but I will drop a note on his talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm TDRSS. No, I do not work for the NRO. I've used the handle 'tdrss' since the mid-to-late 1990s, when I worked on the satellite system while in college. Yes, I am interested in national security space history, which does include the NRO. But if you notice my edits, I also work on Air Force, SAC, and a variety of other topics. Since I'm well versed in using public domain information, I used the material from an NRO publication (available on their website) to fill the pages of the DNROs. Most of these folks had "lives" other than NRO, so their individual histories would include only a brief snippet of their NRO time. TDRSS (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

## Help

You're an admin, right? Can I ask, how to create a poll? If there is none, then how does an agreement in Wikipedia can be made?

Zero stylinx (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, we don't usually do "polls" per se. Usually if there's a dispute about an article we will just have a discussion between interested editors and try to judge consensus after people weigh in. Sometimes we'll do something closer to a vote, called Wikipedia:Requests for comment or WP:AFD depending on the situation. Of course, if there's a discussion about banning someone or promoting someone to admin we basically do just hold a poll but it's not a pure vote in that strength of argument can be taken into account. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

## Speedy deletion nomination of Zoffy

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 Zoffy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page 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 a page has substantially identical content to that of a page 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 "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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. TTN (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what a Zoffy is. It doesn't sound very notable though. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

## Question

Template:Subs:DRVNote Wiikstaat (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Mark. I am not sure what this is about but I've moved it to the bottom of your talk page so that you don't have to hunt for it. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 13:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
OK I did a little hunting and it seems to be related to this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Leonhardt. I hope that this helps. MarnetteD|Talk 13:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Marnette. My advice to the user would be to make a WP:DRAFT using the best sources he/she can find and then I'd consider moving it back to mainspace. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

## 10 July

10 July

Took only 300 years to restore a good name. - Thank you for the history merge of the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Question: I moved User:Gerda Arendt/PumpkinSky Prize to Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Precious. Would it be difficult to replave all redirects to the current, automatically? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

--Ged Gilmore (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)== Didn't do it! ==

Hi Mark I just opened a wiki page and saw I had two messages. I have never seen this before. The messages referred to alterations to pages that I had made being undone. I have just signed up to Wikipedia. I have never edited any page on wikipedia and have no intention of ever doing so. I use my mobile phone as a tethered hot spot and do not share it with anyone. Whomever it is that you are trying to contact over this it is certainly not me. Please correct this as i don't wish to become known as a "wiki vandal" as I believe the term is. My Best Regards Ged Gilmore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ged Gilmore (talkcontribs) 23:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

No worries, unless the warning was given recently admins will assume you're someone else. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

## FAC voluntary mentoring scheme

During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

## Revising and Republishing 'Jonathan Paul Wagner'

Hey Mark,

I'm a writer who has been hired by Jonathan Paul Wagner to look into why his Wikipedia page (http://deletedwikipedia.gawker-labs.com/wiki/Jonathan_Paul_Wagner) was deleted, in hopes of having me make revisions to content and citation in order to get the page restored. I'd like to change the page so it meets Wikipedia's standards, but I'd like a couple suggestions by you as to the best way of going about doing this with particular respect to the article. What caused his article to get taken down, and what are the biggest changes I would need to make to get it back on track? Were sources not credible, or lines cited improperly?

I appreciate any and all advice you can give me on this one, Mark.

- Joseph Cavera — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesilver72 (talkcontribs) 01:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the reason the article was deleted was because it seemed to fail the notability guideline we have for keeping articles about artists. To have the article restored, you'd have to provide sources that make the case that he meets the standards in that guideline. Sources that provide detailed, in-depth discussion of him would also help. Local sources or interviews can help, but usually we want more than that. (Note that we also have rules editing for pay, see here for the instructions on the matter.) Feel free to let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

## Undelete request for one of my User subpages.

Hi, would you be able to help me out with an undelete of these two of my User subpages? Game Zero magazine / Game Zero magazine, talk page . The were archived when the original pages were deleted while I worked on citations, and then someone came by and deleted them as well. If I could atleast get them undeleted so I can offline copy the contents, I would be very appreciative. Thanks. BcRIPster (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, why don't you e-mail me and I will send you the text of the draft. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Got'em. Thanks. BcRIPster (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

## Burke and Hare murders

How lovely to see your name on my watchlist and especially on Burke and Hare murders, my latest FA. I hope your keeping well! 14:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, it's good to see you too. And to read your fascinating article. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

## Extended confirmed protection

 Hello, Mark Arsten. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy. Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas. In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions: Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort. A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard. Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

## Protected edit request on 25 September 2016

Ortiz Gaytan (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what this is about? Mark Arsten (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

## Sock Puppet

Ok, thanks for the explanation. As long as you stick to one account in the future you won't have problems. I'll update Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TravellingTycoon. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, it looks like Jake Skinner probably does not meet the WP:POLITICIAN guideline. If he wins the election the page will probably meet the guideline (if I'm understanding the office right), but usually local politician articles are deleted. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

## Reviewing Christina Grimmie

Hello, I saw that in 2013, you configured pending changes settings for Christina Grimmie to auto-accept, requiring "autoconfirmed" permission because of "violations of the biographies of living persons policy." Could you remove this now that she's dead? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The BLP policy can apply for a while after the subject dies, I believe. I'd be hesitant to remove it for now if there's still disruption going on. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

## I request Checkuser

For this Can you please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hwy43&oldid=744238897 Shark32322 (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

## Request to review

Would you be willing to review Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sevcohaha/Archive and the subsequent discussion on the editor's talk page and provide an opinion or suggestions for moving forward? Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I took a quick look at it. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an easy way forward that I can see. The best advice I could give would be for the user to wait six months without editing at all and then request an unblock. Kind of a "Hail Mary" at this point, but after multiple accounts are blocked it's really hard to get permission to edit again. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. Hmlarson (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

## Definitive Technology Deleted

Hi Mark -

My name is Joel Sietsema. One of my team members tried some time ago to get The "Definitive Technology" page published. He ran into what he deemed some pretty fierce headwinds that stopped it from being approved. Can you help me better understand what it was specifically that stopped it from being approved.

My thanks, Joel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel.sietsema (talkcontribs) 02:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joel, I think the issue was that some editors felt the sources in the article didn't have enough depth of discussion about the company. (We are often quick to delete articles on corporations for fear of people using Wikipedia for advertising.) This guideline has some info about what we look for in articles about companies. The best thing to do would be to create a draft that includes more citations to detailed articles and then request creation of an article. I can move the deleted text to your userspace if you want. Also, please note our conflict of interest editing policy. Let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

## Zoffy's page

A long time ago, Zoffy's page was deleted and turned into a redirect due to lacking reliable source. If I were to restore the page with reliable source, will you accept it?

Zero stylinx (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, maybe. I'd have to look at the page and the source (hopefully sources) first. Probably best to create a userspace draft first. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Zero stylinx/sandbox/Zoffy Zero stylinx (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, that looks pretty thoroughly sourced, but it is hard for me to evaluate the draft due to the heavy reliance on non-English sources (which is itself 100% alright, per policy). I guess posting to WP:DRV and asking for the deletion to be overturned by restoring this draft would be the best idea now. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah about that, how do I actually use it? I'm not thoroughly experienced. I had once requested Zoffy's page to be un-deleted but one user told me to refer to you (the one who redirect Zoffy's page) instead...Zero stylinx (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

## promotional account User:Foreverstocks

User:Foreverstocks has only created 2 pages, both of which have been tagged for speedy deletion due to purely promotional content. i tagged one, someone else tagged the other back in march 2015. the user hasnt made any other posts or edits to articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.120.122 (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

## A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Mark Arsten.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

## ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

 Hello, Mark Arsten. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

## Happy Thanksgiving

Variedades de calabaza Happy Thanksgiving with a variety of pumpkins

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I saw Messiah performed the other day, and I thought of you. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

section discography Earth to Mars unofficial release (2011) [11] i am new to this so please let me know if this is the proper forum to add to a semi-protected page Davomail (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the right place to post the request would be Talk:Bruno Mars. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

## hi

how do i submit a sockpuppet case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramdeeptung (talkcontribs) 22:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, there are instructions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, look for the "How to open an investigation" box. Let me know if you have any issues, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

## Template:In use

Hello, Mark. Is this template good enough for ECP? It is a recurrently used and highly visible template, but can you trust EC users to edit this template? --George Ho (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change the protection here, to be honest. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

## Creating a Page on a Person that you deleted a few years ago

Hello Mark, I've spent some time creating a page about a comedian I've been watching for a few years "Dan Willis" Initially I contacted Dan, he said that his friend had a page written for him by a Fiver.com writer years ago, but it had been deleted, and he hadn't really thought about it since.. I created the new page "Dan Willis Comedian and Computer Expert", which someone changed to "Dan Willis (comedian), which then got put up for speedy deletion because it was on a similar subject matter to the one you deleted. This feels unfair, as Ive only used information sourced (and referenced) from online publishers, journals and news feeds.. Also, this being my first page, I'm not too savvy on things like- contesting a speedy deletion, the person who put it up for Speedy deletion said there is a button I can click, but I cant find it anywhere.. Any help would be gratefully accepted.. Rhiandorothybell (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rhian, sorry for the confusion. It looks like the speedy deletion request was declined though. It's probably safe for now, but someone could still nominate it for a deletion discussion in the future. That would take a week or so and be open for public input on the matter, at the very least. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

## Dean Winters

Now is the time to end PC protection. I don't see any huge vandalism lately. --George Ho (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I've not received your response yet. George Ho (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Please post your protection change requests on RFPP in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, you enabled pending changes, right? Also, I was recommended per WP:RFPP to discuss the person who did the enabling. --George Ho (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
That's right, but what I mean is, for pages I've protected you can just skip the step of discussing it with me before posting the request on RFPP. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

## Operation Red Hat Suggestion Comment

Mark, I've been redeveloping material from the deleted Operation Red Hat into an new article on a wider subject which is in my sandbox 1. Given your deletion and the prior complaints of facts being misrepresented (some valid, some disputed), I would like to request that you give it a once over for factual errors, poor sourcing, and synthesis. Many new sources have been released since deletion that support the majority of the previous article and several may require further support. However, I am still finding my own copyedits of non-public domain text so it is not complete by a long shot. I already know it is still long and complicated. Thanks. Johnvr4 (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that is a huge article. I'm sure a lot of work has gone into writing it, but I'm worried that it might just be too long. My page size script is placing it at over 21,000 words, which is longer than our article on the Vietnam War, for reference. I would really suggest trimming it, if you can. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
It is too long. Thank you for the perspective. I'm hoping a new RS is pending to sum up a lot of it (like most of the VA stuff). The Vietnam war was only about 19.5 years and the Okinawa activity in the proposed sandbox article covers 72 years (to date) and a lot of related Vietnam War material. All of the issues discussed are controversial which require both sides and will probably require their own articles at some point. An issue I see on the horizon is that any moves to new topic articles would have likely have too much weight on Okinawa with the inclusion of a lot of this material. I haven't reached any other conclusion on that aspect yet other than it's too long. Johnvr4 (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, well, my inclination is to say, just move it back since it has been more than three years. My only worry is that if it's moved back to mainspace it will end up going through the same type of Afd as last time. What title were you going to put this under? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Not really sure at this point. It was the suggestion of another editor that where the entry was going was a lot greater that Op Red Hat could or should cover and a new topic was needed. A lot of newer sources have been released since that time. Legacy of... was the tittle I was working under but that is wide open to suggestion and might need to change if much material is moved out. I was hoping to get some feedback and identify all of the places that need work, further citations, or quotes before going too far forward to avoid and/or rectify/(or explain) the past or future complaints prior to any more embarrassments. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, that sounds good. You might want to ask someone at MILHIST Wikiproject to look at it. They would likely be able to help a lot more than I could. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you again Mark. I've posted there. What is the etiquette on notifying the editors previously involved in the removal of Op Red Hat of my eventual intent of making a place for it on the main space? Once again, Thank you. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Just posting on their talk page about it should be fine. The only time you have to worry about canvassing is if there is an AFD or something going on. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
So, Mark Arsten I posted here and got little response. Per your advice, I asked one of the involved editors (user:buckshot06) to take a look at the draft in my sandbox which is no way ready. He ended to the discussion. Then he took the material in my sandbox that I was developing and started a new article with it which he published here Operation Red Hat!
Is this at all a legitimate move and how do I handle it if it is not? Is "stealing" from WP editors sandboxes even "a thing"? I feel robbed and I literally caught a burgler last night and he is literally in the hospital ever since. Thanks (and sorry). Johnvr4 (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I have reminded Johnvr4 of his earlier version of this article, which was deleted, and the fact that that was completely released into the public, and, regarding the userspace, of WP:UPYES, as well as the CC-BY-SA 3.0 rules. Happy to answer any further queries, but reading the talkpage discussion at my talkpage should answer most of them. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I rescind my request for User:Buckshot06's assistance. WP:HUD? The draft was not WP:ABANDONED.
Do I need need to modify anything to be compliant with WP:UPYES Couldn't you have just mentioned that concern instead of just taking it and opening a new entry?? Was it just done out of spite? Johnvr4 (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, seems you wish to have the discussion here rather than at my talkpage. No, the creation was done to show what a cut down version, more acceptable to article rules, might look like. But your overreaction seemed to end any chance of you considering alternatives that might actually make this a Wikipedia article in time. I'll say it again - your approach to this subject seems incompatible with Wikipedia article guidelines, and frankly, all the indications are that you should redirect your efforts to a personal website or another form of publishing (like a magazine/journal). But, as with all our posts on this site, yours, mine, Mark Arsten's and others, everything has been released for public use and reuse - that's what the CC-BY-SA license means. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• Sorry that I wasn't around to help with this. While I would normally get permission before moving someone's draft to mainspace, I don't think it is explicitly against policy (but attributing it in an edit summary is important). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the good wishes, everyone! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

## Holiday card

 Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas,Mark Arsten! "Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind youThat Dad Time be your friend from here to the endAnd sickness nor sorrow don't find you."—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926. Montanabw(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC)

## Merry Christmas!

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

## Merry Christmas!

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

## Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello! The semiprotection that you placed on Maddie Ziegler expired today, and the articles has immediately begun receiving new vandalism. Would it be possible to extend the protection? Here is the article history. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for missing this, looks like someone else got to it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the good wishes, everyone! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

## Happy New Year, Mark Arsten!

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

## Happy New Year, Mark Arsten!

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

## Happy New Year, Mark Arsten!

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

## Operation Red Hat again

Operation Red Hat is back now and just after your comment and closure of the above section. Buckshot06 quit his discussion, knows I'm diligently working on it and is still discussing on my page and restarted a parallel article. Nick-D was kind enough to previously offer his input. Now what? Johnvr4 (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, hope your discussions are able to resolve these issues. I think you have enough info for a few articles there, probably. I don't know that I've interacted with Buckshot before, but I recall being very impressed by Nick's articles in the past. Hope things go well. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Have you looked at the edit summaries? This is derived mostly from material that pre-dated your arrival on Wikipedia. You do not WP:OWN the operation or the exclusive right to write on it, nor, as we discussed, do you have exclusive rights to anything you have uploaded on this site. As I argued to you, Red Hat and Red Cap are separate operations and should have separate articles. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I looked at the edit summaries. You've revived utterly incomplete garbage and included several of my early edits to improve it and in the process revived a lot of "bullshit" such as Johnston Atoll is in the North Pacific and brought back uncited material that is clearly WP:OR and is inconsistent with every other source-none of which I WP:OWN. However, YOU now OWN each of those awful edits since you decided to restore them. So I am questioning why this was done since yet again, it did not appear to follow an established policy.

WP:revert#Rollback: "revert all top consecutive edits made by last editor"...WP:rollback:"Standard rollback may only be used in certain situations – editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed. Since rollback is part of the core administrator tools, an admin could be stripped of their administrative privileges entirely to remove those tools."

You've conveniently left out the edit prior to any of my edits that said the munitions moves took place at night which I did not make and that some other editor blamed me for "cooking up" which, as you are well aware, was one main reason it was deleted in the first place. Almost every previous editor that originally worked on it no longer edits WP so why restore that edit? What was the WP:point? The revival of the incomplete and faulty entry is not any improvement to anything on Wikipedia and is directly "affecting my ability improve and maintain Wikipedia" WP:IAR-abg-if you want to review it. Last, you have indicated in each of your suggestions that you have a faulty grasp of what RED HAT or OPERATION RED HAT entails and are acting on your own beliefs rather that what the various (and especially the newer) sources say in plain English. Again, I feel the need to question your motivations since this the revival is obviously no improvement and it's at least the third time you have tried to forcefully cut me out and take over writing this article. Please find a new topic and a new editor to trouble. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I restored that version because you seemed so concerned about use of any of your writing. Please feel completely free to edit the Operation Red Hat article to improve and correct the text. I am just about to remove the munitions move at night text, which I did not remember was any issue at all. But if you believe it is incorrect, I shall remove it.
What, in plain English and in one clear, logical paragraph, do the newer sources actually say?
Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Buckshot06, Kindly stay out of my sandbox entirely. I am perfectly able to copy paste from my sandbox when I am ready. And please do not even worry about being accused of having incorrect information. I've already accused you of that and am certain it will continue for a very long time given the understanding you have already provided me. If you don't review the sources yourself, I will continue to challenge your understanding until you give up. I've already explained that there are still copy edits of non-PD sources in my sandbox that I have yet to find and fix. However your last edits appeared to knowingly put at least two(?) copy edits into the article after I expressly warned about it. Nix the resurrected page until the material is sorted. Seriously. JUST STOP NOW!
If you absolutely MUST work on this subject then you could help by please working to develop a paragraph or two from this sentence: Safety was the primary concern during the operation however several local complexities including rush to complete the mission, the heat, an empty reservoir, water rationing, and a tense political situation added to the difficulty in planning and were all part of Operation Red Hat. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your message Johnvr4. I will refrain from the temptation to indulge in all caps and blunt language in response. I'm not sure how I can help your with your proposed paragraph if you are seriously concerned about the use of the sources which you have uploaded. Which sources would you direct me to to write this paragraph, and which time period (62-71, 1971 to Johnson Atoll, or afterwards) are you referring to when you mention the heat, water rationing, tense political situation etc? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The "Safety was the primary concern during the operation however several local complexities including rush to complete the mission, the heat, an empty reservoir, water rationing, and a tense political situation added to the difficulty in planning and were all part of Operation Red Hat" line is currently in the draft section: Public opposition to special weapons on Okinawa and in the US (1969-1971). The source is NARA. Operation Red Hat: Men and a mission (1971) see 00:02:50 and 00:17:30- but best to just watch the entire thing. The dried up reservoir, water rationing, is related to the PCP spill and fish kill that's currently in the Legacy of Environmental contamination draft section (and there are more pictures of it). Some RED HAT safety precaution briefing and press demonstration photos are currently in the Retrograde chemicals brought to Okinawa from Vietnam draft section. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Mark Arsten would you possibly be willing to assist me in nominating the new article for speedy deletion as a POV fork. I cannot seem to get the nomination process correct and have never done it before. Thank you, John Johnvr4 (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I have to say I do not believe the article meets the definition of a POV fork article, even of any article in mainspace. Even if it was a POV fork of a userspace draft it wouldn't meet the requirements. But finally, it's not even a POV fork because (a) it doesn't present a different point of view, and (b) 70-80% is material drawn from the article's state before you, Johnvr4, began any editing of the topic. I would recommend you consult our reasons for deletion (WP:DEL-REASON or WP:DEL#REASON). But none of them seem to apply. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You've created a version of the article to present an article of only "CW/BW transfer from Okinawa to Johnston material" that is highly incomplete and a introduces a POV that avoids a plethora of majority (and minority) opinions from reliable sources on a controversial subject. That motivation appeared to be your intent and long term goal.
Ah, doesn't quite capture what I'm doing. I'm adding that material, yes. That's because that is what I'm absolutely sure of. That's what can be backed up by other reliable sources. I've invited you to edit the article repeatedly because I'm on less sure ground with all the other connected activities, nor am I sure of the sourcing. But it seems that you will not edit the article because you wish to have it presented *entirely* according to your wishes. This is discouraged by WP:OWN. I am attacked if I use some of the connected materials from your sandbox. Please edit the article, and add in your materials!! Please participate in the wikipedia collaborative editing process!! Buckshot06 (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
What you are doing is well described in your own words and edits. No editor should care what you are sure of or not because that is totally inconsistent with WP's goals of using reliable and verifiable sources and every other guideline. You have had numerous opportunities to work together and have each of your concerns addressed and every single time its come back to your failed understanding which is irrelevant, and then it ends with you attempting to cut me out. I wish to have the controversy(S) addressed with the majority and minority views for the relevant sources and it is very highly evident that in every one of your version(s), that goal is not your intent. I will be adding the new source that was published today to the draft in my sandbox which you need to stay completely out of. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Your view is not irrelevant. The issue is your bafflement and failure to understand what the reliable sources say. Cutting me out meant taking over completely to make it your version which is exactly what you have done- repeatedly- all of which has already been explained (with links included). It's not personal attack either. You stated your motivation early on so it's an accusation based solely upon observation with strong evidence.
Your new version/viewpoint, Operation Red Hat, is the 1971 ship ride from point A to B during small part of the the 1963-2000 RED HAT mission. My longstanding viewpoint is that is going to be very difficult to separate the RED HAT Operation from the motivations, legalities etc. and of the deployments and story of the mission. In the event they must be separate articles, I also have all or most all of it written and don't need you make your own version of similar material that you know I have developed of a period of years while waiting for better sources to be published. We talked about this years ago (but my talk page is not archived). Given all previous behaviors I am very highly hesitant to work with you on the material I've developed. When it is ready and I move it to the mainspace then you can take a crack at it. Until then, I am open to advice on how the material in my sandbox might be be developed or improved (including references) and where the material should go so that it can be moved. Don't touch it and don't take any of it.
To clear this up right now, I years ago had already redeveloped the version of the article that you are currently developing and have been redeveloping material on the subject ever since. When this all started, you deleted over 1/2 the material and locked the page so only you could edit it. Recently, I was advised to ask you for constructive criticism of the version I developed and suddenly you developed a new interest in writing your own version and immediately did so by resurrecting the very article that had just told you that I intended to restart.
In your own words can you explain what your intended purpose for resurrecting that version of the mainspace article was? Johnvr4 (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
To have a concise summary of what the uncontested sources say Red Hat consisted of, in the mainspace. Your assiduous research has demonstrated that there's lots more, but the triply-verified core of the subject is the 1971 ship transfer.
The community's original problem with your writing was not that the connected subjects were not valid, useful information, but coherence: so many only vaguely connected subjects are added, that diverge farther and farther from the point, that it is hard to justify their inclusion in one article. This is the main reason, I'd say, why the deletion debate was closed as it did. As an aside, doing this kind of thing on a controversial subject is difficult ahead of further secondary-source accounts. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
"The community's problems" in 2011 were partially nonsensical- for example, an editor took issue with a passage that I did not ever once edit and another passage that had been previously removed, a claim that there was some reinterpretation of primary sources and another that there there weren't reliable sources to tie these vague subjects together. The passage I didn't write but was blamed for writing is incidentally the exact part that you revived and put back in your version until I pointed it out. The next part is that the understanding of the subject in published sources changed in Dec. 2012 with the discovery of new docs on the subject just as the source you are using in your version says in its first line!
Even the initial deletion conversation over 5 years ago acknowledged that the "core" subject was larger than simply the 1971 transfer. Last, if the relation to these subjects is so vague that material couldn't be included or be mentioned, then why do they some get mention in your version. I submit that there is obvious need mention them because the additional newer sources that I have added since the initial deletion support an inclusion. When the article was first deleted five years ago there was a whole list of bogus concerns that I was alleged to have "cooked up in my spare time" The so-called vague relationship to the subject and the inclusion of such material is verified in reliable sources.
"Uncontested sources." Which sources are contested?
It seems like you are purposely ignoring just about all of the obvious controversies on the subject that have been exhaustively explored in various reliable sources on the subject. I have no idea what triply-verified core of the subject is referring to anymore as in nearly every source used, you seem to have ignored majority and minority conclusions. Is this because they might deviate from the 1971 relocation operation? Johnvr4 (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── My strong view on the article deleted in 2011, shared by others, was that it was too long and too disconnected. If we two together allow ourselves to focus on that, there is a much stronger likelihood of more of your draft seeing mainspace. Please go back and take a look at WP:ARTICLE if you like, about what kind of subjects normally hang together coherently for Wikipedia purposes. Please also note that we were not discussing your edits ('an editor took issue with a passage that I did not ever once edit') but the entire article. The article is not, and will not be yours at any time. There's no need to feel slighted at attacks on yours or others' drafted sections.

Uncontested -- possibly a bad choice of words. What seems clearly obvious is that there is no doubt in anyone's mind that Red Hat included the 1971 munitions transfer. I wanted to put something on that in the mainspace. Absolutely yes, for the purposes of placing a short summary of the 1971 munitions transfer in the mainspace, I did not include the material I had no particular expertise or research history with. My purpose was to get a generally agreed subject back into the mainspace. Then others -- I had you in mind -- could add in time material about which they had much greater expertise -- the unrevealed, covered-up, officially hidden issues.

What I will say though is that such adding of material has to add together to be a coherent whole, as is described in WP:ARTICLE -- not something that looks like an unreviewed series of jotted notes. There needs to be one coherent thread from beginning to end.

Finally, I'm trying to clear about my motivations. Please stop impugning them, and WP:Assume Good Faith, and avoid any more personal attacks. I have refrained from reporting you for personal attacks, but I'm well within my rights to do so. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Addendum; I've just gone looking for the userspace guidelines, via WP:MfD, and found this provision: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content." The link is at WP:FAKEARTICLE. Sorry to have to pass on this rather-horrid-sounding advisory.. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing that up but let's not be silly. Intent from your deeds seems inconsistent from your words. Make no mistake, to support the initial deletion, the stated views from other editors concerned edits attributed to me. I did feel slighted, however that is irrelevant. It made me uber-focused on verifiability but it does not mean there aren't or won't be even better sources.
I agree it was (and is) too long and some of it was disconnected. However, some of it was and is strongly connected and factual but just not understood-which has been born out the reliable sources published since. I still hope to convince you and other editors of that.
The sand box is for developing material and there is no time limit to do that that I am aware of.
My intent, stated repeatedly, is to move it to the main space when it is ready. Your edit declaring my intent to leave it there in perpetuity assumes bad faith too. Your rights? You've asserted it was not yet ready and stated your opinions why you felt that way-that is your right (if you even have any rights on WP to begin with).
A few phases in the last edit stuck me: "What seems clearly obvious is that there is no doubt in anyone's mind that Red Hat included..." (also "generally agreed"). Are you referring to doubts in the mind of editors or doubts about agreement with a source?
That question seems to be the root of our disagreement. Editors still seem to have doubts about something from a source or it's relevance to the subject.
I wanted to make sure the mainspace included something about the 1971 munitions transfer. No more, no less. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
"I did not include the material I had no particular expertise or research history with."
In my view, this is very likely because the sources, core or otherwise, that is used in the version you've created were never triply verified.
As I've said above, this was about placing something about the 1971 munitions transfer in the mainspace. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
By my count, out of the eleven sources now used in the main space submission that you created, three are dead links, two do not have any link, three of the citations have retrieval dates (2012) that you could not have retrieved and a fourth (with no retrieval date) was written (2012) during a time that you were not even interested in the subject.
Only one cited reference has a retrieval date (2016-12-28) that you verified and that source has all kinds of stuff you aren't grasping, or including, or even believe is relevant. In fact about 1/3-1/2(?) of that triply verified source is about Agent Orange!
For example, these subjects (and more) are from that one source: "...details of that project have been kept firmly under wraps...newly disclosed scientific studies — and accounts from U.S. veterans who participated in Operation Red Hat — are casting light on the mission and exposing what truly occurred — including the alleged dumping of chemical weapons off the coast of Okinawa."
"B-52s bombers...the full spectrum of America’s weapons of mass destruction, including hundreds of nuclear warheads and a large arsenal of chemical munitions."
"Newly discovered documents...international accusations [of] conducting illegal chemical warfare."
"Now, however, new evidence...Moreover, it appears yet another poison was omitted from officials’ accounts of Operation Red Hat — the toxic defoliant Agent Orange."
"Ongoing contamination from these substances is another potentially lethal problem...The U.S. military has a long and nasty history of contaminating its bases on Okinawa...poisonous legacy of these weapons of mass destruction."
Your understanding of the subject appears to be inconsistent with the source(s).
The end result of deleting the original article and recreating it over and over is that the talk page(s) are lost forever and those discussions helped to explain some of the contested relevance you appear to still not grasp. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Red Hat did without doubt include the 1971 munitions transfer - that's unquestioned. As I've tried to make clear, I aimed by recreating the article to place something about that in the mainspace. I've never examined the sources you talk of; I don't grasp all of the contested relevance, as I've tried to make clear several times. What I added was much more on my interest, military formations ; I added the logistical units and verified some of the ships. As I've said above, I expected you to come along and add to the article with all the things I'm not an expert on. Please stop endlessly questioning the reasons for what I've done previously (and my good faith), and just start adding to the article with your expertise!! We've wasted barrels of ink on this page, let's work on the article!! As an addendum, if you would like the previous talk pages resuscitated, I can do that. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I had asked to restore the talk page five years ago but at the time, you were unable to. If you can still do it, I'd like to see what else is there-if anything.
2013 article issues that might be on the talk pages:
• excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. (June 2013)
• relies too much on references to primary sources. (June 2013)
• may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. (June 2013)
• some listed sources may not be reliable. (June 2013)
• may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. (June 2013)
• sections may stray from the topic of the article. (April 2013)
As explained, I was advised to ping you by the deleting editor as a courtesy for your input on the current state of the draft. If you won't review the relevant sources at least to determine relevance then all of the time and effort spent over the last five years discussing it or relevance of certain parts really is moot. It was once a B-article before it was deleted. The draft material in my sand box (which now has a few easily-removed editing notes based on our previous conversations) has five years of additional development and new sources and you've recreated a stub (or start) entry without reviewing any of the sources? I honestly do not want to legitimize that action as I don't agree with doing it, or the way it was done, or really anything else about it. I would much rather publish a far improved and perhaps a fully developed (maybe even great) article when it is ready.
I am willing to collaborate provided the newly revived main space piece is handled but you'll need to be willing to review the sources to understand why something might be relevant before immediately determining on intuition that it should go elsewhere and removing it. It is in its current state because this is how the subject is presented in those sources. That might be the wrong approach but please understand why this was done before you decide.
Then I'll need help understanding where it else should go and why that is the best route (I do understand size is an issue) and assistance in writing a draft summary bit that points to it the newly relocated material.
A lot of this is various operations, projects, organizations, units, etc. of which I have little experience ( I wrote 267th Chemical Company-which is probably terrible as it was my first learn-as-you-go unit article attempt) and there is plenty of room to expand these very areas in which you specialize. But there is a ton of controversies and nearly every aspect of it is a new controversy and a really is a challenge to present all sides plus the background in a small sentence or paragraph.
A Deletion Review WP:DRV based primarily on the new sources (and the removal of the the obvious rookie mistakes) would have been appropriate and perhaps still is. It is the length and perhaps level of detail that are still legitimate concerns and the true scope of the topic is what we need to determine from the sources. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
'sections may stray from the topic of the article' - creating a coherent article - is my primary concern, and is why I want you to add to the mainspace article as it is instead of trying to import any amorphous mass of text. You have not proved to the community you can write a coherent article properly, and frankly on crafting coherent articles your record is not good. Happy to review any sources as they enter the mainspace, but as things are you've repeatedly told me to stay away from your draft/sources. I'll get the talkpages restored. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The concern where 'sections may stray from the topic of the article' material (Japanese WWII and Korean BW allegations) was moved out of the draft and into the appropriate main space article many years ago. I also wrote Beacham Theatre so frankly, what other so-called proof could one need? If we can't even agree to review sources it is probably best to stay away from the draft for now. I'm always willing to hear about a specific concern. I still want the fork article gone. It is a Fork and you've stated that you did not review any sources that support your opinion of the what this subject is or is not- which is now in the main space. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid you misunderstand me. Your draft as it stands has no 'golden thread' - single argument traceable from beginning to end. It's not a coherent article addressing one issue - instead it conflates, confusingly, multiple issues of which many arguably really don't address the core topic. That's why when I started editing the original article several years ago I was excising multiple chunks of text. That is my overall concern.
Regarding forks, yes, we have one short summary article in the mainspace and your magnum opus in your userspace. But the munitions transfer of 1971 is what Red Hat unquestionably is. I would argue that what you've got in your userspace is a better approximation of a POV folk, if we go with the guidelines at WP:CFORK. You've got a clear viewpoint on Red Hat, but it goes well beyond the generally accepted 1971 ship ride as described in many other sources (Globalsecurity.org, for example, or Men and a Mission). For my purposes at the minute I'm worried about the sources that define the core of the subject, not the sources about the connected issues. So I will not move or change the current existing article. You're entirely free to nominate it for deletion, of course. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
At least we can agree that your "mass excising" removed big parts of a main space article for which reliable sources supporting inclusion unambiguously now exist. That is one of the criteria that allows a WP:DRV.
Your viewpoint that "the munitions transfer of 1971 is what Red Hat unquestionably is" is just plain wrong (again, see 267th Chemical Company or any source mentioned above).
Are you speaking of the Global security article citation about a pier in Okinawa that has a very limited and outdated bit about the subject in it or this, over all of the other high quality sources?
What is "generally accepted," according to several our reliable sources, changed around 2012. Your stated purpose resists adherence to reliable sources and promotes your opinion of what this subject is. That goal does not seem consistent with our Wikipedia policies. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── No, sorry, would not agree. Not part of Op Red Hat, which is why I removed the sections. Re the 2012 disclosures, if you mean the 267 Chem Co's operation of DOD Project 112, Site 2, that information should be in the Project 112 article, whether or not the munitions were actually stored in the RSHA. Data about Project 112 should stay in the Project 112 article. There might be one line mentioning the storage and linking to Proj 112 in the Red Hat article, but that would be all that's required. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Just restored the talkpage history. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the restoration of the talk page. I will take a look at it.
"The 267 Chem Co's operation of DOD Project 112, Site 2, information should be in the Project 112 article," (it has a section)
"Data about Project 112 should stay in the Project 112 article," (I moved it to Deseret Test Center)
"There might be one line mentioning the storage and linking to Proj 112 in the Red Hat article, but that would be all that's required." (hardly)
Unfortunately what you've suggested is not likely to ever happen. Please Stop and pause here to review the sources and understand that:
• Operations YBA, YBB, YBF were the operational security names for RED HAT deployments.
• Red Hat was an operational security name for PROJECT 112
• Project 112 was an operational security name for Project Deseret. Johnvr4 (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
The Organizational History of the 267 Chem Co, in that article, clearly states YBA, YBB, and YBF were part of DOD Project 112. Yes they went into the RSHA but they were part of 112. The Project 112 article needs to be reorganised to place these shipments, a major part of the project, in much higher prominence. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
You've just pretty much agreed with me in one way - 'Red Hat was an opsec name for 112' - which in my terms would mean everything would be at Project 112. In my terms, there would be a few lines about the Red Hat codename, but nothing more, at the 112 article. Whether the data indicates much of your sandbox should see the light of day at Project 112 or Project Deseret (your third line above) I'm not sure, but neither of those are Red Hat. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I agreed there should be mention at those places. I am going to warn against what you are proposing and if you even try it (as you've done by reviving the old article) without reviewing any of the sources for verifiability there will be administrative issues going forward.
That would be a bad move. The sources do not and would not ever support that effort. I urge you to pause and review material and you really should heed that advice before proceeding given your previous assertions that you haven't looked at any of the sources on these subjects. Johnvr4 (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
This source must be reviewed to proceed:
Brankowitz, William R., Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program. Chemical Weapons Movement History Compilation : OFFICE OF THE PROGRAM MANAGER CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MD, 12 June 1987 16:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── User:Buckshot06, So...the moment that I start breaking up my large draft, you apparently want to start to battling over it and want to merge several of the places I put it and now have started putting it all back together with the section title: "U.S. weapons of mass destruction in Japan" That move was just... underhanded and pathetic. And you've done this without discussing or waiting for anyone else to discuss the merge you proposed! When I asked you where you thought this material should go repeatedly you never once mentioned these any interest locations.

Now, material is only one day out-or less of my sandbox (or an hour, or 5 min after my last edit), it's as if the pages I am editing are suddenly the only thing on Wikipedia and you cant keep you hands off my recent submissions to immediately after I hit submit. It is pretty frustrating. WP is a big place. Please find something else to do and get away from me and the edits I make already! Johnvr4 (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

You persist in trying to maintain, *exactly* *as* *you* *have* *drafted* *it*, huge slabs of horribly drafted text which present the issues clearly from one particular viewpoint. There are significant amounts of irrelevant issues (eg Bockscar's landing in an article about post-World War II weapons storage) in there. These type of issues got your magnum opus deleted entirely previously. So why are you surprised when people reorganise your material so it matches better with WP guidelines on content and layout? Clearly the consensus of the community has not changed much, or Hohum wouldn't have deleted large slabs of the nuclear weapons in the southern islands article.
Then you ignore our clearly written lines -- in each editing box -- that people may redraft your material at will, and persist in wanting to keep it exactly as is, in defiance of WP:OWN. Just read WP:OWN, please.
Now, I'm going to be here trying to redraft your material into a fashion that's vaguely in line with WP guidelines (which will involve a merge into J & Weapons of mass destruction, because both articles are well under our size limits, and the material fits better into our long-established series of 'X Country & WMD articles'), and I'm going to continue to be here. Anyone can edit any article they like. These are the guidelines under which you agreed to start editing, and haven't changed. If you're unhappy with the consensus of the community, you may seek other-admin action or discussion at a range of sites - there's already a quick post at WT:MILHIST about it. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Re your B-52 crash article, you should be aware of the guidelines at WP:AIRCRASH. Military aircraft accidents have generally been deemed not notable. Personally I think it's probably worth inclusion as a separate accident, given the huge explosion. It needs to be linked into the B-52 article, the Kadena article, and the relevant wing and squadron articles. You just need to be aware that somebody else may come along in time and think it's not notable. Take a look at WP:AIRCRASH anyway, and if you want further input, best place to ask is WT:AVIATION. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
You've missed my intent. I am not try to keep it as I wrote it just because that's how I prefer it (I'm not even that good of a writer). You stated repeatedly that you still don't understand x, y, or Z and I am going to undo any misguided edits you make to the material that are based on those misunderstandings. Your faulty understanding is being challenged and will continue to be challenged as long as it persists.
Show me where you discussed a move after you first proposed it. I would also advise you to understand what the legal definitions of WMD are and exactly what you are getting into (with herbicides and precursors as WMDs). Maybe the entire sandbox draft should get dumped in there...
It's a waste of time to even try to debate because your understanding of the subject is way off. I have explained in edits, edit summaries, this talk page, and on the talk page of the entry that your assertions are faulty.
For example: that "in an article about post-World War II weapons"...WWII A-bombs don't count and any mention of them (or fighting on Okinawa in the decision to use them) should be removed.
Just look at the title of the entry that says U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands and then and tell me what kind of common sense you are using to determine the Atomic bombs on Tinian are not US nuclear weapons in Japanese islands. it is beyond comprehension and I see no point in wasting keystrokes engaging you on that ridiculous viewpoint about the WWII parts of that entry being pushed any longer. I'll be waiting for some type of intelligent response... I opened a talk page section to discuss those concerns and you keep inserting edits based on your own viewpoints without addressing any of the concerns about them I've raised on the article talk page.
And you inserted serious falsehoods into the main space article that both of the attacks were launched from Okinawa. I make mistakes all the time but I still cannot grasp that any kind of experienced military history editor that has the slightest understanding of this material would ever type that - even by accident - and it makes your arguments and each of your repeated edits to remove material that's includes the WWII part very highly suspect.
On the B-52 Crash at Kadena, it is linked to those things already (in categories--if I understand your concern but perhaps I do not) and is notable using WPs already established standards of notability -not so much for the size of the explosion, which was enormous, but for the danger it put the weapons depot in, protests, impact on reversion, removal of B-52s, nukes and chemical weapons... this was my first crash article and I'll review the policy(s). Johnvr4 (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Of course, I disagree: I think I do understand. But, for example, you write an article all of which is about post-1945 except three sentences in the lead, and I interpret that to be about post-1945 only. We have rulings about the lead reflecting the article. I've already said how I believe most of what you have left under Red Hat actually belongs under 112 (or possibly under Project Deseret), and I've laid out my reasons, none of which are invalidated by further things you've said, or by the Chemical Weapons Movement History Compilation, as far as I've scanned it so far. But never mind -- I will cut straight to the chase. Would you prefer I start a WP:MFD (miscellany for deletion) discussion on your preferred, but disputed, version of the article in your sandbox, in line with WP:FAKEARTICLE, not in six months as I had intended to propose, but now? Then we'll get this cleared up sooner rather than later. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the reasons will soon be fairly obvious why what you have proposed re:Project 112 won't work at all. There is not really a lot of mention of Red Hat within PJ112 but you will figure that out on your own...eventually. I had tried to do that that under Operation Red Hat and no editors to date have ever understood why that was done.
Putting this all together under "Red Hat" is going to be the only common sense and policy grounded solution.
Cutting straight to the chase, I am looking at primary Jan 71 DOD sources with the nomenclature, "Subject: Red Hat," "Red Hat Facilities," "This is a Red Hat Message," "(USARPAC) OPLAN RED HAT," etc.; ...not Operation Red Hat.
Below are what I feel to be critical sources to understand the various seemingly unrelated subjects presented in the sandbox draft:
• Chemical Weapons Movement History (with additional focus on search terms Red Hat, YBA, YBB, YBF, OKC).
• Red Hat Wall St. Journal article of 18 July 1969. Also review the top 3 sources that are currently in the revived article:
• NARA. Operation Red Hat: Men and a mission (1971)
• Mitchell, Jon (2013-07-27). "Exclusive: Red Hat's lethal Okinawa smokescreen". The Japan Times Online. ISSN 0447-5763. Retrieved 2016-12-28.
• Mitchell, Jon, "'Were we marines used as guinea pigs on Okinawa?'," Japan Times, 4 December 2012, p. 14
These are not all of the relevant sources but when you can say you read these and understand how they present the subject, come back with the WP:MFD sugg. At that point, it should be plainly obvious one which of us presents the fake (hoax) version but at least you should be in reasonable a position to make a valid argument that is consistent with our sources. If this is an example of how you are going to review sources, then we are likely in for a lot of conflict.
Right now, the MFD suggestion is interpreted by this editor simply as your latest threat to/ attempt to separate me from the sandbox draft material I wrote apparently so you can take some type of credit for years of research the sources-ID. I am at a loss to understand your motivations while assuming good faith. There is still plenty of other wikipedia out there to improve...
I am not a know-it-all by any stretch of imagination but this is a complicated subject that editors probably need to understand if they are going to persistently battle over material with another editor who sort of does understand it. I learned all about the subject it by writing the draft and intend to see this through. Taking advantage of that understanding would be the logical and wise solution. I've tried and failed to explain it--and especially to you. When I think the material is ready I will move it out and we can make sure it complies with all editor concerns. We need to be able to understand how those sources present this subject or we are going to have another content dispute (again).
From your last edit, I don't think we are there yet. So please let me know the moment that we are. Johnvr4 (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

## Help

How do you put the icons for your userrights into the upper right hand corner of your userpage? --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I think Template:Top icon is what you're looking for? They have a few different settings there. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

## WP:RFPP

Reduce to semi-protection: Only about 600 links, not exactly a high risk template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.97.173 (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

## Potential bureaucrat

I think you should request a nomination to become a bureaucrat. You would do quite well in the role. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

## Discussion at Talk:Wind-powered vehicle

Hi Mark, you may wish to add to the discussion at Talk:Wind-powered vehicle#Scope—Land only?. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 14:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

## Boss 2(2013 Bengali film) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Boss 2(2013 Bengali film). Since you had some involvement with the Boss 2(2013 Bengali film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Worldbruce (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free image File:Clarence 13X standing.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Clarence 13X standing.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

## William Henry Bury scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the William Henry Bury article has been scheduled as today's featured article for May 18, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. Note that as per the discussion on the TFAR page, I have not deemed it appropriate to run it on his birthday. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 18, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. I have notified the other main editors. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

## Deletion "Baylis and Harding"

Hello Mark I hope you are well,

Over 3 years ago you deleted Baylis and Harding - a UK company who has grown in size and can be found in 1 in 2 households in the UK now and can be found talked about in a number of UK newspapers:

They also have over 57,000 followers on Facebook, compared with the National Television Awards which only has 43,000, but has a Wiki page.

As this company has grown in size and notability, I would like to request for the deletion to be reversed allowing the company to appear on Wikipedia.

I look forward to hearing back from you!

OverByDan (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

## Deletion "Atlanta Wrestling Entertainment"

On December 16, 2015, you deleted Atlanta Wrestling Entertainment - an active independent wrestling promotion in the state of Georgia.

They have a website:

They have a very active presence on Facebook that is frequently updated:

And, their shows are documented and recorded on the Georgia Wrestling History website, which counters the argument that there is no in-depth coverage: Review for most recent show (May 1st):

They have 5,275 followers on Facebook and are continuing to grow. They even have an active online fanbase, with 450 active members of a Fans of AWE fan group.

The company's owner, Josh Von Wheeler, and I want to work on actively updating an Atlanta Wrestling Entertainment Wikipedia page, to post about the history of the promotion and its ongoing story line, so that new fans will have an easily accessible way to catch up on what the company has accomplished and what has been going on with the wrestling and story for each season. Having a manageable Wikipedia page will help in making the promotion more viable to prospective fans.

I would like to ask for the page to be reinstated or to have permission to begin working on a new page. Atlanta Wrestling Entertainment (AWE) is doing more, actively, than a number of wrestling promotions that actually have Wiki pages (like Family Wrestling Entertainment) and are now defunct business (FWE, by its own page's admission, closed up show in 2015).

AWE is wrapping up their third season this summer, and has been frequenting historic venues in downtown Atlanta, a metropolitan city, whereas some of the other promotions that have pages are in rural areas.

Blazerushmore (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

## Deletion ULMA Construction

In 14 December 2015 the Wikipedia entry for ULMA Construction was deleted because "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline"

I have written again ULMA Construction Wikipedia entry with reliable sources. Which is the best option to go ahead? To publish it again with the new sources? Could I show it to you so you can tell me if it's an adecuate wiki entry?

Thank you very much Ikerm (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline

## Proposed deletion of Tourism in Somaliland

Hello, Mark Arsten. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Tourism in Somaliland, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Diako «  Talk » 17:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

## Deletion of "Ninja (build system)"

Hi Mark, You deleted Ninja (build system) back in Aug 2013. Since then the software has gained a lot of notability. It is now shipped with Ubuntu 16.04 with Long-Term Support. Also, CMake a notable build process manager supports Ninja. Its GitHub page shows 132 contributors. (As a reference, consider that Tahoe-LAFS has 44 contributors.) Regards, Cristiklein (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

## Sunday July 16: New England Wiknic @ Cambridge, MA

Sunday July 16, 1-5pm: New England Wiknic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" at John F. Kennedy Park, near Harvard Square, Cambridge, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.

1–5pm - come by any time!
Look for us by the Wikipedia / Wikimedia banner!

We hope to see you there! --Phoebe (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

## Deletion of Sydney Wayser

Hi Mark,

I'm wondering why you deleted the page for Sydney Wayser. Please let me know how we can reverse the deletion. This is coming from her management team that can verify the information correct.

Thank you in advance.SydneyWayser (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

That was almost two years ago, and it was deleted by community consensus after discussion. In any event, Mark hasn't been editing Wikipedia for over six months.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Bbb23, just for your info, I've replied to the query above on her talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Wishing Mark Arsten a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! 13:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Singing congratulations! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

## Question on an old AFD

Hi, I have question on an AFD you closed a couple of years ago. You correctly closed this as delete in March 2013. However, the article that should have been deleted per the AFD still exists with a history dating back to 2012. So what happened? Why wasn't it deleted?Tvx1 00:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Mark has not edited since January, so he may not see this. The article that went through AFD and then DRV is still deleted. The version that is in the mainspace was created in a sandbox, User:Praline97/sandbox, in 2012 13 hours before the same editor created the mainspace article. The current article sat in the sandbox until Buffbills7701 moved it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Federer–Murray rivalry as the preferred location for AFC submissions. Enterprisey then accepted the AFC submission a couple of weeks later and moved it to the mainspace. At this point the two are similar but is it "substantially identical to the deleted version" I don't think so. If you think it should be deleted again AFD is probably the way to go. ~ GB fan 10:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation.Tvx1 18:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

## MfD debate

At Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Johnvr4/Operation_Red_Hat I have nominated Johnvr4's stale userpage for deletion. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

## Semi-protection of Jacoby Ellsbury

You protected Jacoby Ellsbury a few years back, due to vandalism from a trade rumor. Is there any need for it to still be protected? Boardg (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

## ArbCom 2017 election voter message

 Hello, Mark Arsten. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

## Redition of "Adrián Sosa Nuez" article? Now is possible Encyclopedical content?

Hello,

Today there are some heavy reasons to include it at english wikipedia version. Please, take a look to the spanish version.

Regards

## FYI

Just a heads up that I unsalted the redirect at List of awards and nominations received by Regine Velasquez per this request. Just an FYI since you closed the applied the original protection. If you have any objections, feel free to resalt. I know you haven't been active in a while, but just a note as a courtesy in case you become active again. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

No objection, thanks for the note though. Mark Arsten (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

## Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

## Jimmy Kimmel

You added pending review to the Kimmel BLP but it appears we have an active IP vandalizing the article so could you change that to semi-protect for a while? Atsme📞📧 03:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

## Clifton Hill Community Music Centre deletion -> draft?

Hi, is there a way the Clifton Hill Music Community Centre could be reinstated, even as a draft page (my draft area is ok). I can add/find more references for it. I added a note on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Clifton_Hill_Community_Music_Centre and they mentioned to try contact you about it. This collective/site was an important part of Melbourne and Australian post punk, experimental and electronic music history. It's mentioned in books and web page histories of this period. I didn't notice it had been deleted until I tried to link it from other artist pages. thanks Kathodonnell (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

## Deletion review for Smoky Mountain Opry

User:Yoshiman6464 has asked for a deletion review of Smoky Mountain Opry. 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. —Cryptic 05:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

## IFunny

In 2013, you deleted and protected the Wikipedia page for the app iFunny. I was wondering why you did this, and if you’d be willing to allow the current draft (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:IFunny) to be moved into the mainspace. I’ve worked somewhat to expand it and give the one more reason to exist. I feel that if Gab, with a tenth of the users of iFunny, has its own page, IFunny should have one. It might need to be protected from vandalism but it should still exist. JedBartlet1776 (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

## Nextdoor

Hi,

You left a Talk comment about the article for Nextdoor (a long time ago!) I've written a an in-depth proposal describing my redraft of the article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nextdoor#Request_for_Review

Would you mind weighing in to the discussion?

Thanks,

BC1278 (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

## Dolores Cannon

Please restore article about Dolores Cannon. This deletion was nothing else but pure vandalism. The author is very popular and *must* be represented on Wikipedia. Deletion is not her loss - it's loss for Wikipedia, community and the whole Internet. The article must be restored. Zyavrik (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

## REFUND

Could you please undelete Schuldt, to User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Schuldt with a {{userfiedpage}}`? I've already "rescued" User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Tim Schuldt, and can merge in anything salvageable from the band article. Tim Schuldt is definitely notable, and has been cranking out industrial and techno-industrial stuff since the early 1990s, before he started doing trance stuff. The attempts to write about him here so far have been by EDM-focused editors who don't know about his earlier work and collaborations. Working on it's a low priority, but I'll probably get to it eventually. Need to find the box with my old backissues of Industrial Nation, etc. 13:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

## Kate Moss

The link in the references section # 33 Rimmel Advert is incorrect and goes to some security company advertising CCTV when the correct link should be the TV Ad which is at https://youtube.com/watch?v=jeZc6hjW22c I’ve tried to edit but although it eventually said it had saved, it’s still showing the wrong link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.98.75 (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

## T-Rex (RC helicopter) undeletion request

Hi Mark,

I'm surprised by the debate comments on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/T-Rex_(RC_helicopter) and would like to check it and try to add sources to submit it. Could you restore it on my User:The RedBurn/sandbox/T-Rex (RC helicopter) page or on Draft:T-Rex (RC helicopter)? The RedBurn (ϕ) 12:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

## Deletion review for T-Rex (RC helicopter)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of T-Rex (RC helicopter). 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. The RedBurn (ϕ) 17:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

## ArbCom 2018 election voter message

 Hello, Mark Arsten. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)