User talk:Mark Arsten

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

Berkeley Hall School

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

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

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

Hi Mark, I have gathered a list of the evidence required:

• Oldest coed private school in Los Angeles – Founded 1911
• Centennial celebration covered by Patch.com (links on deleted article)
• Centennial celebration attended by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
• Proclamation awarded by the City of Los Angeles on the 100th Anniversary of BHS (Link to document)
• Accredited by the California Association of Independent Schools (Link to BHS page on California Association of Independent Schools)
• Accredited by the National Association of Independent Schools
• Accredited by the Western Association of Schools & Colleges
• Accredited by the Western Association of Schools & Colleges
• Notably high diversity for a Los Angeles independent school – 41% by NAIS (National Association of Independent Schools) standards
• Notable alumni: Val Kilmer
• BHS Art teacher Tracy Cheney just named Outstanding Elementary Visual Art Educator for 2013 by the California Art Education Association.

--Azakeri (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but can you offer evidence that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources? Think newspapers, books, magazines etc. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Appy Pie Deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion review for Appy Pie

I have asked for a deletion review of Appy Pie. 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. Cxs107 (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Mark looks like my Article has been restored for discussion, please advise me of how I can replace my old article with the one in I re-drafted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cxs107/sandbox/Appy_Pie which I think meets all the guidelines of WP.

I don't think there's anything you need to do at present, but you might ask at DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Time for a block

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

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

Request

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

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

A cookie!

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

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

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

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

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

Another Request

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Sock at work

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

A sockpuppet

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

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

Not sure what happened, but 187.109.228.4 is back and recking havoc, adding factuly inccorect content, overlinking and removing references and content without giving a reason. STATic message me! 15:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverted my edit

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

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

Mega Dereio

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

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

The annoying IP from ANI

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

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Tichester

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this Hounding?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Harrasment ? I demand a understandable answer.

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

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

It seems some one is angry on you

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

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

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

2013 Owner

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

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

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

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

AfD comments

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

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

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

Sorry

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

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

Removal of reliably sourced content

User:Haldraper has three times removed reliably sourced content.

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

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

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

Perri Reid

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

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

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

Result you found was against general consensus...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Challenge Deletion of Article: Peter Pakeman

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

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

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

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

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

Most of these references were already present in the article. The reference to him playing with the North York Rockets was called in question, and removed (see Note #1).Xave2000 (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark (and Xave) - Pakeman never played in a fully professional league so he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. He also appears to fail WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 09:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The Canadian Soccer League (CSL) is a fully professional soccer league, and it is listed under Canada (incl. North York Rockets). I just checked it and the CSL exists, so I'm not sure why this is being raised as an issue. You can check for yourself.Xave2000 (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

One of the criteria for NFOOTBALL (soccer) is: "2. Players who have played... in a fully professional league". As previously mentioned, the reference to him playing with the North York Rockets was called in question, and removed (see Note #1).Xave2000 (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful to know why a CSL publication would not be viewed as a reliable and independent source. I would also ask for some feedback on his notability as an Amateur (College Athlete)-- here, again, it would be helpful to know why one or more of the many references provided would not be viewed as reliable and independent. Please note that I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm simply trying to understand. Thank you.Xave2000 (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

So where is the source that he played in the CSL? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The reference was contained in the article. If you are able to access the article and the reference, you might want to search and find North York Rockets in Wikipedia, scroll to "References". As I understand it, Ref #1 was the main (static) publication for the team, and Ref #2 was an insert that served the purpose of providing soccer fans with up-to-date information about the team. Ref. #2 is the August 1987 insert, where you will find reference to the subject. As previously noted (see above for Note #1), this reference was called into question re: permissions and was deleted. Further, the subject of the article assures me that he is confident he can obtain the appropriate permission for the recently deleted reference that confirms he played with the North York Rockets. I am not in possession of Ref #2, so if you are able to access it, then great. Otherwise, I will have to ask the subject to get a copy to you.Xave2000 (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked the deleted revisions of article but couldn't find a full text of the reference. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Europium

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

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

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

Natalee Holloway Talk/FAR

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of aircraft carriers in service

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

afd closings

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

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

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

?

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

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

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

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

Would you please look at this archival

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

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

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

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

Request page unprotection

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Jenna von Oÿ

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

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

KITTEH

I gives yuh kitteh!

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

Deletion Review: Carol Kicinski

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm, the only sources there that look good for notability purposes are the two book reviews. Can you find more like them? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I also found this one: http://www.northjersey.com/food_dining/051811_In_Your_Kitchen_Salted_Peanut_Caramel_Brownies.html
What about the different food company websites like Wholesome Sweeteners? Those show that she does recipe development. And the Daytime shows can't be used either? It's sometimes difficult to find tons of sources out there because gluten-free is still a pretty new niche market and there are only so many sources out there. She has been published in newspapers and magazines, is on TV and she is also the editor-in-chief of a national magazine, I can prove all those things with the sources I provided on the article and that I just listed above, but I understand they might not be considered independent of her but again that's sort of difficult as it's still a growing market. I could show you a physical copy of the magazine or the online edition to show she is the editor-in-chief, but that is from her company's site so that might not be approved either. I also have some physical sources (books, magazines, etc.) that might not be available online, is there a way to show those? --M.Renae (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few more I have:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/dining/gluten-free-dishes-become-a-lot-more-tempting.html?_r=0
http://eastvillage.thelocal.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/a-guide-to-gluten-free-eating/
http://dunedin.patch.com/groups/around-town/p/dunedin-womans-cookbook-features-gluten-free-desserts
— Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Renae (talk • contribs) 19:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I suggest you file a request for undeletion at WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent socking

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

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

Well, I was under the impression that because PS had been CUed before, that the IP info stays on file. Is that not correct? As far as behavior, well Mrwallace05 has been careful not to say too much in talk or in edit summaries, but they have 20 pages in common with PS and Y45ed has 24 pages in common. I am pretty certain that either this is yet another PS sock, or the sock master wants it to look like it is. Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like it may be worth filing an SPI then. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If PS has an IP on file from his last CU, can that be compared to the recent CU on Mrwallace05? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

We're getting "above my pay grade" at this point... I don't know too many technical details about how the checkuser software works. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Right on, I've asked the Check User clerk the same question. Thanks again for your help. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No prob. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Join WikiProject Microsoft!

Why don't you join WikiProject Microsoft?

It seems that you have been editing Microsoft-related articles, so why don't you consider joining WikiProject Microsoft, not to be confused with WikiProject Microsoft Windows. WikiProject Microsoft is a group of editors who are willing to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Microsoft, its technologies, Web-based sites and applications, its important people, and share interests regarding Microsoft. This WikiProject is in the process of being revived and is welcoming any and all editors who are willing to help out with the process. Add your name to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft/Participants and/or add the userbox {{User WikiProject Microsoft}}. Thanks! ~~~~

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bob3jh Inquiry

Hey, we haven't got a chance to meet but I was wondering what happened to the SPI since it got closed and archived rather quickly. Thanks! Baseball Watcher 23:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I closed it because it did not appear likely that one person was controlling both accounts. Since they separately wrote articles about different students at the same school almost simultaneously, it seems much more likely to me that they're friends rather than one person controlling both accounts. If they keep editing and get involved on the same subject, we should reevaluate though. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I just wish I had a chance to put forth more of an explanation before it was closed Baseball Watcher 03:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, feel free to explain more if you like. Or let me know if anything else turns up. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Aaliyah promo.jpg

Hey Mark, This file has not been deleted yet and it has been more than seven days. 63.92.231.105 (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Might want to ask someone else, I don't do much disputed non-free work. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry!

I was using huggle app to warn to revert the ips unconstructive edits and it said your warning was less issued then seconds agof. so I decided to manually warn the Ip not knowing I accidently warned you. Dont worry I undid it. Dreth 00:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I figured that's what it was :) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Puloma

My friend Nvvchar wanted to move User:Nvvchar/sandbox/Puloma to Puloma, but inadvertently created Wikipedia:Puloma and User:Puloma. Can you please delete the latter two and merge the history for Puloma. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I got it... let me know if something's not right. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC

Thanks for the prompt response.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Miss_Universe_2014*

You salted Miss Universe 2014*, I think because a page was being repeatedly recreated at that title. Could you unsalt it so I can redirect it to Miss Universe 2014 (or redirect it yourself if you'd prefer), it got 3,810 views on Sunday. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I misread the statistics, it got 3,810 views last week, not on Sunday. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

User ip 111.243.34.140

Hi, please notice , this User ip 111.243.34.140 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/111.243.34.140 , Vandalism a lot of article, please stop it , thank you Buglerazedg21dnlole (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, in most cases accounts should be given a warning before they're blocked. Is there a good reason to block without warning here? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The IP isn't vandalizing, by the way. Just very, very strong POV-pushing on the Republic of China/Taiwan issue amongst a fair few pages. Might be an IP-sock of someone, as all they seem to do is reverting other people's edits. Which, in combination with a highly sensitive subject and the strong POV pushing, raises some flags for me. Could be wrong, of course, as I haven't dug deep enough to say whether they likely are or not, though, just enough to see it's a possibility. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Johnstown

Mark, explain how my edits on Johnstown, Navan were nonconstructive. I don't see what was wrong with them. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.228.18 (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you referred to a team as "GAAY", so I thought you were insulting them. Is this actually a gay team? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for all of the work you do on Wikipedia! Clarkcj12 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Crossdressing

Hi mark can you please explain how my crossdressing edit was disruptive I was. Just making a statement saying that was a fetish and used for fun by males ? Nikigoyal (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't revert that edit, actually. It was automatically reverted by a bot here. The bot occasionally makes mistakes, so you can restore your text if you like. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

DANCING IN THE MOON LIGHT EVERYBODY'S FEELING WARM AND BRIGHT IT'S SUCH A FINE AN NATURAL SIGHT EVERYBODY'S DANCING IN THE MOONLIGHT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.228.18 (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Request to Check Article

I would like to request you look at this articles history page College of Engineering and Management, Kolaghat. If you look at it there are two accounts there. User:Jecob8888 and User:Jecob88888 I am not sure but would that be counted as edit warring, or what because they have similar usernames and by doing that they prevent other people from editing the article. As what there auto undoing is that it keeps blanking a section and back. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Odd... I've protected it for now, could you leave a note on their talk pages explaining the situation to them? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do that. But what kind of message should it be? Edit warring? --Clarkcj12 (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Edit warring/BRD/Talk page, and maybe ask why the usernames are almost the same. If you don't mind. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that User:Jecob8888 just made an edit to User:Jecob88888 userpage which you may want to take a look at? --Clarkcj12 (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Your RfPP pings

Hi there. I've just logged back in and seen that you pinged me yesterday. My view would be that we shouldn't be changing semi to TPE/full en masse, but that individual cases is fine if it fits whatever that admin's view of WP:HRT is. I think that's the consensus on the talk page as well. Personally, I look for at least 1000 transclusions, so I'd personally protect those two templates as they're both well over that. The templates were Template:Wikiproject Punk music/class and Template:IMDb episode, to save you having to look them up, if you're planning on changing them. :) GedUK  12:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Miss.Dina Rae. But the question of overlap is still open: just before you closed it, User:Miss.Dina Rae marked her user page "Account disabled" [8], whatever that means. User:H.Mandem has been blocked as a sock of Miss.Dina Rae, but User:MariaHickment13 was blocked by another admin as a sock of User:MariaJaydHicky. User:Miss.Dina Rae, the subject of the SPI, hasn't been blocked yet. Are they all socks of MariaJaydHicky? Should the two SPIs be merged? Ruby Murray 20:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I dropped the ball there... I thought MDR was already indeffed. Fixed now. As to whether they're all socks of another named user, I can't answer. You'd have to ask the checkuser about that, all I'm going off of is what she posted on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Miss.Dina Rae. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Clash of Clans

This article has so many reverts, including counting "accepted" revisions that reverted bad edits. --George Ho (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you bring this up with the admin who applied pending changes to the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Is the snow fall heavy enough?

Please check out this AFD[9]....William 23:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little hesitant since someone was giving me a hard time over the weekend about early closures. This does look like it's heading for a clear SNOW though. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Vince is a Nice_guy

It's important for everyone to know that Vince Ness is a nice guy. The picture helps show that he is nice, because he's on the entry for "Nice guy." How else will everybody know he's nice? Well, I guess they could follow him on Twitter and learn how nice he is, but that seems unnecessary. We should just make sure to show everyone that he's nice right on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skibum8713 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this is Vince. I am nice. I am a nice guy. I do not understand why I wouldn't be the photo for this page. I am very nice. Please correct this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.37.58 (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Very funny :) Mark Arsten (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to think this is all a joke, Mark. It's not. Vince is a nice guy and the world needs to know that. Laugh it up wherever you want to do so but Vince's niceness is no laughing matter. Please try to be more respectful with regards to the Nice Guy picture in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.174.242 (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Vince again. I am not laughing. I am nice and it is mean to laugh. What is funny here? Who is the joke on? You are confusing me, Mr. Arsten. Please, let's get back to the topic at hand- returning my picture to its rightful place on the Nice Guy Entry. I have had enough jokes for one day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.37.58 (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but per our verifiability policy we need a reliable source to confirm that Vince is, in fact, a nice guy. He could be trying to trick us, no? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Good reads on Sockpuppets

In case you missed it, here are some articles on mass sockpuppets on Wikipedia that you could use in the future:

• A CBC news article (You could click listen)
• An Independent.co.uk article

Just wanted to share this with you since you contribute a lot on WP:SPI! ///EuroCarGT 03:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I'll give them a read/listen. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Unclear clarifications

About closing this (which I appreciate), would you mind actually posting this allegedly clarified definition? Even though I know (from seeing this problem over and over) what Bbb23 is thinking, I think that the definition is just about as clear as mud. Ideally, I'd like to have this clarification posted directly in WP:EW.

If the clarified definition is the expansive one, then we need to give fair warning to people who engage in collaborative editing that this can get them blocked. If it's the narrower one, in which an actual revert (as in going back to a pre-existing version of a sentence) is is required, then the clarified definition will help rein in admins who have an unusually expansive concept. But if we don't post the clarification, then we're just going to have more grievances from people who didn't happen to have guessed what this bit of jargon means.

And, having said all that, if, after this conversation, you find yourself unable to write out an accurate definition and get people to agree to it, then I guess we didn't actually clarify it at all. I'm really hoping that won't prove to be the case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's the technical definition of a revert ("undoing the effects of one or more edits") and then there's the commonly accepted definition of edit warring ("repeatedly overrid[ing] each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion"). I believe (and I think this is in line with how most of my fellow admins see things) that a number of technical reverts can take place without violating the spirit of the prohibition on edit warring. For example, it could happen while updating a page on a current event or copyediting a confusingly written article. If someone were to block an editor in one of these situations, I'd expect to see the block overturned. Edit warring blocks are only likely to gain consensus if the parties have chosen to pursue their disagreements by repeated reverting instead of discussion. I think this is how most admins go about deciding whether to block users. Does this clarify things? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

And then there's the one put forward by Bbb23 in that discussion, which is "Technically, any change, no matter how small to the text of an article, is a revert." I think that a reasonable person looking over that section is going to assume from your closing statement that you endorse his definition.

Which means that, if your user talk page were an article, I'd be "reverting" you by posting this comment. So perhaps you would like to join me at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Definition of "Revert" and "Undo", and we'll see if we can come up with a definition of "reverting" that is not a synonym for "editing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, adding new content to an article is not a revert, unless that content has previously been removed. Changing the existing text could be seen as a revert, but, like I said, unless it's part of a pattern of repeated changes in the face of some opposition it will likely not be seen as problematic. These things often involve judgment calls, and admins have to consider both the letter and the spirit of the rules. I'll take a look at that discussion you linked to when I have some spare time. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"Well, adding new content to an article is not a revert, unless that content has previously been removed." -- It was pointed out in the AN thread that if, for example, someone adds the word "not" to a controversial statement to negate the factual sense of the sentence that was just inserted, that could be construed as a technical revert even though it's the adding of new content that had never before been removed. "Prof. X is a scientist" to "Prof. X is not a scientist." is considered a revert for the purposes of WP:3RR. jps (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I was thinking in terms of expansions to the article when I said "new content". Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Cite doi/doc/format

You [Special:Log&type=protect&page=Template:Cite_doi/doc/format here] protected a /doc text. Was that intentional? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It might have been an instance of getting tabs confused, actually. I don't recall exactly. I've unprotected it though now. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Christ article vandal

Hi Mark,

I saw that you reverted some of their edits (and I got the rest) but there are a few pages they've vandalised again. So another semi may be required:

• Jesus in Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Knowledge of Christ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Osiris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Esoteric Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Son of God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Christian mysticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Esoteric Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

And these are the IPs this time:

• 75.51.164.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 75.51.164.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 75.51.164.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 75.51.165.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) this one is within the range, but it's editing in a different area so it may very well be a different person
• 75.51.168.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 75.51.168.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Do you think it's worth filing an SPI so we have them on a central record somewhere? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs)

Hmm, I would agree with semi-protection and maybe a range block here. Do you think I'm WP:INVOLVED? I reverted him a bunch of times tonight. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No not at all involved, reverting something which has previously been decided is disruptive/vandalism on ANI (something which you only contributed to by adding another block at the end) and for which the user has previously been blocked, rangeblocked and pages protected. Same as reverting edits from an account/IP, blocking it for 31 hours then following up with an indef/longer block if they continue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've protected those pages. I guess this qualifies as the block evasion exemption anyway. Do you recall what the previous rangeblock parameters were/who issued it? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Does 75.51.160.0/20 sound right? I've just blocked it for a month. I see now that User:Kww blocked 166.216.226.0/24 a couple weeks ago. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

And it appears that it's Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ararat arev that we're dealing with. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This is 75.51.160.0/20 and this is 166.216.226.0/24. So that shows that there is a bit of long term blocking going on with those ranges as well. And the blocking admin was User:JodyB.

Well the LTA case makes reverting and blocking much easier.

Out of interest how did you find the LTA link? Feel free to email if you've got BEANS concerns. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, phew, glad to see that I got the right range. I noticed the connection to AA based on edits that the 75.51* range was making to Hayk, actually. Apparently this user has quite the history on Armenian topics! Mark Arsten (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Haha, yep sure did. There you go, I dismissed it as a good edit and possibly a different person. Looks like the ruse worked on me. Lucky there was another pair of eyes watching what was going on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Larrypooplinson

Hello. I noticed your indef-block notification at User talk:Larryfuckstylinson regarding a vandalism-only account and username policy violation. May I ask you to also have a look at User talk:Larrypooplinson? It seems to have the same issues and to be a probable sock. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Fucking Machines thanks

Thanks for your copy editing help at Fucking Machines.

I've trimmed the lede a bit more in size, and I think it looks a bit better.

What do you think?

— Cirt (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that does look better. Very interesting article you have there! I'll try to read the rest and make some copyedits as I go. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! Yes, it's part of my theme of improving articles related to freedom of speech and censorship along the topic. Fuck (film) was recently promoted to WP:FA, and Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties to WP:GA. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, congrats on the promotions! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! The former was not easy to get promoted to FA, but a fun effort. The latter has had a copy edit and may be up for peer review some time soon. And then there's Go the Fuck to Sleep, which would be really neat to get to GA at some point. — Cirt (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ali Arshad Mir

well sarcastically, thank you mark for blocking me and my friend's account and blaming us for sock puppeting. i just wanted to ask you , from where the hell i would bring copyright image of a man , who died 5 years ago , if we all have one and only one portrait of that man and that i am posting it on wikipedia from my own facebook page , how the hell i would bring a copyright? and i you people dont have any proof of sock puppeting, google it , the only picture you will find is from my blog and facebook page now why i am supposed to bring copyright?? and if yes then how , please tell the procedure. i tried to pay some tribute to my uncle ,who was a noble renowned man, by making an article on wiki, o that more and more people come to know about his work, but i am really pissed off by the way wiki guys always delete the pic i upload on copyright basis. please help else i am bound to delete my article about Ali Arshad Mir from wiki. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davinci81191 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's deal with one thing at a time: when did I block you? It doesn't look like you've been blocked before. If you were blocked under a different account, please log into that account and post an unblock request. You will have to explain why it looked like you were using more than one account. Were you coordinating your editing with someone else? Also, do you have question about images? If you took a picture of someone you can release it under a free license, but if you did not take the picture you cannot. A picture that you did not take can be used if you have a fair use claim. See Wikipedia:Image use policy. You might also want to talk to User:Diannaa, who deleted one of the images as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

UP Protection

Mark, could you please protect my user page? Since, i won't be here for a while. Thanks. --    L o g  X   22:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

What a coincidence, I was just doing so when you left this message :) Hope to see you around soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mark! I will miss WP a lot! :( --    L o g  X   22:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverts!

You and I are zeroing in on the same pages in the recent changes page or something. Every time I see vandalism, it was just reverted by you! Keep it up!
Ben^Yes? 01:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's funny. Sorry about any edit conflicts :) Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Haven't had one yet… :)
Ben^Yes? 02:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

International Debutante Ball

Hello Mark Arsten, The same person is trying to add the same unknown family names yet again to the International Debutante Ball page without discussing. It is the same person again making different account and is unwilling to discuss this issue and just consistently reverting edits. It seems they have waited until the temporary protection of the page ran out and are trying to add these names again with multiple fake accounts without discussing. Please could you protect this page to prevent people trying to add unknown names to the lists (presumably their own names or names linked to them) without even discussing this and just repeating the 'undo' option. Please advise further. I personally see this as vandalism and would suggest that the accounts should be blocked.

Thanks --1wikideb1 (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've blocked the most recent account on username grounds. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, although I do fear that they will persist in trying to add these names to the page and they seem unwilling to discuss this issue. The latest account threatened to 'block' me if I did not let them add these names...--1wikideb1 (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)