User talk:Mark Arsten - Wikipedia

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

Hi, You deleted the english version of Rousseau Metal's wikipedia. We would like it to be back online and are wondering what can we do to do so. Thanks for your help! RousseauM (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you can provide evidence that it meets the WP:CORP guideline it may be possible to have it restored. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I updated the links from the french version if you wanna take a look (most of the links are available in french only unfortunately. I found these in english that can be of interest: http://www.ic.gc.ca/app/ccc/srch/nvgt.do?prtl=1&estblmntNo=104585450000&profile=cmpltPrfl&profileId=1801&app=sold&lang=eng http://www.hydroquebec.com/business/energy-efficiency/hydro-affaires/rousseau-metal/

Thanks RousseauM (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Are you with the company? If so, you should really read our conflict of interest policy: WP:COI. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. I just don't understand where exactly to bring up the fact that I think there should be a page for him, and try to get a new vote. I've read what you gave me but still don't understand. Can you please help?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is there something specific you're having trouble with? I'm not really sure how I can help you at this point other than linking to the page with the DRV instructions: Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand the instructions. I don't know where exactly to bring up the issue. Is there a specific talkpage?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, click here, and then paste the below code in, replacing my text in the "reason field" with your own reasoning. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

{{subst:drv2
|page=Sam Branson
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Branson
|reason=I think this guy should have an article.
}} ~~~~

Thanks. I did it.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Please see here ANI

Hi,

I was under the impression that discussions such as these [[1]] were to last seven days. Why is this one closed already? There are four comments that make sense, two in favor and three against.0Juan234 (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Usually they do run seven days, but it seemed like a strong consensus was developing, so I closed it early per the snowball rule. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is this a joke? I mean, score one for the tyranny of the majority - and it's an uninformed majority at that, as it's clear in the remarks that all but three or four editors read the references. Did you read them?0Juan234 (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, if you feel the discussion was wrongly closed, you're free to open a deletion review of it, see WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Did you read the references?0Juan234 (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, they seem fine to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

They "seem fine" and they "are fine" are different concepts. Which sources "seem" to establish notability and why? 0Juan234 (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think this was explained pretty well in the deletion discussion, and I see now reason to repeat what's already been said other than that I judged there to be a consensus that the references demonstrated notability by way of significant coverage. I believe I've explained my closure adequately, if you think it should be overturned you can open a discussion at DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, sorry, but this response only contributes to the ambiguity of what is going on with this Raymond page. The problem is, very little has been said about the page. Let's look at the "votes" one-by-one:

Blander Remove; says references weak
DavidinNJ Keep; notes which references establish notability; explains why.
Quadell Keep; does not mention sources
Colonell Henry - Keep; notes which references establish notability; explains why.
Green Cardamom - Keep; does not mention sources
NinjaRobotPirate - Keep; does not mention sources, says that his vote is influenced by dislike of my posts (not the sources)
Khazar - Keep; does not mention sources
Randykitty - keep; notes which references establish notability; explains why.
Juan - Remove; references weak

I'm sure you'll agree that an uninformed vote, or one from an editor who demonstrates that he/she does not understand notability, or one from an editor who states he/she is voting as such out of spite and not due to the actual topic, should be invalid.

So, we have:

Remove 2 (note references are weak)
Keep 3 (note which references establish notability; explains why)

Keep 2 (explain nothing; I requested clarification from both, none was provided)
Keep 1 (explains nothing and says he/she is voting "keep" due to spite)

I do not understand your last remark: "I think this was explained pretty well in the deletion discussion" - the question I asked twice was whether or not you (not the editors in the deletion discussion) had read the references, and, if so, I would like to know which you feel establish notability and why. Whether or not you had read the references was not covered in the deletion discussion. So, for a third time, have you read the references? If so, which do you feel establish notability and why? 0Juan234 (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've reviewed the sources and found them sufficient, but I'm not inclined to provide a detailed summary of my feelings about each reference (nor am I obligated to). I disagree with your characterization of several of the Keep !voters, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Mark, re your closing. Slow motion edit warring appears to continue, see diff. Do you think it is still stale? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, looks like it is continuing. Looks like User:Sepsis II has reverted about five times in five weeks. That could justify a block for slow motion edit warring, theoretically. I think WP:AE would be a better venue than WP:AN3 for this though. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is a clear case of battleground mentality by Agada, he continually complains about editors which stand up against Israeli extremists in hopes of getting these editors banned. Anyone who looks at the history of the article would see that most of the recent edits, and most of the recent accounts have been run by two banned editors, Soosim and NoCal100. The reverts are obviously covered under wp:3rrno as I have pointed out before to the willfully deaf Agada. I have made but a single revert of a non-banned editor; the edit was unexplained removal of sourced information, perhaps meatpuppetry. I would welcome a case at AE. Sepsis II (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Reverting banned editors is indeed an exception to our edit warring rules, so it's good to hear your explanation. Note that only one of the four editors you've reverted is currently blocked as a sock though. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Mark, do you think it might be beneficial to warn User:Sepsis II? It appears she/he believes there is nothing wrong in his actions, and this might not be the case. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think my comments here should be enough warning. Use your best judgment about going to AE though. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sure Mark, thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Looks like another respectable acount has joined this edit war on the enemy's side; User:Blue Duck T, I vow to win, no matter how many editors try to revert me!!!!! LOL. Can you please protect the page from all these socks? Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Don't say I never did anything for you ;) Mark Arsten (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

So you know how you never do anything for me right? Well apparently an admin finally came through for NoCal and put me under sanctions for battling his socks. If you could take part in the discussion at User talk:Magog the Ogre that would be great. Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

You did wonderfully! Thanks! Sepsis II (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for responding to my request for semi protection, I am wondering how would I re-add the bit about forum posts being deleted, as I suspect when I re-add it, it will go into edit war from that new user, Fkmd (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest opening a discussion on the article's talk page to try to build consensus on the issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, an admin said the Tumbleman (talk · contribs) account has been WP:COMPROMISED due to his story about giving away his password, and "can therefore not be unblocked". So is the issue whether or when he'll come back as a new account? Also, FYI I added more evidence to the SPI. vzaak (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit new to this, I suggest checking with Reaper. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

In case you didn't notice it, a sock walked into its own AE case, which is now closed with indef block. This active sock seems like a loose end in the affair. vzaak (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was notified by a fraternal organization, to which I belong, of Colonel Rheault's passing on Oct 16, 2013. COL Rheault was a member of the organization as well. I believe the obituary will come out Oct 17 or Oct 18 at which time somebody may perhaps take up the task of updating the page. - pk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.236.22.34 (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

—cyberpower _Offline^{Trick or Treat} 19:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey there Mark, my name is Evan and I work for the Syrian Emergency Task Force. Over the past few weeks, I had been editing and questioning the neutrality of an article on our organization, as some of the information is incorrect, while other facts are simply outdated. I edited the page in an effort to make it more accurate, but now the page has been locked. I understand we are a controversial political organization, and I understand the use of having a page that reflects our history accurately.

I would like to work with the creator of the page, user BlueSalix, to clarify a few points, and perhaps arrive at a consensus about what information should be included. For example, there is a reference to an employee who has not worked here for some time, and the fact that she used to work at a restaurant is listed in a sort of insulting manner. Perhaps some of us deserve to be mocked, but I would hope it would be limited to actual SETF employees!

In any event, I've tried to reach out to BlueSalix to hash some of this out, but I'm not sure I'm using the talk pages correctly, as I'm new to all this. If you could work with me on this I'd greatly appreciate it.

Evan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setfevan (talk • contribs) 19:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Evan, the first thing you should do is explain your concerns with the article here. There are a couple other things you can do, but that should be the first step. Let me know when you've done so. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mark. I'm writing to suggest you reconsider this remark: [2] which appears to condemn User:MilesMoney and can be expected to encourage various other editors to join in doing the same. It seems to be problematic to discuss editors' behavior without diffs or very specific evidence, because there are all too many editors waiting to pile on others whom they dislike. With respect to MM, although his tone is often curt and occasionally snide, he is one of the brightest and most knowledgeable editors in these contentious Mises/Libertarian articles. He has the virtue of being very direct and straightforward, so everyone knows where he stands on content and editorial issues. The same could be said of Steeletrap and a few others. Anyway, just a note to suggest you not light up next to the gasoline pump. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I didn't mean to condemn MM at all, I was just trying to say that site bans are a last resort and all options should be considered before that. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mark. No, I know that was not your intention. That's why I wrote it "appears to.." -- I just feared that certain others would take that mention of Miles as a dog whistle to pile on. Sure enough the lynchmob is forming. Anyway... Thanks for your efforts. SPECIFICO talk 21:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Are you going to ban 166.82.70.107 as well? Hauntingwhisper admitted to using that IP on my talk page and you have banned him for being a sock of Hemmebrand17.LM2000 (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

If that's the IP he's been editing from it will be blocked automatically by the software if he tries to edit with it logged out. See Wikipedia:Autoblock for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Some of us, with template-editor right, diagnose 2,000 subtemplates of Template:Convert. Recently, I have noted problems in:

• Template:Convert/3 - convert 3 amounts needs updates to match {Convert/4}.
• Template:Convert/°R, Template:Convert/°C, Template:Convert/K
• Template:Convert/kn, Template:Convert/mi, Template:Convert/km
• Template:Convert/kg, Template:Convert/oz, Template:Convert/g
• Template:Convert/cm, Template:Convert/mm, Template:Convert/nm
• Template:Convert/LonAonSon, Template:Convert/LonAonSoff - fix for acres
• Template:Convert/Dual/LoffAoffDxSoffT - improve range of temperatures, as people want minus signs (not hyphens) in {convert|-5|to|-9|F|C}} → −5 to −9 °F (−21 to −23 °C).

Those, so far, will keep me busy 2 weeks to discuss consensus to update them. Can wait a few days, reply here. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I think all of those are set to "protected template" now. There may still be issues with cascading protection on some of them though. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Still Template:Convert/LonAonSon is locked as a redirect; no hurry, while updating others. -Wikid77 19:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I admit it has been a while since I made some but probably WikiProject templates amongst others. I don't have any specific requests at the moment but I will inform you or any other admin on any I may want to edit in the future when needed. I will honestly just use this tool for maintenance and hopefully non-controversial edits (WikiGnoming is a large part of my edits). I hope this is okay and thank you. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 10:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi again Mark, if you remember we had a short discussion here, I edited the page once again and explained my reason in talk page but that user still just reverted my edit without giving a reason, and without communicating. all I gave from him was a personal attack in my talk page you unfortunately can't understand because it's in another language. what I have to in this case with ? Mohsen1248 (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, if personal attacks are involved, I suggest posting on WP:ANI about him. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's not in English, it's in Fingilish and no online translator can translate it. so I think it's useless to report it. OK I will edit the page once again even though this user won't change his behavior. Mohsen1248 (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mark once again, I did a little research on this user and apparently he has a long history of making troubles. I have no doubt he is the same person as User:پارسا آملی who had a history of making multiple accounts, he also had other multiple accounts still active like User:Asianleag and User:Elisaeslami and User:Elham.Esmaili and probably much more. This user previously had at least 19 accounts in Persian wikipedia and all of them are blocked now and still most of his edits are sourceless. he is still breaking copyright rules by repeatedly adding copyrighted pictures in wikicommons. I don't know if your talk page is a good place or not but I thought I had to report him somewhere. 11:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, it may be best to report them to WP:ANI. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

IP editors are putting in things that are either totally unreferenced or made up[3]....William 18:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand your edit today.

Are you confirming I am correct in this ongoing dispute with editor "NielN" who appears to have a bias regarding my editing content? I have read the prohibition discussion on Yahoo Contributor Network, but the section used as a reference for "Bill Green (hammer thrower)" is itself bibliographied with six actual book publication sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.6.126.88 (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I haven't taken a side in the dispute, actually. It's important that you avoid edit warring though, please discuss on the talk page instead. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have engaged in extensive talking with "NielN", who ignores my position and forces me to reverse his edits which are made with a clear bias. His opening comments in editing this page a few months ago cited "inflated' and "bloated" "grand" commentary, and he has not let up since using technicalities to quash my content. This current dispute is a classic example, he cites the Wikipedia prohibition on the use of Yahoo Contributor Network, while ignoring that the contributor lists six published sources for his listing of the Olympic Games results back to 1900. This is not editorial opinion, it is undisputed historical fact-these are simply the Track and Field results from the Olympic Games! Please advise me as to mechanism for redress of editor bias, and how to reverse the mechanics which make my editing now subject to "submission for approval" (I am fairly new to Wikipedia)

I have no bias against the subject but I am biased toward following one of our core guidelines, using reliable sources. These "technicalities" prevent editors with a conflict of interest such as yourself [4] from inserting unreferenced information like "Some of these were formal product endorsement agreements, unprecedented for American hammer throwers at the time." and misrepresenting what sources actually say (Talk:Bill_Green_(hammer_thrower)#Track_and_Field_appeal). As to the latest dispute, instead of edit warring, you need to make your case that you are indeed using a reliable source (not the source you're linking to merely lists reliable sources). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, in a situation where we have accurate text sourced to unreliable sources, we must remove it or add reliable sources in its place. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mark. Do you think you might have a minute to do some quick duck culling at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imtitanium? The most recently reported sock is at this very moment causing trouble again at Bigg Boss 7. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, sure, I took them both out. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Hopefully he'll lose interest soon. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, we can only hope! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mark! I want to upload a photo of Mr. McMahon in the article which I've written for him in my own language. But for uploading photos of a person I think I should have a license for it which I am not able to do it from where I am, I mean I can't get license from WWE! What can I do?Wikitranser (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

It all depends, did you personally take the picture you want to add? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, It's impossible for me. I looked for his photos in Commons but photos were not new and not like his now-old face! Is there any way except what you said? I can't upload it any way?Wikitranser (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

You could e-mail the WWE and ask them to release an image under a license that fits with our image use policy. Kind of a longshot, but some people have had it work in the past. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok! I'm going to take my chance! Could you please tell me which license I should exactly use for photo of a person if I'm successful getting the license from them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitranser (talk • contribs) 20:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd request {{cc-by-3.0}}, but I'm hardly an expert about image licenses. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much! Wikitranser (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for unblocking me! This means a lot! Do you need anything from me? I owe you one. Just name it and it will be done. I am dead serious. I am so grateful!  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 01:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, you must now revert 10 vandals and vote in five article for deletion discussions (just kidding!) Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Lol that's a nice one. Thanks again! By the way, I am kid but not that young.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 01:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

You really shouldn't tell people which grade you're in, if I may give some more advice. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ooops, Thanks!  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 02:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

• 99.113.251.19 (talk · contribs)
• 67.164.137.8 (talk · contribs)

Adding disruptive nonsense at User talk:Tumbleman. 67.164.137.8 highlights usernames before the text of their comment [5] in exactly the same manner as Tumbleman's habitual practice [6]. My guess is it's being done via proxy IP's. Should I file a new report at SPI, or reopen the old one? LuckyLouie (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think semi protecting their targets might be a better idea here. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just so you know, a decline only refers to the CU request, not to the SPI itself. If there's no CU being requested, you don't need to decline. --Rschen7754 03:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could you take another look at your close here? The nominators argument was basically that no coverage exists, which the three delete !votes simply agreed with, but then I provided evidence that coverage does exist, which prompted the nominator to apparently agree that it should be kept: "but a page in Vibe (magazine) is generally sufficient for me". Given that the delete arguments have been shown to be incorrect, I don't see how this can be closed as delete without explanation. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I guess I could let it run another week. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --Michig (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kleine–Levin syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spinal tap (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mark, and thanks for all your good work at AIV and NPP, its really appreciated. In recent months I have been doing a lot of reviewing and some vandal patrol. I have brought several IP accounts to AIV. At first most of my 'nominations' were acted upon by Admins but on my last three submissions no action was taken. I believe the last case was examined by you and your feedback was something like 'not enough recent vandalism'. I don't want to waste anyone's time so I thought to ask you what criteria I should use before bringing an IP (or account) to AIV. The criteria I've been using is that the IP had long history of vandalism and had received progressively more stern warnings including a final warning. But it seems there is more that I should be considering in the process. Can you advance my understanding a bit? Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for working on AIV, we really appreciate it. Basically, the criteria to use is: 1. they've been engaged in obvious vandalism, obvious enough that an admin patrolling AIV can tell it's vandalism just by looking at it. 2. They've been warned, usually we prefer them to have two warnings at minimum, if not more. We can relax that rule if it's really blatant obnoxious vandalism though. 3. Usually, we only block IPs if they have been recently active. How recent is usually a judgment call, but within a few hours is best. In cases of schools or shared IPs that put up a lot of vandalism over time, it may be worth blocking even if it's been a day or two since the last edit.

If you can show me your reports that were declined I can probably explain in more detail why they were declined. Or it could have been a mistake on my part, actually. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mark, thanks for your willingness to walk through this with me. Here are the ones I'd like feedback on:

• 10/13My report IP’s talk page
• 9/18 My report IP talk page This one is a school so maybe there’s special rules here, that I should know about.
• 9/4 My report IP talk page This is also a school account.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Looks like only the first one wasn't blocked. It doesn't seem like it engaged in any vandalism after getting your final warning on the 14th, so the report probably was declined as it appears the IP heeded the message. As to why the others were blocked, I guess you'd have to ask the blocking admins to be sure, but I suppose they probably felt it was very likely that disruption would increase since it was a school account. When there are only one recent problematic edit it's possible to block the IP, but a lot of admins, such as myself, are generally hesitant to do so. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I don't know why I forgot to actually block the sock puppet account. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, it's all right. Thank you for reverting it back. I may be an anonymous user here on Wikipedia, but I'm quite experienced in editing, I assure you. I defiantly know what I'm doing, so please don't worry.--70.171.81.8 (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Alright, sounds good. I would recommend you use edit summaries in the future though. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

All right. I don't edit a lot on Wikipedia, and I never expected that someone was going to revert my edits since the article was pretty much deserted.--70.171.81.8 (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The editor you just blocked may well be back. Figured you'd want to know. MilesMoney (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, ping me if he comes back again. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mark, This is Marcela I want take the opportunity to thank for the contribution by placing a Lock on Noelia's page, I wanted to ask you if possible to Place a Lock again at less for another 15 days, I was review the Article that many people we been working on, and definitely the user " lulusi9" Change and edit several articles, I did as much as could to restore general important information, but is needed please that you can Lock and protect the page again before the vandalize this. Many thanks, ~~Marcela~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicexpert1970 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't think further protection is warranted for now, let me know if disruption continues. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mark look like Julius Caesar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) does not semi-protection. It's only one edit, but since it's right after the protection was lifted it shows that semi is probably going to be the best option. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't know, we might give it some more time on PC and see how it goes. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Looks pretty clear now... Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Mark. I have noticed that you deleted the article about Suhani Pittie, a popular jewellery designer from India. I love her works. She is a definitely notable person according to Wikipedia:Notable_people, so I would like to write and publish a good article about her. Could you send me the deleted content of this page. I hope it will be useful for me. I want to check whether it is possible to rewrite it in compliance with the Wikipedia guideline. Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 13:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't deleted because of notability, but because a blocked or banned editor had created it in violation of their restriction. Since you'd like to work on it, I've restored the article for you. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mark, I was wondering if you could look into a situation involving the addition of Jeremy Renner at The Avengers: Age of Ultron. The page was recently locked due a edit war between Locke Cole (talk · contribs) and myself. Discussion seems to have result in a consensus not to add Renner at this time. However since the lock has been lifted, Cole has resumed trying to add the disputed content. If not WP:3RR, this seems like violation of WP:1RR due to previous warnings and edit war. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

WP:1RR is not a policy, one does not "violate" it. Having said that, since the page lock and the debate, I'm going to try and hold myself to a WP:1RR on that page (note that on one day I tried adding it three different ways to appease those opposing it, and all three times instead of collaboratively editing, you guys chose reverting instead). Since then I've decided to back off a bit and stick to the talk page, where you guys insist on telling me "it's over" and I've "lost". —Locke Cole • t • c 19:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

So far most uninvolved editors seem to be split on the issue when they read the arguments. The regulars on that article though are unanimously against the addition, but on grounds that violate WP:NOR. There are plenty of sources supporting the case that this actor is cast in this role, and so far there are zero sources saying he is not cast (with only a few sources, all gossip/rumor sources, saying the actor had a falling out with the studio). Some of the sources supporting the addition are already in use in the article for other cast members. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, while you technically didn't break 3RR I would suggest you stay further from the line in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I didn't revert at all, IMO. I tried to appease other editors by providing different ways of stating the situation, and each time I was reverted by a group of regulars at the page (in one edit I even tried moving it down into the production section, so it would be clear that it wasn't being reported by every source). How is simple reversion conducive to resolving the issue (which is all TriiipleThreat (talk · contribs) has brought to the table so far, besides stonewalling the issue on the talk page)? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, per this SPI it seems that User:Oh boy chicken again and User talk:Oh boy chicken again should have notices like User:KateGompert and User talk:KateGompert. (It may not be appropriate for a non-admin to do this.) vzaak (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've added them, but you were free to do so, actually. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed Tumbleman's pages also lack tags. I guess Template:sockpuppeteer is for User:Tumbleman, but I'm not sure what goes in the talk page -- or maybe nothing should go there? (Feel free to do this one too :) vzaak (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure the tags are needed because he wasn't indefed just for socking. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

1. See the sock puppetry between anon & Zahran80 - are you supporting it? 2. Read WP:MOSDAB and explain how the proposed edits comply with it? I will unprotect it, if you request, but if edits are made such as were before that are not compliant with WP:MOSDAB, I will hold you responsible for them; OK?? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I see you've gone ahead and taken the resposibility youself; good luck. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Indefinite full protection was, and still is, grossly inappropriate there, and I strongly suggest you don't protect pages like that in the future. We aren't supposed to protect articles to keep unhelpful edits from ever being made unless there is a history of problems. I'm only seeing a five IP edits this year before your protection, and while they may have violated the MOS, they weren't vandalism either. So even semi-protection seems like a bit of a stretch given that the dab page is rarely edited and hasn't been vandalized recently. Nor do I see any evidence of sockpuppetry, but if you know of any, please do file a report at WP:SPI. As to accusing me of supporting sockpuppetry and threatening to hold me responsible, I suggest you adjust your attitude. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Does this page USB Data Link Cable API meet criteria for speedy deletion or one of the things at WP:ISNOT? I'm confused. ///EuroCarGT 01:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, it definitely should be deleted, but I'm not sure that it falls under any of the CSD criteria. There's a chance someone would delete it under G11, but I think PRODing would be the way to do it "by the book". Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Another user already placed a PROD tag, so it's fine now. Thanks! ///EuroCarGT 01:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ahh, it was deleted as copyvio. That's funny, because I plugged a line into google and didn't show any other hits. Guess I need to sharpen my skills there. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi.

You closed an RfD on the above article. There was a single vote, to merge. The article is rather large, The character appears in a large number of episodes across various different shows. Merging it while retaining mention of these shows would be quite awkward, and in truth merit separating out again. Please reconsider the closure and repost. I suggest these deletion/merger discussions would garner a lot more attention had there been a notice at the main articles. I certainly would have known of this andcommented a lot sooner.

Thanksμηδείς (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, an article being closed as merge doesn't mean the whole article has to be merged. Whoever is maintaining the merge target still gets to exercise editorial judgment. So selective/limited merges are fine. Or I could re-open the Afd so you can comment there, I suppose. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

My assumption is reopening the AfD without wider notification will end up as my keep versus the existing merge. Given the especial prominence of this monster in various different TV shows over quite a period of time I think a merger is a mistake, since that will associate it with only one show. I would like this re-opened, but I think all the shows in which the creature appears should be templated for the discussion, and I do not know how to do that. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I've re-opened it and relisted it so it will run another week. If you like, you can post messages about the Afd on relevant talk pages, as long as your message is neutrally worded. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Is there a way actually to template the target page of a merger? I.e., not the talk, but the article itself? μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, {{Merge from}} exists for that reason, but it's usually just used in merge discussions, not Afds. You could IAR and add it in this case though, I suppose. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'll explain on the various talk pages the overall situation. I appreciate the help. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

No prob, let me know if anything else comes up. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mark,

Would it be allowed for me to gain access to the info in the deleted article Daniel Gauntlett‎ so I can merge some of it with the LASPO article, as discussed in Afd? Perhaps the article could be restored on my user page? Thanks PhilMacD (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I've restored the history. You can merge any of it over if you want, just note what you're doing in your edit summary. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks muchly. PhilMacD (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeeva Samadhi, for which you suggested more discussion to reach a clearer consensus? It seems there is more consensus now. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'll take a look at it next time I go through Afds. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

But Janoris Jenkins' father IS Steve Smith and he DID get beat like a red-headed step child on 10/20/2013. Why is this locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mleezy53 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please try to gain consensus for your proposed changes on the article's talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mark. Can you tell me why you deleted the entry on The International Journal of Learning on 22 August 2013? I didn't author the page, but I went to update it and couldn't find it anymore. Thanks, Jamie — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBCGP (talk • contribs) 20:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you can see the reasons for the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The International Journal of Learning. Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dear Mark Arsten,

I hope you are doing well. Do you have any advice for me as this edit dispute continues? I do not want to engage in an edit war or violate Wikipedia rules or policies. However, I am finding it increasingly difficult to engage in meaningful discussion with User:Debresser. While I understand many of my comments were long, I kept them all to the point of discussion--either addressing the content or addressing an editor's concern--and continued to add reliable sources. On the other hand, Debresser kept responding to me with original research and personal experiences. As this continued, it became more frustrating. Is there a better way for me to engage in discussion so that this dispute can be resolved? I appreciate your advice and remind you that I am a new editor still looking for ways to improve. --Precision123 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, the important thing is to discuss the matter and use reliable sources (and stop reverting). You could open an WP:RFC on the talk page to get more input, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Mark, for your quick attention to this complaint (Declined: This type of dispute is better suited to WP:ANI. Mark Arsten.) But I'm afraid I don't understand how WeldNeck's flood of edits rejecting efforts to restore accuracy to what he has changed, and reverting repeatedly to his error-filled new text, doesn't amount to an edit war. As I read it, an edit war can be something other than a violation of the three-revert-in-24-hours rule. It would seem that scores of edits suddenly done rapid-fire on a well-established article, and that then resist every attempt to correct errors, would qualify.Charles J. Hanley 21:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Well, we're dealing with a flurry of edits in August and then a flurry of edits in October. I may have misjudged the issue. Could you make this a little more clear to me which edits were reverts of which edits? Kind of like how I laid out Ryulong's edits here would be great. And of course I invite User:WeldNeck to do the same. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Mark. Missed your reply for a couple of days. It will take me a bit to match up fixes with reversals of fixes etc. I had hoped the sheer weight of edits to a solid, well-established article, and the resulting number of objections (in Talk and in counter-edits), would have demonstrated a serious edit-warring problem. Will get back to you. Charles J. Hanley 23:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Hello again. I was surprised by your quick closing of my edit warring complaint in this edit. Your conclusion says, "If we're dealing with slow edit warring on multiple pages". You seem to have missed the point that since the template was merged into the article, this is one and the same. Also you mention that "I don't see a 3RR violation", which completely ignores that WP:3RR/N is for any edit warring, including such that does not involve the 3RR rule. Your conclusion that "it seems WP:ANI would be a better place for this discussion" seems in view of all this quite the opposite of the purpose of this noticeboard.

This is the second time in a short time span that you have taken action in a way that in my humble opinion shows a lack of knowledge of the pertaining Wikipedia rules. The first time I wrote you here at #Wrong_version, and at Jews/infobox#Protection. I may be wrong completely, so as an editor to an admin, in the spirit of your well chosen words, I would like to ask you to explain your decisions. I admit that I am biased in my own favor in these two cases, so please be so kind to explain to me the things I might not be seeing correctly because of my bias. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Disregarding 3RR, I'm still not sure I see the edit warring. In your report you listed five diffs, but only three of them were from the editor you were reporting. Were you suggesting that he's engaged in sockpuppetry? If not, looking at both pages as one I only see 3 reverts over 11 days. I don't think that's enough to justify an edit warring block. But if you disagree with my judgment, feel free to open a report on ANI to ask for another admin or admins to evaluate the situation. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I apologize for making errors in the diffs. Please see the fixed diffs on WP:3RR/N. In light of that mistake of mine (in part a copy&paste error), please reopen the complaint. Debresser (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I had and still have no intention of saying anything further on that talk page, from which the owner has banned at least four people in recent weeks. The consequence is that they have yet again got away with shoddy behaviour based on a misreading of others' comments and a misunderstanding of policy. This is something that will eventually be added to the indefinite block proposal. Because that is the way it is going with that person unless someone can get a grip: their attitude has been almost consistently appalling and it has to stop. - Sitush (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I just didn't want to see more arguing on his talk page, I wasn't trying to interaction ban you from him. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Practically all they seem to do is argue: there's some sort of kneejerk "must support my mates" thing going on. That's how they got involved with me at User_talk:Srich32977#Behaviour_at_ANI, butting in with a completely screwed-up and combative comment and then having another go at me when I pointed out that they had the wrong end of the stick. I think that was my first interaction with them and they initiated it. Thankfully, I've no great interest in libertarianism or economics but unless they gain some clue fairly quickly I doubt that this will be the last that they see of me, even though I'll keep off their talk page. (At the rate that they are progressing, everyone will be banned from it before too much longer). - Sitush (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this whole situation is a real mess. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) It's telling that I know who you are talking about and there is not even a name mentioned. What gets me is the arrogance and entitlement...Editors don't seem to get very far on Wikipedia with that attitude unless they have a long track record of article contributions (work that isn't TP comments). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for cleaning up--don't know why I didn't do the other two. Listen, have a look at the editor's talk page, please; note their response and my edit. Perhaps that needs to be scrubbed as well. And while you're at it, read the article, if you will, and tell me if I'm missing something. Appreciate it, Drmies (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've posted on his talk page. From what I understand of the saga, this individual was basically known for posting highly offensive, yet legal, content. I don't think it's fair to describe him as a pedophile. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

If I could find the edit easily, I would have thanked you for your unblock (and block) of Locke. Both were, IMHO, spot on ES&L 09:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I'm glad to hear that. Hope to see you doing some blocking and unblocking soon! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Didn't you see the comment was changed? Rusted AutoParts 18:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note, I didn't notice that. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Someone seems to hate you? ///EuroCarGT 01:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, I've just given him one more reason to hate me... See also Special:Contributions/Markartsen. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I appreciate it. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

You chose to interpret the reversion of blatantly promotional edits to this article as edit warring. There's nothing I can do to enforce neutrality with such a lack of admin support, so I wash my hands of it and would ask that you deal with the current state of the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The reason I declined to protect was because it was only one IP adding the promotional content. So I thought it would make more sense to seek sanctions against that IP than protect the page. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Then why did you say, as I linked above, that this was a case of edit warring, which implies that the person reverting the edits in question is equally at fault with the spammer? When a good-faith editor raises such an issue for admin attention then is is incumbent on the admin dealing with it to take whatever action is necessary, not to fob people off with a boilerplate rationale that doesn't address the issue raised. You are responsible for the current state of this article. Are you proud of it? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I did not mean to imply that you were at fault there, and I apologize if I wasn't clear. I do think the IP is disruptive and I would suggest seeking sanctions against it on a noticeboard. I generally decline to protect if one IP is causing problems on an article, because I think it is better to take out the disruptive IP and leave the page open for others. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mark,

I was creating a fresh page titled CIGNEX Datamatics. The submission process suggests you had rejected a similar post earlier. Would you be interested in reviewing the fresh one I am drafting? Rahultheinvader (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mr. Arsten. I've seen that you have been very accommodating to one of my friends, Favre1fan93. I wanted to ask you if you could evaluate the situation going on at this talk page, regarding the authenticity of this file? The title tells the story, as a few users have boldly reverted the addition of the poster being used in the article. Thanks in advance! - Mainstreammark (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, that's a pretty tricky issue. I'm not sure I can be of much help here, but I'd generally suggest erring on the side of caution unless there's a reliable source as to its authenticity. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The poster comes from a site that is considered to be a reliable source, the thing is that some users still like to think that the poster is fan-made, one user even thought that I made the poster. Lol. Thanks for trying though. - Mainstreammark (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, well, if you do have a reliable source confirming it, I think you could keep it in. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mark I am new to editing Wkipedia's and have only worked on a few but the few I've done I've put a ton of work into them and would hate for them to be deleted. So thank you for your input. I'm doing my best to keep up with the demands of wikipedia and keep updating but I feel as if I always run into the same user trying to decline and report all of my work and before I can fix it they just delete it before I can find the proper sources. I know there are better sources out there for the subjects I'm writing about but it takes me longer to find them because of my disabilities. i don't know if this is just someone out to delete all my content on purpouse or am I really doing something that's wikipedia illeagal. Let me know if there is a way to fix this. I would gladly take any tips and suggestions you have. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danwardpublisher (talk • contribs) 22:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

What topics are you writing about? I might be able to point you in the direction of another Wikipedian who works on them. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please restore. --Niemti (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Done. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oooh, I just realized who that was... I hadn't noticed the username change last year. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Mark, why did you semi-protect The Glover Park Group? You said it was for sockpuppetry, but that article has had less than 10 edits in the last year, all of them were gnomish, and none of them were done by a sock. Was that an error (like the wrong article)? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, looking at it again, that was a mistake. I was protecting pages recently edited by that IP since it was used by a very persistent sockmaster this week and I got the timestamps confused and did an unrelated page. Thanks for pointing that out. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Cool beans. It probably doesn't matter so much either way given the low level of interest there. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Honest question: did you hire someone to write an article for you? It was deleted because it seemed to have been made by a paid-editor/sockpuppet network, which is generally against our rules. If this was a mistake on our part, I apologize. If you would like to have an article on your company, please submit one to the articles for creation project (disclosing your relationship with the company) and it can probably be published after being reviewed for compliance with our WP:COI guideline. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Mark for the response. We are quite new to the world of wiki. The editor was suggested from a forum. I have made a article request for NOJA Power. Would you or others be interested in co writing about NOJA Power? Thanks (JeremyDavis03 (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)).Reply

I probably won't be able to, but you could probably ask for help at a relevant Wikiproject. What industry is the company in and where is it based? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

We have been around for some time. since 2004. Our HQ Factory Office is in Australia Brisbane, we have Factory Office in Brazil and offices around the world. We are in the electrical transmission and distribution industry. We manufacture, research and develops switchgear products and export them around the world. (JeremyDavis03 (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)) www.nojapower.com.au — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremyDavis03 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, try asking at WT:WikiProject Australia, WT:WikiProject Electrical engineering. and maybe WT:WikiProject Cooperation. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Mark! Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremyDavis03 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Glad you liked it :) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey Mark. I noticed you popped up on my Wikipedia page when I was trying to write the correct information about MY life. I don't need resources. I think I am more qualified to speak about my life and experiences, so if you need a resource. It is me. If you have any questions, let me know. JM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremyamayfield (talk • contribs) 01:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but we generally discourage people from writing about themselves actually, see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey Mark, recently a obvious promotional/COI account User: RashaadGold, had been making very promotional and not WP:NPOV edits to the Kokane article, of course without providing any sources at all. For very obvious reasons I reverted the edits, and if you see by this edit the user is now making legal threats against me. I am pretty sure Wikipedia has a no tolerance policy when it comes to these type of things, so I am not sure what actions to take against the user. Also not sure if a block is warranted, but the account is clearly a COI. STATic message me! 04:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think that qualifies for an WP:NLT block. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot Mark, glad I can always count on you for quick help in these situations. STATic message me! 04:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please see this comment. I'm not very well and am unlikely to be active for a fair few hours yet. - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Looks like the problem has been solved, hope you feel better soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for blocking every single user who was reported at AIV, but one was in fact an account and not an IP. Ginsuloft (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh God, what's worse is that this isn't the first time I've done that recently... Mark Arsten (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

What is the standard process to deal with an user after the ANI leads to nothing?

Right now I'm finding a hard time with an editor who (according to himself) has little knowledge of Portuguese but has added guides on how to pronounce names in Portuguese on several articles.

I reported him at the ANI[10] but he has friends who create an artificial appearance of support to him. Is this allowed to happen? I mean, can someone who doesn't even know how to speak Portuguese add pronunciation guides on that language? --Lecen (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I would tend to agree that one should know how to speak a language before telling others how to do so. Other than ANI you could post on relevant WikiProjects or hold a talk page Rfc. If it's an IPA problem, Help talk:IPA might be a good place to find someone who knows what he's talking about. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is not content dispute. It's user conduct. If he doesn't speak Portuguese he shouldn't be adding IPA all over Wikipedia. What can I do to stop him? --Lecen (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't know, usually ANI is the place for that. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

According to HumanRightsWatch link "Neda Agha was several kilometers away from protests, she was struck in a traffic jam, and there were no Basij forces when she was killed" According to FoxNews,CNN etc. "Neda Agha was going to protest and she was killed by Basij". Why Rezashah4 (talk) is removing HumanRightsWatch report and posting FoxNews lies in this artice?
According to FoxNews,CNN etc. "Sarin gas was used by Assad Govt." According to United Nations report "It was rebels who used Sarin gas". Why shouldn't we add news from UnitedNations,HumanRightsWatch reports instead of FoxNews,CNN etc.??
Why Rezashah4 (talk) is removing Russian/Iranian point of view which I mentioned in 2lines with citation of rt.com & BBC Farsi links. whole article is Pro American. I am not removing American point of view I just mentioned Russia/Iran point of view but he is removing Russian/Iranian point of view. Please make this article neutral by mentioning both(USA & Russia/Iran) point of views.Thank you SpidErxD (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm probably not going to get involved in the details, but the first thing to do is to stop edit warring. Then the best advice I can give is to follow the procedures laid out at WP:DR for how to solve disputes. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for that string of protects you slapped onto the various articles affected by The VeggieTales vandal. Now if we could only figure out what to do about this dude... I know that @Bonusballs: would probably see to it that there was a hamburger in your future.  :) I'd buy the fries. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Lol, I'll take a look. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mark,

the day before yesterday you blocked 158.58.234.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours because of edit warring. As soon as the block expired, the anonymous user resumed edit warring at Attack (political party). It seems like here are other consequences necessary. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

This editor is placing edits and undoing them. It's making me scared. Does this count as disruptive editing? ///EuroCarGT 00:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Now that is a weird way to waste your time... I left a final warning and will block if he keeps messing around. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was looking at Special:RecentChanges, I keep my eyes on high traffic edits, mass editing and etc. this one caught me. ///EuroCarGT 00:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I meant that the IP was wasting his time, not that you were wasting your time by watching him... people do come up with some sneaky vandalism strategies. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and that is true! ///EuroCarGT 01:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply