Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:42, 22 September 2012

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

Archives

Archive I Archive II Archive III Archive IV Archive V Archive VI Archive VII Archive VIII

The llama of drama is all tired out, time to give it a rest.

Dolibarr ERP - CRM removal

Hi Mark. I saw that you removed the page "Dolibarr" in august. Reason that appears is "does not meet notability". I have checked again and again and can't see what can be the reason behind this term ? All descriptions of this term, found into the "Misplaced Pages:Notability" page seems to speak about something that was ok with the page. I spent a lot of time to update this page because Dolibarr is as notorious project in a lot of countries in west europe like france, spain, ..., even more than Salesforce and other commercial products, but the difference is that Dolibarr is unique for a lot of reason: It is a project with no company behind him (only a foundation like Mozilla has the Mozilla foundation) and there is so few softwares, as famous as Dolibarr (at least in west europe, where dolibarr is as famous than anyother opensource project you may know like firefox, openoffice, ...), that match all need of users working in small companies with no technical knowledges, that I think it should be online. Can you spend some time to help me to find what's wrong among all things related into the "Misplaced Pages:Notability" page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldy (talk • contribs) 15:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

A couple things, A. I see you missed the big sign at the top of my page that instructs petitioners to start new sections at the bottom. I think I might have to make that bigger so people will notice. B. Dolibarr was deleted under the Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion criteria, so its page can be restored under the Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion process. Would you like me to restore the page? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for quick reply Mark. For A, about your notice to add new articles at bootom, let me give my feedback. I have seen the text and for a reason I don't know, I read "at top" instead of "at bottom". So it's after reading your notice that i wrote my question at top "on purpose" (oops). I really don't understand how i made this error, your text was clear and I read it, but despite having taken care of this, i did this opposite. Sorry. May be adding a down arrow onto the text may solve "unconscious effect" of reading too quickly the notice.

For B, yes please, can you restore the page ? I made some changes after the tag PROD was added, to fix what i think was wrong (several fix in fact). I didn't want to remove the PROD tag myself after that, thinking I wasn't allowed. I thought it was role of the guy who set the tag to remove it after reviewing and validating my fixes. That's probably my error (wikipedia doc say we can removed it). So it would be great if you can restore the page ? (if you would like me to send a "Request for undeletion" before, just ask me). --Eldy (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've restored it, could you write a note on the talk page that it was deleted and restored? Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the note into the talk page --Eldy (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Forrest Yoga

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Forrest Yoga. 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. -Was just asking for a follow-up explanation on the closing for Forrest Yoga. The page had 2 successful speedy deletions, and the AfD was solid on the process of manipulating sourcing and information for inclusion of the material in Wiki. Multiple rewrites did not change the questionable intent of the material. What prompted you to include it despite its obvious faults? (curious :) Яεñ99 (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ren99 (talk • contribs)

Hi, the reason I was inclined to keep the article was because of the strength of the Keep voters and the improvements to the article during the Afd. You and Curb Chain made decent arguments about the state of the article. The Keep voters seem to have focused on the available sourcing and the potential for improvements to the article. The article was also substantially improved over the course of the discussion, which isn't in itself a reason to keep it, but it weakens the previous arguments that focused on the state of the article. Feel free to pursue deletion review if you disagree though. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

After careful thought, I put the DelRev up for review (this time I think properly formatted so people can comment) on 29 Aug 2012. It's my first, but I spent a lot of time on it. My concern still circles the fact that this was an intentional, personal invention that was researched, developed, and marketed by an original person. The article seeks promotion and exposure, not simply to discuss yoga, and various elements thereof. As such, it's meant for public exposure, and in that regard financial return on a "original" form and for marketing development. I am trying to assume good faith, but what we see here is a business and exposure model. The trials and tribulations of her prior life should not play into our assessments, and "please don't" compromises the integrity of encyclopedic content Яεñ99 (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Eric B. Hughes. Again, why delete this article. Wiki encourages people to contribute, yet when they do- all of a sudden it gets deleted. Hughes is an award-winning filmmaker, he has 2 films do out this year, he's a produced screenwriter. There are so many over articles that should be looked at before this one.....just doesn't make sense. People were contributing links and all kinds of info to the page....so why delete? Please give me an answer. Bellatarr (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Radionuclides associated with hydraulic fracturing

Hi, Mark Asten. You closed the AfD for Radionuclides associated with hydraulic fracturing. In this process, you also removed OR tag from the article. Is there any specific reason for this or was it just accidental removal? Beagel (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that was an accident, will restore. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No Consensus closes

Between you and me, you seem to be producing too many of these. If you feel unable to make a call, leave it for someone else, if you would. Best, Carrite (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If you have any concerns about a particular Afd I've closed, feel free to bring it up. This type of comment is unhelpful though. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

India and state sponsored terrorism

Could you restore it to my subpage and have it . Then i can take a look and see whats POV and otherwise. The subject is certainly notable (As you agreed). Please ping me when its doneLihaas (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, will do. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, moved it now. My advice is to try to stick to academic sources as best you can--the best way to write a neutral article is with neutral sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thx.

Will do. Also media ones could possibly used, just phrased as alleged i would thinkLihaas (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely can use media ones, I usually have a mix of both on my articles. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Could you also userfy the talk page of India and state sponsored terrorism please? That would be great, if not already necessary.
The talk page contains many important rationales back and forth as to why many of the claims in that article are straight WP:POVs and WP:SYNTH (that's why it was deleted, right?). Since[REDACTED] is all about consensus and discussions it's only fair that you also make the talk page accessible simultaneously, because now I can not even cite the discussions already have taken place, for saving time. Then the significant comments of those who commented on the article talk-page, will be lost and they might hesitate to reiterate the same things again and again in the user page of lihaas. Besides, Lihaas also wanted a rationale to understand what's POV and otherwise. Mrt3366 08:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I added it to the talk page of the userfied article. IIRC, there were also some substantial discussions on WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN or something. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup there were! And thanks. Mrt3366 14:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Signpost

Feel free to take a peek. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, I made some small copyedits, but otherwise looks fine. This way fun. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, it's fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• lol, I love the headline. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cultural racism

This nomination included Cultural racism in the United States. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I make that mistake all the time. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Big apology from me

Hi Mark,

I deeply apologize for my cranky and unreasonably behavior yesterday re Fyodor Dostoyevsky. I'm very regretful about responding so poorly. I hope this lapse of mine won't change your opinion of me. I ask your forgiveness. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You are forgiven, and I will not change my opinion of you. Of all the problems on Misplaced Pages, a good contributor who occasionally responds poorly to a difficult situation is a very minor issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

DRV Note

Someone raised a DRV against one of your closes. Spartaz 02:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Arrr? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing as fun as pirates, sadly. Just some guy who thinks applied kinesiology is the path to spiritual enlightenment. Also, you've got mail. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Looking. You know, I'd think this is the sort of article that's quirky enough for you to expand. Check out the writeup on Cracked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• At a glace, it sounds like Prioryman's forte. (Or Mbz1 actually.) Mark Arsten (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'll drop them a note too. Imagine, "Did you know ... that some Korean men have penises on their heads? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• ... that large penises are a tourist attraction in Korea? lol, I doubt they'd ever let that hook on the main page. There's so much fun one could have with this... oh wait, there's another bad pun. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• ... that large, stiff penises are tourist attractions in Korea and favourite date spots?

• ... that large, stiff penises are tourist attractions in Korea which are used for fishing? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that last one is best, really works in the bizzaro angle. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• LOL. Soegijapranata just passed. Wow that was fast (by Indonesian-topic standards) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Horay, great work on that one! You finally got a quick and easy one. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, finally eh? I could try Belenggu next but... TK said #Themes might need to be further expanded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Margo Rey

Hi there Mark! Can you do me a quick favor and restore the page for Talk:Margo Rey ?? It'd be most helpful for the WP:DRV discussion to check which WikiProjects were listed there, if any. ;) Thanks so much! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Little Lost Hen

Plip!

I just restored the article The Little Lost Hen that you deleted under Prod. It was Prodded 2 years ago and someone contested it. Therefore any new prod is not valid and it needs to go to AFD. GB fan 16:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, my mistake, sorry. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I just saw two other articles that you deleted 10 minutes after I removed the Prod from them Vatra (album) and Wild Strawberries (album). Just wondering do you look at the article history when you are reviewing Prods? GB fan 16:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh damn, what happened was I opened like 15 articles in tabs with PRODs on them, then got distracted and came back and deleted them, sorry. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, it was just odd, that things I had just taken care of were being deleted. Thanks for the explanation. GB fan 16:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article Age

What does it mean by it been promoted between 1 and 2 years ago? Does it mean that's how long ago it was made? Also, could I nominate, since I am a new user. Thank you. --Lucky102 (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you're asking about the Today's Featured Article points, then that means the article was promoted to Featured Article status in that time; you can find out when a Featured Article was promoted by looking on its talk page at the "article history" box. GRAPPLE X 20:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer.--Lucky102 (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to Misplaced Pages, you've chosen an interesting place to get started... But, yes, Grapple is right. For example, today's featured article was promoted on August 23, 2011, so it was promoted just over one year ago. Anyone can nominate articles at WP:TFAR (which the possible exception of one user, who may or may not be banned from that page), it's generally advisable to ask the major contributors if they would mind if you nominated the article (unless they're retired from the project). Hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What happens if this page was promoted less than 1 year ago? Could I still nominate?Lucky102 (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, you still can, it just won't have as many points. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

People get a barnster for promoting a featured article. Does this mean that they suppourted, highly contriubted, or nominated an article for featured status?Lucky102 (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. The total list is at WP:WBFAN if you're interested. Misplaced Pages:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page is also of use on this subject. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I am going to nominate William McKinley for the 14th of September, to mark the 101st year of his death.Lucky102 (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you probably want to run that by User:Wehwalt & User:Coemgenus first though. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your help. If I need any help for Featured Articles, or anything, I will ask you. Also I will use this header for anything FA. Thanks again!Lucky102 (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

William McKinley won't get many points though since a politician was on the main page in around 2 weeks.Lucky102 (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I review a good article nominee, even though I am not a reviewer?Lucky102 (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can, but I'd recommend you get experience writing a few articles here before reviewing them. There are a lot of small things that reviewers should ideally watch for. I'd suggest you get 3 or 4 articles promoted to good article status before reviewing any. Then again, your mileage may vary, as the saying goes. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

India and state sponsored terrorism

You recently closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/India and state sponsored terrorism.

I came across it after your closure, and it seemed to me that many of the arguments for deletion were not valid criteria for deletion as per my understanding of our deletion policies. I thought our deletion policies recommended articles on notable topics that have POV problems or contain segments of OR should be rewritten, not deleted. I thought deletion should be a last resort, when good faith attempts to address the editorial issues failed.

I encountered the same arguments from the same crew during the 2nd and 3rd {{tfd}} on Template:Kashmir separatist movement.

Executive summary: I tried to make the point that no topic is "inherently POV". I think any topic, no matter how controversial, where there are sufficient good reference, can be covered in a neutral manner, if good faith contributors make enough effort. Although the nationalists who claimed that template was hopeless POV implied they had made an attempt to reach a compromise, the record showed they had not. They claimed provocative edit summaries as their attempts to reach a compromise. If there is a complicated or controversial issue to discuss it really has to happen on the talk page.

You userified the article to User:Lihaas/India and state sponsored terrorism. Was there a talk page? If so, can I look at it?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've generally shared the perspective that neutrality issues should be dealt with by regular editing rather than deletion. But a sizable portion of the community believes deletion to be an acceptable option in those cases, see Misplaced Pages:Blow it up and start over for a good summary of the reasoning. The closing admin's summary at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews is also worth reading, for a similar case (note that I made the same argument at that Afd as you make in your post here). Also, I archived the talk page at User talk:Lihaas/India and state sponsored terrorism. There were several threads at WP:NPOVN and WP:RSN too, I think, but I don't have the links handy. Hope this clears things up. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)

@Geo Swan — Who are you referring to as "the same crew"? I don't particularly like that kind of sweeping statements. I, for one, wasn't there in any of those tfds.

@Mark Arsten — you might want to know that there are currently two (1 & 2) userfied versions of India and state sponsored terrorism are not there for any constructive purpose. They are, at least in my humble opinion, currently equivalent to stale-drafts. AFAIK, none of the users went for a DRV (that would have made some sense), these drafts are just sitting there. I don't think these userfied versions of India and state sponsored terrorism are there for any constructive purpose. While Lihaas's request seemed legitimate, the fact that a self-styled {{semi-retired}} and veteran editor who neither got involved in that AfD nor edited India related articles until fairly recently, who also has a flag of Bahrain on his user page suddenly takes an interest in India and state sponsored terrorism doesn't seem to add up.

Now I know that Mar4d (the creator of the article and a self-described Pakistani citizen), for the most part, was against the deletion of the article along with anything which the consensus agreed upon. And he hasn't even worked on the draft for more than two and a half weeks. Hence, it's not too much of a stretch to think that there is a personal agenda working here.
If I recall correctly, the likes of Mar4d lacked the hearing capability as well as the capability to assume good faith in those discussions.
Beside being offensive, the subject is itself on thin ice. Mrt3366 13:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I gave permission to file a DRV in six months using a userspace draft as the proposed version, so I think it's ok to have a draft for now--but after six months have elapsed from the date of the close feel free to Mfd them as stale drafts. Also, WTF does Bahrain's flag have to do with any of this??? Or Mar4d's passport for that matter? Mark Arsten (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

"WTF does Bahrain's flag have to do with any of this??? Or Mar4d's passport for that matter?" — I wasn't trying to be racist. I am far from that. All I intended to mean was that it's uncanny for an editor like Lihaas to be taking interest in a deleted India-related article and that Mar4d might be doing this because of personal inclinations. I am very sensitive to expletives and inconsiderate language, so please for heaven's sake try not to use 'WTF' again, it's uncivil, I think. You're a responsible admin, you should know better. Politeness is something I value immensely. Again, I was not citing these information in order to imply anything unsavoury, albeit it might have come out in a wrong way. For that, I apologize.

It's apparent, to me at least, that you don't like being dragged into arguments. I will try not to comment here again. Thank you very, very much for your time. Mrt3366 14:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well, I apologize for using potentially offensive language. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

No please don't embarrass me by apologizing. I know it was unintentional. But thanks for the response. Cheers! Mrt3366 14:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

followup on close of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/U-N-I-T-E-D

United Road (Take Me Home) still has an active AfD tag pointing at a deletion discussion you closed. You closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/U-N-I-T-E-D as delete, and it appears the nominator attempted to bundle the second article into the nomination, but did not use the standard bundling formatting. Monty₈₄₅ 05:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright deleted. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/U-N-I-T-E-D

Hi. You closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/U-N-I-T-E-D as delete, but probably didn't notice that United Road (Take Me Home) was nominated as well (and separately commented upon by a few people). Being the nominator, I am not allowed to delete the article, so could you please take a look and do the necessary (if in your opinion the "delete" is valid for both articles of course)? Thanks! Fram (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

See above :) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Malkin Tower

Thanks loads for doing the review Mark, and for picking up quite a few points I'd missed myself. I really never thought the article could get beyond a super-stub, and I'm staggered at what BigDom and Trappedinburnley managed to pull out of the bag. Malleus Fatuorum 13:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to help--it was nice to review a well written article like that. It made me want to write about witches dens in my area, will see if anything comes of that. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Malleus is complimenting an admin? My how times have changed. Oh wait - this is about actual content. Never-mind - carry on. — ChedZILLA 18:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but he only opened one thread to do so. If I forget to delete an article, I get two threads pointing it out :) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is your area? I keep meaning to write something about the later (1634) Lancashire witch trials, and witchcraft in Cheshire, but just haven't got around to it yet. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I live in the area near where the Salem witch trials took place. I haven't thought too much about them for a while, but there is a lot of good sourcing I could make use of on the subject. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I knew it! I knew it! (phony image on user page). MathewTownsend (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, I don't think you really live in Java :) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sir, I say Sir, I resemble that remark. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyways, be glad to review Norman when she's up at FAC. I already decided which article to nominate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, it should be up soon. Solving the issues brought up in the peer review turned out to be tougher than I expected, I think I've more or less done what I can now though. I'll probably go through the whole thing one more time before nominating. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

ping

just an FYI: User talk:Ched/YRC — Ched :  ?  20:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editor on Jennifer Love Hewitt

Hi Mark! I hate to bother you, but User:Tim_Correll has now removed an entire paragraph of sourced content from Jennifer Love Hewitt two times (yesterday and today) with no explanation at all.. I saw on the user's talk page that he was previously warned about disrupting this very article.. It sounds like he is a big fan of Jennifer Love Hewitt's. I understand his passion, but can you send him a warning and tell them it's an encylopedia, not a fan page. :p I don't know how to do it. And it would have a much better impact coming from you. Thanks a lot, Mark. :) --76.189.108.102 (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've left a note for him. To be honest though, I'm not sure those two sentences are really worth fighting over. Alright, well, I'll try to check back and see how things develop. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

_{Also, you might want to think about registering an account!}

Yeah, actually I'm starting to learn that nothing is worth fighting over on Misplaced Pages. Haha. The reason I added that content is because there was some recent mainstream media coverage about it. I knew about that claim for years regarding her connection to the song, so I was surprised there was no mention of it in the article. Anyway, my concern was that the editor made repeated wholesale reverts without an explanation and he's previously been warned about similar edits. Thank you, Mark. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm still thinking about it! Will I get a special welcome gift if I do it?

Sadly, you only get the company watch after 25 years, or so I hear :) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Jimbo has one, and he's only been here eleven! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Normal rules don't apply to Jimbo... Mark Arsten (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, he actually has people edit war over his user page. See this and the next 10 or so edits (awesome quote though). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, it was really interesting to read through three weeks of revisions on his page. I get some interesting vandalism on my userpage on occasion though: . Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Three weeks? Whoa, over-dedicated. Yeah, Jimbo's page gets a lot of... kooks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, his talk page sure does too. Nawlinwiki insisted on semi-protecting my userpage eventually, guess I shouldn't complain... Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, 25 years? How about after 25 good edits instead? :P And those edits on Jimbo's and Mark's pages are hilarious! I laughed so much that my stomach hurts! --76.189.108.102 (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've laughed so hard at some of the vandals I've reverted while huggling. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There are some wacky senses of humor out there. Good thing you have that weapon to keep things in order. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your close in Bruenor Battlehammer (2nd nomination) AfD

Hi, I noticed that you didn't elaborate a closure rationale in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bruenor Battlehammer (2nd nomination), and so I don't really know how you reached that conclusion.

I consider that the "keep" participants didn't satisfyingly adress my nomination, I have strong arguments that the coverage in the article doesn't meet the WP:GNG criteria, notably on "significance" and "trivial mention" aspects. The same arguments had already been raised before on the article talk page, no which no one had answered. Per WP:AFDFORMAT, participants are asked to "explain how the article meets/violates policy" rather than merely stating it does. Now, I can't help but notice that participants did not explain how the coverage in article would be significant, but merely stated that it was, for example, BOZ's argument which just says "despite the nominator's arguments, the sources included should be enough to pass WP:GNG". Given the particularly detailed and well-argumented nomination I provided, I find this a little too flimsy. Same thing with the "Per BOZ" argument and "Appears to have appropriate independent, reliable sourcing sufficient to meet WP:GNG", which state the article would meet guideline but don't say how (particularly how coverage would be significant and more than trivial mention), which is again problematic considering the precise issues I pointed to and which were not adressed. The last recommendation by DThomsen8 is more of a concern, since it argues that articles about fiction should not be deleted and thus WP:GNG ignored (but guidelines apply to all articles indiscriminately so I don't see the weight in this argument).

May I suggest a relist, which could allow for my nomination to be better adressed than it was when you closed ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Hi, I think I closed the discussion correctly. Although not all of the keep commenters made idea arguments, opining that one has looked at the sources and finds them to be sufficient to demonstrate notability is an acceptable argument. While they could have been more thorough, I think I would be overstepping my authority to toss their comments out. I don't think relisting would be appropriate either, I think a sufficient number of people turned up to adequately determine consensus. If you feel that this was closed incorrectly, feel free to take it to WP:DRV. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your answer. I think your closing rationale would have benefitted from including what you've just told me. But I'm still not convinced that an AfD could be viable with such arguments (I don't see the difference between "Keep because I say so", and "Keep because I say the article is notable"). I suggested a relist because there are currently other AfD on the same topic (fictional characters from the same franchise) which received more participation, and in this condition, a close seemed premature. In any case I consider at least a no consensus would have been a good way to acknowledge keep !votes were not as ideal as they could have been (per your own admission here) while not just tossing them out. That's what I'll go for in DRV, if I can't convince you to change your close.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Ok, thanks for the input. I don't think I'll change the close though. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I have asked for a deletion review of Bruenor Battlehammer.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I've replied there. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Brent Morel

Please could you userfy this article as suggested by User:RightCowLeftCoast in the discussion. There are extensive accounts in books about the battle in which this person won the Navy Cross and so I might work this up into an article about that battle or some other larger topic. Warden (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I've just done so. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. I'm not sure when I'll get to it but will make a note now. Warden (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

re TFA

ok, I'll think on it but you know better than me what goes in a blurb. (I'd put the stuff in about the conversations with extraterrestrials via the sleeping man. It's in fashion! See current FAC Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact). MathewTownsend (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I had never actually written a blurb before, so I really don't know too much about it. Yes, I saw that FAC, I haven't read the article though, you'd think I would since I write so much about UFO religions. Speaking of which, have you read the article I'm nominating at FAC next? Ruth Norman--quite a lady! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

no, haven't read it. Didn't even know about it. Will do. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, any feedback would be welcome. I'm probably going to nominate it pretty soon. I had a real thorough peer review, but I'm not sure how well I did solving the issues pointed out there. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

ok, I'll take a look at the peer review and go through the article - in a while or two - before you nominate. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

peer review Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Ruth Norman/archive1, right? (always have trouble finding those things). Just finished hauling an ugly bunch of branches from my cut-down trees. Kinda wiped out. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's the peer review. I haven't marked all of the ones I did as "done", though, so don't take lack of notation for inaction (although it's true in some cases). The article depends somewhat heavily on the work of one academic, but I don't see that as a major issue really. And yeah, hauling around branches first thing in the morning, that does sound tiring. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

oops! Noticed you've nominated it, so I think I'll wait. Got four GA reviews to finish! MathewTownsend (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

lol, no prob. Maybe you can do one for Meth mouth if I ever get that finished. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• p.s. Since you so generously gave me co-nomination for William Sadler, should it get another TFA point as first TFA for me? (not sure how that point system works). MathewTownsend (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it would have if you had nominated it, not 100% sure though. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Swope Parkway / Blue Parkway

You could have at least combine the articles on the same page. Swope Parkway is named after someone. What were you doing to save those pages. Visionordream — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visionordream (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Ruth Norman

I did a little further copy-editing of the article, and have left some comments at the FAC. Please don't hesitate to revert anything I have messed up, or that you are not happy with. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick, I hadn't even got around to notifying you. At a glance your comments look good, I'll try to get to them soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Replied now. Forgive me if I pick away at this any more in the next day or two; it's a great article and I think you've done a really good job here, as something of this nature is incredibly hard to write about! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do, go ahead, thanks. It's tough for me to edit my own writing to this extent, if it were someone else I'd probably notice things right away :) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Is reverting this a violation of 3RR?

I've reverted two unsourced edits on Samajwadi Party by User:Mohd wize because they were unsourced and didn't appear constructive. Is reverting a violation of WP:3RR? Thanks in advance for your help. Go Phightins! (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like one of those RFA questions people get... But, you're only at 2RR right now, so you can revert again without technically breaking the rules. That being said, it seems like this user is a good faith contributor, who might be unaware of our guidelines or have issues with English proficiency. You might want to try to fix the issues in the version that he's reverted to instead of just undoing his edit. I'll leave him a message, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...I dropped him a note and left the page alone. Go Phightins! (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Meth mouth -my two cents

Just glancing at it, I'm not clear about the citation to Heng, Christine; Victor Badner, and Luminita Schiop (2008). The link to Meth mouth is to an editorial and therefore not a reliable source for a medical article. The journal citation by Heng, Badner and Schiop (2008) Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 18982966, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=18982966 instead. isn't a review article, the preferred source for a medical article.

• Better citations are to journal review articles, such as

• Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 21874893, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=21874893 instead.
• Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 18992021, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=18992021 instead.
• Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 16689071, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=16689071 instead.

I'll help if you want, but still exhausted by Dissociative identity disorder ruckus, which was disrupted by a POV editor unbelievably. Meth mouth should be a walk in the park by comparison! So I will if you want.

MathewTownsend (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for taking a look. Too bad about that New York article, but I can probably replace those cites without much trouble. I haven't used the South African one, I asked a couple people, but neither of them could access it.

• Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 17694215, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=17694215 instead. This one is Ok, right? I wasn't certain that the Weisheit & White or Karch sources would pass MEDRS, those cites would easy to trim out though. If you're up for helping, you'd certainly be welcome too. Not a lot of meth addicts POV pushing on these articles, thankfully :) Mark Arsten (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Now Meth mouth fetishists... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking of gross things, about 35 edits ago I cleaned up one of the dirtiest... Odd what came come up when huggling. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• @Mathew I think I took care of the Heng et al. issues. There's a peer review open for the article, so feel free to comment there. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• " Local anesthetics with vasoconstrictors should be used with care in patients taking methamphetamine because they may result in cardiac dysrhythmias, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accidents." (Hamamoto DT, Rhodus NL.) - think I'll give it up! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• lol, yeah, I don't think too many meth junkies make it to their annual dentist appointment. Fascinating documentary on the general subject. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• yeah, I think Meth mouth is a real issue. Want me to copy edit the article? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, that would be wonderful, thanks. I have very little experience writing on anything related to medical topics. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I've plenty of experience there, but no access to sources like journal databases. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, the key is to figure out who does and then bug them constantly. User:GabrielF has access to a ton of obscure stuff, for example. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Good tip! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I rewrote the first paragraph of Meth mouth. Do you like? Revert if not! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• • Ok, feel free to keep going, it looks pretty good. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Is is ok if I change the citations style? (I could learn the one you're using but right now, I don't know how to use it.) Medical articles I've been involved with have used the "cite journal" style. Do you care one way or the other? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I guess I wouldn't mind, as long as it's consistent with one style. I'm done adding citations, so it doesn't matter too much to me now. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

another point. People in prison presumably aren't currently abusing, but I guess once you have meth mouth, then you have it even if you quit abusing. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• • I suppose so, but my hunch was that a lot of serious meth users are regularly in and out of jail on short term burglary/possession/prostitution sentences. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
    • yeah, that's probably the case. I guess where you live (going by the map in one of those articles), now that you've revealed the truth, it's hardly a problem at all! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
      • lol, yeah, it exists to some extent around here, but it's nothing like the overwhelming problem that it is in some places. BTW, meth mouth is nothing compared to the drug diseases they have in Russia. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Huh, just checked, and there are some Crystal Meth Anonymous meetings in my area--so there must be some addicts. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Schleyer

I did not add original or unsourced information to the Hanns-Martin Schleyer article. In fact, I didn't add anything new at all, the part I added to the introduction was already there, further down in the article.

You know, you are correct, my apologies for reverting you. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. 37.191.220.171 (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Question

How do you feel about FACs with 6k of prose? TBrandley suggested Andjar Asmara may have a fighting chance at FAC, but it's quite short. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

As long as you've scraped the bottom of the barrel for sources, you should have a chance. I like short FACs, and U.S. Route 41 Business (Marquette, Michigan) just got promoted at about the same length as your guy. I'd suggest you get a few people to go over the prose first, because in an FAC for such a short article reviewers will put the magnifying glass to each sentence. I could probably help a bit with that, and you might want to ask Sarastro1, he did a heck of a job on Ruth Norman. I've had a lot of success asking Accedie, Noleander, and Acdixon for help in the past too. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, Accedie did a good job on ?. Okay, I'll take another look at what sources I have available and pester some people for copyedits. No Spock though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I've stripped the sources as best I can and came out with 8k of prose. I've also pinged Accedie, perhaps I can bug Sarastro too; you said he's a fungi, after all. If Terang Boelan actually had feedback I'd probably try PR too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Glad to hear it... but Sarastro is cricket, Sasata is Fungi. They're both skilled reviewers though. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oh. You know, with a name like Sarastro I'd think literature (the Indonesian word for literature is sastra) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Huh, interesting. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Appearance

of the extraterrestrial coming soon ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Aha, I'll watch the skies... Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

honorable cnote

hi i put up a wiki page about two weeks ago and it was deleted due to copy and pasting from my clipboard or my sandbox why was my sandbox also deleted i would have been more than happy to use the move function please get back to me in regards to this....thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakeupboy1 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I think I've fixed the issue for you. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Sister Sarah Bendan

I think we shall need a talk page block on this user you recently blocked. MadGuy7023 (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Too late, already done by User:Ponyo. MadGuy7023 (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark - I did indeed extend to indef. Although not necessarily obvious at first blush, this edit summary gave me a pretty good idea who we were dealing with and it's a long term troll. Best to just block and deny. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo 18:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, yes, that does make sense, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Gil Dezer

Hey, you deleted an article I created on Gil Dezer. I believe he meets the notability guidelines, it's just that the main newspaper in Miami is the Miami Herald who has a private archive, which makes lots of Miami related people difficult to source. At Miami Herald Archives, a search brings up 81 articles relating to him. http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_multi=MH%7C&p_product=MH&p_theme=realcities2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_site=miami&s_trackval=MH&s_search_type=keyword&p_text_search-0=gil%20AND%20dezer&s_dispstring=%22gil%20dezer%22%20AND%20date(all)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no In addition there is a google suggested search of "gil dezer wiki" when you search his name, proving that people are seeking information and affirming his notability.

Please advise, thank you.

EricJason(talk)

Yeah, this was briefly brought up at the Afd, but it isn't enough to have a lot of mentions of an individual, there needs to be "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. You might try making a draft of the article in a user sandbox if you are confident you can get it well sourced, then apply at WP:DRV to have the deletion overturned. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

GA review

Hi Mark, thanks for your GA review of divine command theory, I really appreciate it. I've answered all the issues you had - is there anything you have to say? ItsZippy 21:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note. I'll review the changes (and possibly comment on them) and then see if the last 4 or 5 more points I hadn't put down yet are still valid. Probably won't get to it until tomorrow though. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, that's fine. Thanks. ItsZippy 21:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Agile Toolkit page (deletion)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Agile_Toolkit

I am the main contributor to the framework and I'd like to take a moment to bring some of the references which were missing from the original page. The small amount of references is due to the novelty of Agile Toolkit. It's a very different and unique framework. It's not influenced by any other frameworks and many users who managed to discover it are really satisfied and excited about it. Please find some of the references below:

• http://alternativeto.net/software/agile-toolkit/ when compared Agile Toolkit stands a great chance versus others.
• http://www.agiletech.ie - agile toolkit commercial support company in Ireland
• https://plus.google.com/b/114540818849522598220/114540818849522598220/posts - page dedicated to a weekly podcast educating new developers, recently started, thousands of followers
• http://www.ambienttech.lv - commercial support for Agile Toolkit
• http://www.phpdeveloper.org/news/15367 - largest PHP magazine writing about Agile Toolkit
• http://stackoverflow.com/tags/atk4 - questions for Agile Toolkit posted about Agile Toolkit. Compare to http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/prado / http://en.wikipedia.org/PRADO_Framework (with references mostly to their documentation and github page)
• https://github.com/atk4/atk4/graphs, http://en.zicos.com/download/i26771427-Agile-Toolkit-42.html, http://www.phpkode.com/projects/item/agile-toolkit/, http://download.cnet.com/Agile-Toolkit/3000-10248_4-75748289.html, http://freecode.com/projects/agile-toolkit, http://www.oschina.net/p/agiletoolkit

Please review your decision of page removal.

For Web Developers it's essential to discover just the right PHP framework through one of comparison tables, such as un-biased comparison, ajaxpatterns.org or vscharts.com. Unfortunately Agile Toolkit was also removed from .

I am a web developer. I chose to share my 10-year work and experience through open-source. Developers who use Agile Toolkit - love it. It takes me a lot of effort to support and grow community, publish documentation, tend to issues, record screencasts, write blog articles. I can't pay anyone to do a good job, so I can only rely on contributions and on my own effort. I will appreciate your help to restore Agile Toolkit wiki page and make it meet Misplaced Pages standards by placing some of the references which I listed here as appropriate on the page. Thank you very much for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romaninsh (talk • contribs) 00:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There was a solid consensus to delete the article, so I'm afraid that I can't reverse my decision. If you like, I can put a copy of the article in a user sandbox (Help:Userspace draft) for you so you can add some of the reliable sources that you've found. If your sources meet our guidelines (WP:RS), you can apply in six months at WP:DRV to have the deletion overturned and your draft reinstated. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate that. Thanks! What about references I have presented, would they be sufficient? Can a TempUndelete tag be used to restore it sooner as per WP:DRV? The WP:RS is very unclear about self-published on-line resources and what is considered a RS Romaninsh (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I moved it to User:Romaninsh/Agile Toolkit. I haven't looked at all the references, but self-published material usually doesn't qualify as an RS. Good luck, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Kagapujandar

Hi, recreated the above article with references at Talk:Kagapujandar/Temp, please review. And move it under the article name Kagapujandar. Arulraja (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Arulraja

• Mark, I got a similar note on my talk page. You deleted the prior article at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kagapujandar. Not sure if Talk:Kagapujandar/Temp meets WP:G4 as it was created before the close of the AfD. It might be a G6 or G8 subpage of an article that was deleted at AfD and missed in the admin deletion of the article and its talk page. One option is to userify to a subpage of Arulrajas and suggest that Arulraja raised the matter at DRV. I'm not sure whether it is worth that effort. If you look through a few of the hits from this search, the topic has had copyright problems. Those might be gone, but Talk:Kagapujandar/Temp mostly is based on webpages rather that sources that meet WP:GNG. There also is Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Siddhar Sri Kagapujandar, which you might be able to speedy delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the note, I've deleted two and userfied one, left a note on User talk:Arulraja, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Protection request on an article you just protected

Hi Mark, there is a request at WP:RFPP asking for a longer term semi-protection than you applied. If you get a chance could you please have a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note, I've extended the protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

German V-weapon sites articles

Hi Mark, thanks for picking up the GA review of Fortress of Mimoyecques‎ - the third of my German V-weapon site articles after Blockhaus d'Éperlecques and La Coupole. I thought I'd let you in on what I'm planning to do with them. Next March is the 70th anniversary of the sites' construction and I'm planning to nominate the three articles for FA status once you're finished with the GA review of Mimoyecques. The idea is to have the three articles on the Main Page as a simultaneous Today's Featured Article - see the draft blurb at User:Prioryman/Heavy Crossbow FA blurb. Prioryman (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that is interesting, that's quite a plan. I'll start my review of Mimoyecques tomorrow. Hope the rest goes well. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I'm away from my computer at the moment, but I'll sort out the issues you raised at the weekend. Prioryman (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, I have a few more small points to add, but nothing major. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help! If you're interested, the first of the FA reviews is at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/La Coupole/archive1‎. Prioryman (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Andjar Asmara

Could I ask you to give it a fairly good copyedit? Oerip's on the brink of passing, and this will follow. Terang Boelan is ready, but I want to wait for GA for that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, I'll try to get to it soon. It's short, so it won't be that hard. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Even then it was pumped up by about 3k characters. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• What do you think? Thanks for the copyedit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It looks good, nothing to complain about really. Most of the things I changed were minor issues/style preference. I'll probably do the second half tomorrow. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Alright. Shame some of the details of his personal life aren't in any of the sources I found :-( — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• How's it look? Apparently one of the actresses in Soegija is a student at the school where I teach. That could be useful if I decide to push the film's article to FA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks fine, I think it would have a chance at FAC. Pretty cool about going to school with actresses. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Now to wait for Oerip to pass. Five supports so far... Yeah, but if I were to get a picture of her for the article I'd probably want written permission from her parents first; there's gotta be breach of trust issues with taking pictures for the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, the school might not like it either if you were to do the whole paparazzi staking routine on a student. BTW, both Romney and Obama are speaking within an hour of my house today. If I had more energy I bet I could get some good pictures. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Perhaps. But there is a good thing about American politics: we never run out of free pictures of its federal-level leaders. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Yeah, say what you will about the U.S. Government (and there's a lot to say), but at least they release pictures into the public domain. Note that's why so many of our football articles have pictures of military academies playing. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
            • The Netherlands has some good CC sources, check out Phil Bloom (NSFW). Drmies has me doing a couple Dutch shows/actors (De Kris Pusaka, De Stille Kracht, and Pleuni Touw) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
              • Aha, those libertine Dutch are at it again, I see. 13:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
                • And they're making me do their dirty work. Figures. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Iqbal

I've just noticed you've deleted Iqbal terms. Do you plan to move the deleted content to Wikiquote? Mar4d (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No, but if you like, I'll provide you with the page's content if you'd like to do so. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. Mar4d (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it's at User:Mar4d/Iqbal terms now. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Mar4d (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sadler & Urantia

Hi Mark, looking at the blurb for the Sadler article I have a few comments. There is nothing substantially wrong, with any of it, just some things you might consider changing or clarifying. The definition currently describes the Urantia Book as " a compilation of conversations Sadler believed he had with extraterrestrials speaking to him through a sleeping man". The "believed he had" part is kind of clunky - and I am thinking of how to rephrase it to something lighter. Perhaps "a compilation of conversations that he had with a sleeping man whom he believed to be channeling extraterrestrials" - that appends the relative claus instead of inserting it into the main clause, making it perhaps less complicated. Also the article on the Urantia book says that the authorship of the book is not established - and the lead of the article doesn't mention Sadler. Is it controversial that the book is based on his conversations with a sleeping man? I am assuming that the decision to write "published" instead of "wrote", goes to this question, but I still think the lead of the urantia article should at least describe Sadler's possible involvement since readers are likely to click that link and get information that seems to contradict the main page blurb. Just some thoughts. Otherwise a very interesting article! ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at that, I took your suggestion for the wording in the blurb. As to the Urantia Book article, yes, there are some real issues with that--it's been the subject of organized POV pushing in the past. I haven't gotten involved with that article since I have little appetite for dealing with POV battles. A few IPs have showed up on Sadler to argue that he was in contact with "celestial beings" not "extraterrestrials" but that's the only conflict I've ran into there. To your specific point, it's accepted by both the believers and skeptics that Sadler talked with a sleeping man, a study group emerged from those conversations, and then an enormous book was published by Sadler and the group with all kinds of esoteric content in it. I think the true believers think the book just materialized like Joseph Smith's golden plates, or possibly was copied down verbatim from the sleeping man. Skeptics tend to think Sadler and his friends wrote the book. So there are problems with the Urantia Book article, but I don't think it's too controversial that the conversations with the sleeping man played a role in the book's publication. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sadler: awesome again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I've managed to enjoy the main page exposure thus far hopefully the rest goes well! Mark Arsten (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm watching with interest ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Eric B. Hughes

Again, why delete this article. Wiki encourages people to contribute, yet when they do- all of a sudden it gets deleted. Hughes is an award-winning filmmaker, he has 2 films do out this year, he's a produced screenwriter. There are so many over articles that should be looked at before this one.....just doesn't make sense. People were contributing links and all kinds of info to the page....so why delete? Please give me an answer. Bellatarr (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, we have very specific notability guidelines (WP:NOTABILITY) so it's possible for a good filmmaker to be non-notable in the Misplaced Pages sense. If he has films due out soon, it's possible he will become notable, at which time you can file for its restoration at WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Meth mouth

Pretty sure you should close the PR if you go for GA or FA. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I know that peer reviews have to be closed if an article is nominated for FA, but I don't think there's a rule about that for GAs--I know I've seen several articles with GA and peer reviews open at the same time. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's not required. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think the article needs rearranging. For example, under "Characteristics" it covers what could be considered "Background" - e.g. like the prevalence of meth abuse. I wish I had some access to sources. Does every abuser/user get meth mouth? How long does it take to develop? Since inmates are in jails only for short periods, probably treatment there is not too much of an issue like it would be in prisons where people are sentenced for long terms. The discussion on the article talk page is interesting. Like so much medical, not all that much is known it seems. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Feel free to do some re-arranging if you like. I pinged a couple people about the peer review, but haven't heard back. Also, I can e-mail you some of the sources if that would be helpful. To answer your questions 1. No, not every meth abuser gets meth mouth (much like high-functioning alcoholics are able to keep their lives in order). I had a mention in the article that it isn't known what percentage of users develop it, but had to comment it out over MEDRS concerns. 2. Not sure, but I think one source said it can show up within a few months at minimum; another source said it moves fairly slowly. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Appreciate the sources and would like to work on the article. Need time to digest and contemplate topic. Weather is crazy around here - spending time staving off disaster! MathewTownsend (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Ok, no prob, things are moving pretty slowly around here anyway. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Taj

Thanks for editing Syed Taj! I just dropped something into the Talk section and asked for PR, you may want to look at that too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadnibal (talk • contribs) 21:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Undeleting Eric B. Hughes for incubation

Just a courtesy note, since you closed the AfD for Eric B. Hughes, that I'm going to undelete the article and move it to Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Eric B. Hughes. Bellatarr (talk · contribs) would like to work on the article and see if it can be brought up to par. —C.Fred (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, glad to hear it. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

some quick help?

what do you do with suspicious images? The only place I could find was Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files and their instructions don't work for me on the file pages. eg {{puf|date=7 September 2012}} doesn't work on the image file page. See File:SahurePyramid.jpg Then add If the file is in use, also add {{pufc|File_name.ext|date=7 September 2012}} to the caption(s). But look: Pyramid of Sahure. What am I doing wrong?

These images have no clear statement that the author has given permission for his images to be freely used - just a green warning message.

• File:SahurePyramid.jpg
• File:Temple-sahoure-borchardt.jpg
• File:SahurePyramid.jpg
• File:Abousir-borchardt.jpg
• File:Sahure-Pyramid - Temple 05.jpg
• File:Sahure-Pyramid - Temple 04.jpg
• File:Sahure-Pyramid - Temple 02.jpg

What's the right procedure? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm afraid that I don't know much about images. My normal advice would be to ask Crisco, but I guess he's probably not around now. Nikkimaria might be able to give good advice too. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, dealt with on my talk. I gave some advice on the GAC too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, I really need to learn more about image copyrights one of these days. Mark Arsten (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Cadillac V-16

Thanks, I have added the main source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amer Shyml (talk • contribs) 22:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, great, thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I had also added a detail about the mechanical features on the V-16 engine as follows:

The V-16 has a vacuum assist on the cable brakes which works on the vacuum from the engine intake manifold, this vacuum is shared with the wind shield wiper motor.The vacuum is taken from both the left and right intake manifold. The engine has two vacuum tanks to draw fuel from the tank through separate fuel lines. This system gets vacuum from an engine driven vacuum pump located between the cylinder banks at the end. There is also an electric fuel gauge. The ignition key has a mechanical transmission lock so if you did not have the key you could hot wire the car but not put it in gear to drive away. The foot starter lever first engages the drive pinion with the flywheel ring and then a further press to the end of its travel, energizes the starter motor for a silent engagement. It has an enclosed drive shaft (torque tube) to the rear differential. if you cut one side fuel supply, you cannot tell that half the cylinders are not firing unless you went to the exhaust tail pipes and felt the hot and cold exhaust. It is the smoothest engine ever and surprisingly quick throttle response showing a light flywheel.

This is my own contribution, as i have worked on the 1930 V-16 engine and this is detail not available except to people who do similar work. Please advice how it can be placed in the article. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amer Shyml (talk • contribs) 21:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, per our WP:V policy, to add it you'd have to find a verifiable source stating it. That sometimes takes quite a bit of research, and some things unfortunately have to be left out. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Automobiles might be able to help you a bit, as well. Good luck, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Amsterdam Magazine (2nd nomination)

Hello, you closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Amsterdam Magazine (2nd nomination) with "The arguments in support of keeping the article were fairly weak, " and now two of the "keeps" have been shown to be sock puppets and . does that allow you to reconsider your close or would the next step be going to deletion review? -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I closed it as a no consensus, more or less, so it can be speedily renominated, which is all DRV would probably do if it were filed there. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Holy cow, you're awake. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, this isn't my usual editing time, I should be glad no one blocked my account as compromised :) Mark Arsten (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Well, now that you mention it... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• You know, I missed my chance to vandalize the main page and have a semi-plausible excuse that I wasn't behind it... Oh well, that would sure have been a lot of drama.
• @Red Pen of Doom I've renominated the article and semi'd it for the duration. Mark Arsten (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, you wouldn't have gotten away with it. If your password isn't up to snuff or you don't practice account security you'll be desysoped. Apparently they try to crack our passwords every once in a while to see if they're up to snuff or not. If they make it through we can be in trouble. Very trusting of admins, indeed... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oh believe me, I have the safest password ever. Mark Arsten (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• LOL. At least it's not one of these. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I know of a Wikipedian whose former password was "byte me, ". Mark Arsten (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• If it weren't against some obscure policy I'd guess which Wikipedian that was. Alright, good night. I have a long afternoon ahead of me: installing programs on a new laptop. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Ooh, that can make for a long afternoon. Mark Arsten (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Howdy

Hey Mark, Could you help me get a copy of the page you deleted - Direct Congress?

Thanks- Settdigger (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it's at User:Settdigger/Direct Congress now. Mark Arsten (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Settdigger (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Go to Sleep block?

I've got half a mind to give you a "go to sleep" block. Up at 3 o'clock my time answering talk page pings, and 9 o'clock my time you're at ANI? Oh my. (BTW, thank Drmies and Kelapstick for the wonderful article) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

lol, I got some sleep somewhere in there, but it was unusual for me to have that much trouble sleeping. It was all the dog's fault, to be honest. And yes, I do recall that article, pretty funny. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Dog's fault, eh? That sounds like somethhing my students would say... and yeah, I had an even worse afternoon than I expected. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• A Laptop is a fickle beast, for sure. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Nah, the laptop is purring (more or less)... I'm talking about the motorcycle accident. Not as bad as it coulda been, but still... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oh geez, hope you're Ok. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Just a little scraped up. If you're more worried about your laptop than yourself, are you an addict?  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's the voice of experience, I've ruined more than one computer before (spilling wine/vomiting on the keyboard back in my drinking days, punching the computer back in my gaming days, etc.) Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Luckily I managed to stop destroying systems before getting a computer. Instead, me and my brothers trashed at least two Segas and three SNESes, as well as an N64. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, six systems, that is pretty impressive. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• One and a half per boy. Our ActRaiser worked pretty good with half its back missing though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds like fun times! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not for the parents. Ucucha's doing a lot of last-minute promoting, so I have a lot of Signpost writing to do tomorrow. Oh well. Bed for me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, glad to hear that Ucucha's back. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Redirect

Mark, right now the page Emperor of Brazil redirects to List of monarchs of Brazil. Could you erase it and make "Emperor of Brazil" a redlinked article? I'm asking you this because I want to start writing about the office of Brazilian Emperor. Thus it would be like the similar articles about Japan, where we have Emperor of Japan and List of Emperors of Japan. Thank you, --Lecen (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You could just expand the article from a redirect without deletion, I think. I've done that on a couple articles before. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You got it wrong. I don't want the deletion of any article. What I want is one article solely focused on a list of Brazilian monarchs and another one focused on the office of emperor (it´s powers, characteristics, etc...). I want to bring both to FA level. --Lecen (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, sounds like a good project. I've deleted the page so you can move the article about the office there. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Lecen (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Downstream OS

Thanks for revisiting the AfD and giving it a bit of an early close. Sorry if my comments appeared snippy; they weren't intended as such, but rereading them they sound almost nasty, and recognizing that AfD is a low-participation war zone of pain these days I hate to give any admin brave enough to wade in there grief! I felt the article itself was pretty amusing and let that carry over into my opinion. Credit to the author for their audacity -- in hindsight, the creation of the article was probably an attempt to drive funding at their Indiegogo page! Anyway, cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark, Thanks for improving our page. 2pics (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mark Arsten, Lucky102 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm still not sure what you mean, what did people give you? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for helping me! Lucky102 (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

	We did it!
	Microsoft Security Essentials is now a featured article. Thanks for your assistance and support in making it possible. Codename Lisa (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		The above is more of a generic message summing my reasons for leaving but I have to say you as well as CambridgeBayWeather were pretty much the closest thing I had to friends on here lol although we only corresponding once or twice, I'm still grateful for all of your help in combating sock puppeteers and vandals. Oh and I kind of borrowed your fancy talk page header, shame it wasn't put to much use! :) Sakimonk 03:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)