Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:56, 3 October 2013

Archives

Archive I Archive II Archive III Archive IV Archive V Archive VI Archive VII Archive VIII Archive IX Archive X Archive XI Archive XII Archive XIII

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

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

Ayn Rand

The changes by Miles Money should be reverted as that specific phrase is under an RfC which he is participating. He has basically had you protect his preferred version and he actions directly work against WP norms and procedures folling RfC's. Arzel (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I usually try to avoid reverting to a specific version after protecting unless there's a clear consensus supporting it. Do you think that's the case here? I can look into it more. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually not a big fan of the version you froze it to, but almost any qualifier is better than the bare term, which is inaccurate. As for consensus, the problem we're having is that Rand is very popular, which is to say she has many fans who are apparently more interested in the article making her look perfect than being accurate. We're flooded with these POV-pushers who are ignoring both policy and our sources. MilesMoney (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

What a load of BS. The version frozen definately does not have any concensus regardless of the lack of good faith illustrated by MM. Arzel (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd need to use the fingers of both hands to count up all the behavioral policies you just violated here, but the most basic problem is that what you said isn't accurate. MilesMoney (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLUDGEON. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the second time that I see the Ayn Rand article is locked with a POV characterization for a month, I know it is not an endorsement, I don't ask this time to be locked with the NPOV description without adjectives but at least there should be a dispute-inline on the "untrained" characterization which is disputed in the talk page. Could you add it until we resolve this issue? --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't actually want it to say "untrained"; it was a compromise that I attempted, but it pleases nobody. However, we can't just remove the qualifier so that it sounds as if Rand was a regular philosopher. MilesMoney (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what to do here. I suggest asking another admin for a second opinion. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Mark, I'm not sure if you saw, but there's an RFC here discussing the issue specifically. It's due to close in about 2 days, so perhaps your best past forward might be to do nothing for that time, close the RfC, then do whatever is needed to the article (if anything) to reflect the close. (In any case, I think an uninvolved admin will be needed to close that RfC, and I think most would agree that you fit the bill :-P ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that is good advice. I'll probably unprotect when the Rfc closes to implement the consensus over the current version, which no one seems to like. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem is that there's a non-consensus majority that's going to edit-war to remove all qualifiers. The RFC is invalid due to the dishonest opening statement, and there hasn't been a single persuasive argument for why we should ignore our best sources. MilesMoney (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Very! MilesMoney (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong about the 7 days to close an RfC, though an argument could be made for closing it earlier than that. (30 days is a long time to have the article locked down.) Perhaps you'd be willing to intervene a bit at Murray Rothbard‎‎. I had previously protected the article for edit warring, and there's another request for intervention on my talk page, but I'd rather not take any action myself because I currently have a SPI open on one of the recent participants, and would rather not get any more involved at the moment. (Or feel free to do nothing and somebody will probably make a request at RPP or something...up to you.) Thanks ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like protection is definitely merited on Rothbard. These libertarian articles are become such hotbeds of conflict lately. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a helpful suggestion: Instead of protecting it, you could ask Rich and Bink to stop edit-warring. Or even block them. MilesMoney (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No one broke 3RR, so I'm very hesitant to block in that situation. User:Srich32977 came the closest, I suppose, making 3 reverts on two separate days this week on the article. Hopefully he will stay further from the line in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

No one has to. WP:3RR states:

"While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block."

You would clearly be within your rights as an admin in blocking Srich32977 for tiptoeing near the bright line. Barring that, absolutely no one would question it if you gave Srich32977 an official warning reminding him that he's not entitled to edit-war slowly. Would he listen? We can hope so. But if he doesn't, then he can't claim to be surprised by the block. I'd sooner dissuade him than block him, but I'm pretty sure blocking would reliably dissuade him.

Now, I'm going to stop telling you how to do your job and go back to doing mine. Carry on, good sir. :-) MilesMoney (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Factors involved in decision

Hello, Mark

I was hoping you could explain something to me. I am curious; what exactly made you come up with this decision?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is a bit of a difficult Afd to close. Some of the Keep !votes certainly were fairly week, though they had a clear numerical advantage. The delete !votes were pretty consistent in saying that it failed the guideline on not publishing changelogs, but several keep !votes disputed this, arguing that it was or had the potential to be more than just a changelog article. It's difficult for me to say which side is right about its changelog-ness because I'm supposed to close based on consensus rather than my own opinion. Looking over it again though, it seems more like a "no consensus" close than a "Keep" close. I'll adjust my closing comment to reflect that. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

Thanks for clarification. It is a sound explanation, one that can impact the article and its future. Could you please add it in front of your decision in the deletion discussion?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Megan Young New Section

Hi Mark. I would like to ask your opinion if I can add a section for Megan Young's article about her stint in Miss World Philippines 2013. I hope I can hear from you soon.

greenmarktea78 07:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktanoja78 (talk • contribs)

Yes, you're free to do so. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Ross Hill18:29 30 Sep 2013 (UTC) 18:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For making sure WP:RPP doesn't ever get backlogged ever again. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 21:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

lol, thanks. It's a good feeling to clear out a backlog :) Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: vandalism/libel against Jorge Erdely Graham

Hello, I was wondering if you can help me with a series of edits made by a user named Ajaxfiore, which are libelous and constitute vandalism against Jorge Erdely Graham. I made a noticeboard entry at: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jorge_Erdely_Graham

Thank you for your consideration.AbuRuud (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can be of much help here. Since I can't read Spanish I can't really understand whether the references support the text. You might ask User:Thelmadatter for advice, she edits a lot of Mexican topics. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Czechia - the name dispute

Hi Mark, who can vote on the deletion of this article? Anyone? If yes, why don't you put a link on the discussion page so everyone can vote? Can I vote? Are you following the discussion? My point is this: First, the article has problems but it could be worked on collectively to be improved. I have suggested ways to deal with it in the discussion. Second, and more importantly, there is very little information on the term "Czechia" in Misplaced Pages and I believe that people who want to find out more about the term should be able to find it here. It should be neutral and non-partisan but almost all attempts to put any information on Misplaced Pages have been vandalized or deleted. I also think that Misplaced Pages should not discriminate against non-native speakers and use their less than perfect English as an excuse to delete the information they are trying to put in. It should be a collective effort and they should get help. I am relatively new here as a contributor so I do not have my page set up. I have to find time to learn how to do it. Sorry.Geog25 (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark, I found the link on the page, I was looking on the discussion page. Sorry to bother you.Geog25 (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Anyone is free to participate in the discussion, as long as your arguments are based in Misplaced Pages policy, see WP:ATA for details. There is usually just a link to the discussion on the article itself, but you're free to add links to it on other talk pages as long as you don't ask people to !vote a certain way. Let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Afghanistan Semi-Protection

Hello Mark. Sorry to interrupt the useful work you are doing (or always keep doing). You semi-protected Afghanistan for a week. Will it revert back to PC-1 after one week or will it be a no protection? --SMS 03:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

After one week is up it will automatically revert back to pending changes as usual. User:George Ho requested temporary semi-protection due a recent spurt in vandalism, so I agreed to temporarily provide that as well. Permanent semi-protection might actually make more sense than pending changes though, now that I think about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Sock question

Hello, Mark Arsten! SPI is not my strong point, and I'm not sure if you can do anything, but maybe you can point in the right direction. A user you just blocked is a WP:DUCK of another user who was just blocked. I (as a dynamic IP) reverted the latter's wikilove on Jimbo's page, and noticed the former's wikilove also on Jimbo's talk page, and they both edited User talk:24.246.104.98. I know they are both blocked, so it is worth it to file an SPI to check for a master, or is whack-a-mole the way to go? Rgrds. --64.85.216.33 (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I hadn't connected the two. I'll check with a CU. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (1 October)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I thereby award you with this Admin's Barnstar for your continued work at the Requests for protection noticeboard. Armbrust 12:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to help! Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Exari

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Exari. 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.

vandal

Hi Mark,
I noted that you made an advisory comment on the talk page for this IP user: Special:Contributions/71.55.154.102. I myself had just fixed a mess this account left on another article (which I doubt was a simple mistake). A look at the contribs shows a total of only 7 edits, all recent. Aside from the edit you commented on and the edit I repaired, all 5 of the remaining edits were clearly vandalism. As an admin, I though I would bring this to your attention. Thanks. - thewolfchild 20:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note. He hasn't edited in over a week though, so I probably won't block. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark S. Gold‎

Thanks for the Semi on Mark S. Gold‎. I wasn't thinking, and should have requested PC1 - especially given that Copyvio is one of the key reasons for it. Will you change it to PC1, or should I wait and see if Semi covers it? Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, we might stick with semi for now and maybe revisit in a week. I don't have strong feelings either way. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Province of Georgia

I am fully aware of the fact that you are very busy, but I do ask that you protect this article because of ongoing vandalism by IPs. I kindly suggest semi protection. One look at the view history will tell you the story. Personally, I have no idea why this article is being vandalized, but it's happened multiple times now. Thank you Avenzhang (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll check it out. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for semi-protecting. --Avenzhang (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Westwood High School (Austin, Texas)

Hi. I am going to ask you to reconsider my request you just denied at RPP regarding the above article. The reason is that the problem is still the same one from when you protected it in August. Same edits, same IP range. If you have a better solution, by all means let me know; but this is a continuation of the prior problem exactly, and not a new issue. The material being put back in is just garbage; I would find it poorly written as a sports story if I were the high school's newspaper editor. It certainly has no place here. They just edit warred it back every time I tried to tone it down before and I have no reason to think it just won't be the same story again. Thanks. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a problem, but since the protection expired a couple weeks ago they've only added it back in once. I usually look for more frequent disruption when protecting. I guess you could get a second opinion from another admin if you like. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Handedness

Hi Mark Re Catholics being called "Leftfooters" or "lefthanders". You gave no reason for undoing my edit. Is it disputed or is it against some guidelines to include this fact? Timlynch22 (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Tim

Which edit of yours did I revert? Could you link to it? I probably reverted because you did not include a source with your change, see WP:V for the guideline. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark, er well I left you some clues: "lefthanders", "leftfooters" being a slang term for Catholics. It was on the "handedness" page. Raised as a Catholic I can vouch for this first hand. Misplaced Pages also references it on page: "Left-hand path and right-hand path". I am new to editing so please forgive i didn't link to that article. should i just put it back in or have you some doubts? Tim Timlynch22 (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You can re-add the information, but you should include a link to a reliable source (WP:RS) when you add the information. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Fringe-y thing you may be able to help with

Hey, Mark. Been a while since we worked on anything together. I, perhaps foolishly, recently decided to try and improve the article on the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. There were some talk page complaints, valid in my view, that the article had become a WP:COATRACK for the evolution vs. creationism debate. I think I've done a pretty good job of improving the article, especially considering that I don't hold the mainstream view of the museum, but now it's come down to issues of how much and what kind of criticism to include. Since you've done work on some pretty WP:FRINGE-y topics before, I thought your experience might be valuable in helping us sort through things. The presently-open discussion is here, although you may want to review all the talk page conversations from 2013 for background. On the other hand, you may not think this is worth your time or effort, and that's fine, too. I've had you in mind as a possible peer reviewer if we ever got to that point, but I think that if we can't resolve the open issues cleanly, it'll never get to that point.

BTW, I don't know (or necessarily care to know) your views on the subject of the article. I just know you've done good work on fringe-y articles before, and that's the reason I'm pinging you. Hope this isn't seen as WP:CANVASSing. If it is, I'll own up to it and try to rectify it. Acdixon 14:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That does sound interesting, I'll try to take a look at it. I think I've heard of that before, but I thought it was in a different city. Is there more than one creation museum? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but this one is by far the biggest, most expensive, and best-known. Petersburg is right outside Cincinnati, so you may have heard someone say it was in Cincinnati, Ohio. Acdixon 15:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes, that was it. Back to geography class for me! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Malik Noureed Awan - which version should stand?

You have recently edited Malik Noureed Awan. Please see Talk:Malik Noureed Awan#Call for reasons why the NPOV/poorly-referenced version should stand and contribute your thoughts. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"Fixed refs" from multiple IP addresses?

I wonder what's going on here. The edits looked benign, but seem to come from many different IP addresses. Is this some kind of sockpuppet attack? Anyway, thanks for your cleanup efforts. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Very odd situation here. Some details at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sophisticated_mass_vandalism_from_IP_ranges.3F and Misplaced Pages:Archive.is RFC. Basically someone was running an unapproved bot to add links to his archive site and when it got blocked he started using a huge network of IPs to evade the block. Since those edits were technically block evasion I rolled them back. I haven't seen anything like this before. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Protection of 2013-14 UEFA Champions League page.

Hello, Thank you for protected the page from the disruptive editors. I can still edit on that page when the matches are finished though right? Skyblueshaun (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, established accounts (more than ten edits over four days) can still edit the page. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Richard Huggett

Hello thank you for your genuine reply, i must admit the comment about the monkey was in jest however you will find Richard Huggett was in fact born on the 18th. Yours sincerely a fruit monkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.59.190 (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio-revdel

Hi! Thank you for dealing with those revdeletes. I'm afraid I screwed up at Susan C. Aldridge: I identified and removed a further copyvio, but failed to update the template. Is it OK to ask you to deal with that too, or should I re-add the template with the later revision?

By the way, do you have any advice on what to do about Emergy, where there is, despite various efforts on my part to remove it, again a massive and impenetrable screed posted by " MT Brown and S Ulgiati according to a mandate received from the International Society for the Advancement of Emergy Research (ISAER) during the most recent Biennial Emergy Conference (16-18 January 2010)"? It doesn't seem to me that that is how things are done round here, but I don't know what the next step should be. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, revdeleted the rest. I haven't looked a the Emergy thing in too much detail, but maybe try holding a talk page RFC about whether to keep the content or not? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for handling these blocks. It's the same person who's been harassing me for a while under different IPs, but I'm looking into avenues to deal with that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to let me know if you spot any more socks. I can semi any pages he's targeting as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Macgyver

Seriously, re-read the Macgyver edit and tell me again how it's not constructive. Is there a region on this planet that isn't represented there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.255.96 (talk) 02:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Your most recent edits look fine to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Somatics

Hi - following a suggestion at WP:FT/N I'm contacting you about the Somatics article, which was the subject of an AfD earlier this year which you closed with a result of delete. Since then the article has re-appeared. Could you clarify what has happened? it seems to me the article is still as worthy as deletion as it was before. Thanks, Alexbrn 15:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Will reply there. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - WP:SOFTDELETE is a new thing to me ... Alexbrn 15:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a tricky situation when an Afd is open for three weeks but no one wants to vote on it. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Some of these fringe articles don't fit very well into the AfD categories, I think that's part of the problem. Alexbrn 16:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

In recognition of your great work at Requests for Page Protection. Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 16:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's a little early in the day for that! Mark Arsten (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Makers/ someone using wiki to promote besharam, manipulating with stats

Makers of besharam or someone else is trying to create false impression that the film is doing well. The film's actual budget is rs 80 cr. Somebody tampering with it, changing to 50 sometimes, 20 sometimes. Real budget is 80 cr.

Public opinion is completely negative. They are trying to make it mixed.

Collection figures are under 19 cr... showing 21.65..etc...

What is this ? Is wiki a place to present fake stats, false opinions ? Are there no controlling authority to present the true facts and figures of bollywood movies ?

And this is a new tactics. Lock the page and show whatever suitable for the makers....

this cant be the reputation of wiki....a site presenting misleading facts favorable for makers of the film.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.4.37 (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The best thing you can do is to explain your concerns at Talk:Besharam (2013 film). Then other editors can observe and weigh in on the issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)