This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

An article that you have been involved in editing, Prosperity theology , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ltwin (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Ltwin (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You proposed deleting the article for Steven Schmidt - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Schmidt for lack of references. But I think you added references. So why on earth would you delete an article for a reason that you easily remedied?

Not sure I follow that logic.

-- Mgayle23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.41.12 (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Mgyale, you are partially mistaken here. User:Pburka proposed the article for deletion because of a lack of sources. I happened to come across the article after he/she proposed it for deletion. I added in some sources and removed the proposed deletion template. Someone could still nominate it for deletion through WP:AFD later, but it's safe for now. Interesting article you wrote there, I hope you stick around. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that book is about the road bridge - see Tees Viaduct. I saw that article before I made the railway page. JagMoore (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. It's a shame how quick that was nominated for deletion though, I hope you are able to turn up some more sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the references! ^_^ Bolillorocks (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)bolillorocks

My pleasure, that's a very interesting topic. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, Mark. I had wrongly thought that as long as we quoted the obituary as being a proper source the article would be OK. Thanks.LenF54 (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your further reply, Mark. I want to proceed with the article, particularly as I stated at its creation that the justification was that his Saga Magazine became the largest circulation monthly mag in Britain and this is not a part of the stubbed article you have allowed to remain. When I read my article I still think it is a reasonably constructed piece of work, but as you rightly say it is too similar to the Telegraph's obituary. The problem is that the Telegraph's piece contains almost all the relevant info (other than place and cause of death, wife's maiden name and year of marriage) so any article I write will in some way contain elements of it. I will keep working on it. Could I suggest that if I come up with a sufficiently re-worked piece that I think could replace the current stub, then I put it in my sandbox and ask you to look at it? That way I would not be writing something only for you or another editor to delete it. In the meantime I want to add to the stub about Saga Mag being at one time Britain's biggest selling monthly, otherwise it should be proposed for deletion. LenF54 (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, sounds like a good idea--the article was well-constructed and seems to be a pretty notable topic. Feel free to re-edit the article or work up a draft in a sandbox. I should be able to take a look at your work again, but in case I'm not around Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests might be a good place to get some help, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Mark, I put a note on Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests and an editor stated on 4 November that the article looked OK apart from a particular copyright violation - but he wanted a second opinion. I have deleted the offending external link, but no further opinion has been forthcoming. Can you take a look for me please? I have other work queuing up to get into my sandbox User:LenF54/sandbox, and while the Paul Bach article sits there I keep tweaking and adding to it. Currently the article is more about the magazine than Bach! LenF54 (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, I had totally forgotten about this, thanks for the note. I agree with the other reviewer, this draft looks like it is in good shape. I'm glad to see that you kept going and worked on it some more. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Nextdoor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the importance of the subject, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I must admit I was nonplussed by your publication--just hours ago. Your article looks like it is of good quality, and at first glance appears to contain more of a research base than Courtney's. I'll discuss this development with her but it won't be until after Thanksgiving. I may encourage her to see if she could add anything to the article you posted so that she gets some experience on collaborating with other editors to create a better product. Thanks for drawing this to my attention. -Webster Newbold (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, hope that it works out well. She did have some information in her draft about awards and soundtrack and a couple other things that don't have in my draft. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

On 24 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Unthink, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Unthink and Nextdoor each attempt to challenge Facebook by providing an online social network with greater privacy? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 08:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

On 24 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nextdoor, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Unthink and Nextdoor each attempt to challenge Facebook by providing an online social network with greater privacy? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 08:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I think the theology section is good, but it needs to do a better job of actually describing what this looks like in practice. How exactly is giving money and other "seed" practiced and explained. How does belief in divine healing look through this perspective. What does suffering and lack in a Christian's life mean to prosperity theology adherents. So just more detail.

I have a book which I can use to help to boost the history section.

Governance and organization. Prosperity gospel ministries tend to be very hierarchical with the senior pastor having nearly unchecked authority over church affairs. This might need to be talked about. Ltwin (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts, those are good observations. The authoritarian trend is particularly true, I think. I'll see if there are any good sources that I can dig up. Also, I just noticed, this article gets a lot of views! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

About images, perhaps images from TBN or something. Maybe the cover of a book advocating prosperity gospel.

I also think there needs to be more clarity on the difference between prosperity theology and Word of Faith/Positive Confession. Having grown up in a WOF influenced church, I know that they go hand in hand. From what I can tell from reading though, Word of Faith seems to be a particular form of prosperity gospel. One can advocate a prosperity theology without believing in full blown Word of Faith. Ltwin (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions to the article, they look pretty good. It is really coming along nicely. I agree about the distinctions, there are a variety of subsets in the movement. Moderates vs extremists as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried to get some more of that in the article, there is really a lot of coverage out there about this. I had a hard time finding sources that talked about the differences between moderate PT and hard-core WOF theology. I'll keep looking though. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You're great! The prose reads much better. I don't have time to do a full review of it, but from a quick look I think it passes GAC1a and b now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I haven't joined the GOCE or anything, but I was looking over their page and thought I'd take a try on it. I don't know much at all about Indonesia so it was good to learn a bit. I had a ton of caffeine that day, and it was wearing off by the end of the copyedit, so I probably missed more then. I'll try to take another look if I have time in the next few days. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

On 3 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Whiteaker, Eugene, Oregon, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that anarchists from the Whiteaker neighborhood of Eugene, Oregon played a key role in organizing black bloc tactics during the 1999 Seattle World Trade Organization Conference? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Whiteaker, Eugene, Oregon.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure, I hope you enjoy the use of the mop. It was really a shame though to see how contentious the debate got by the end, but you kept your calm admirably. It reminded me a lot of the negative campaigning used in American politics these days. I wish Wikipedia were above such things. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Camp Woodland was built in 1969 and at its first summer camp had 487 campers. The camp also has a dynamic history. This is according to its about page at http://woodlandcamp.org/history.html That's notable to me. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 23:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your response. I'll open a deletion discussion to get some more input on its notability. Typically independent sources are required to have an article, perhaps someone who comes across the discussion can turn some up. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I just removed the template from the page after expanding it some and now you nominated it for deletion. You weren't supposed to undo what I did with that template. Why? --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 00:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments man. I'm glad the article helped in a way.--WillC 22:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, hope the rest of the review goes well. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello,there, what was wrong with this, why did you delete it? This is all verified and cited and important information about the school. Palygrad (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Palygrad

Palo Alto High School has a substantial academic achievement gap, whereby Black and Latino students do not enjoy a comparable level of academic success as their White and Asian counterparts. For example, in 2010, only 15% of Blacks and less than 40% of Latinos met the UC/CSU A-G requirements for admissions eligibility, compared with 80-90% of Whites and Asians. [7] Palo Alto High School, as part of PAUSD, has a disproportionate number of Blacks and Latinos in special education, and as part of PAUSD is subject to a state-mandated plan to reduce this disproportionality. [8] On April 20, 2011, Radu Toma, Palo Alto High School Mathematics Instructional Supervisor, and the Palo Alto High School Math Department, issued a letter to the PAUSD School Board and Superintendent personally signed by Radu Toma, Suzanne Antink, Kathy Bowers, Judy Choy, Arne Lim, Deanna Chute, Natalie Simison, Misha Stempel, Maria Rao, Charlotte Harris, Scott Friedland, Lisa Kim, Ambika Nangia and David Baker. The letter states in pertinent part: "However brain theory supports the reality that confounding student situations interfere with their ability to focus and succeed as they move through advanced mathematics curriculum in high school. We live in an affluent community. Most of our students are fortunate to come from families where education matters and parents have the means and will to support and guide their children in tandem with us, their teachers. Not all of them. . . . Many of these are VTP [desegregation transfer] students or under-represented minorities. . . . In the present system, they graduate proud of their accomplishments, to go on to community college or jobs for which PAUSD prepares them better than most districts. . . . The alternative, diluting the standards in our regular lane to basic benchmarks which might allow every student to pass Algebra II would end up hurting the district's reputation . . . . [segue to info re their plan to] "motivate slackers". [9]

My apologies, I saw the misplaced example file at the top of the page and reverted your edit to remove it. If you have cited text about the school you are free to add it in anytime. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Mark. I saw that you made several edits to Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias. Do you plan to review its FA candidacy? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lecen, I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia copyediting so feel free to revert my tweaks if you don't think they're an improvement. I wasn't planning on giving a Support or Oppose in the FAC since I'm not completely familiar with Featured article standards. I'm trying to get up to speed on it and hopefully I'll become more familiar quickly. I'll try to look over the rest of the article and leave a comment on the FAC though. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're helping a lot. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I know very little about South American history, so this was educational for me if nothing else :) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There is an article about Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná which I brought to FA level some time ago. I made quite a few imporvements since then and I wanted to be sure that its prose looks good. If you're interested, could you do some copy-edit on it? Since you read Caxias, you'll feel at home here. --Lecen (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be willing to go over it when I get a chance. I'll let you know if I have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to add my thanks, especially for simplifying some of the more awkward areas. Much appreciated. • Astynax ^talk 19:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome, with large articles like that it really does take a number of people looking at it to catch everything. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you done with the Marquis of Paraná's article? Is there anything else to be corrected? --Lecen (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks great, thank you very much. Tell me someting, at the beginning of the next section, it is written: "Luís Alves would normally have begun the Fourth year at the Royal Military Academy in March 1822." Should I add "Fourth year classes"? I don't want anyone to believe that this Fourth year was his fourth year at the Academy, which wasn't. --Lecen (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a good change to make. Good catch. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Not quite yet, I have not done below the First presidency of the Council of Ministers. Things are going well thus far. Hopefully I'll be able to finish soon. I've tried to be careful, but you should probably review my changes to make sure I didn't change the meaning of anything. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm finished. I'm not a professional-quality copyeditor (yet), so there's a chance that some particularly exacting editors could still find issues. My new year's resolution is to get some articles up to Featured Status, so this is good practice for me. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Mark, I made a few changes to the second and third paragraph of "Military education" section on Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias. Could you do me a favor and take a look and improve where necessary? Most important is this part: "He rose from alferes (equivalent to a second lieutenant today), on 12 October 1818, to lieutenant (nowadays first lieutenant) on 4 November 1820". The date "12 October 1818" is when he was promoted to alferes. Thanks a lot, --Lecen (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I took a stab at it. Hope that my changes were an improvement! Mark Arsten (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Mark, is this correct: "Physically, he was ordinary looking, with a round face, brown hair, brown eyes and average height."? --Lecen (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that basically looks ok to me. There are a couple other ways you could write it though ie: He had an ordinary appearance, with a... And so on. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed to "He had an ordinary appearance, with a..." as you suggested. Thanks a lot. --Lecen (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: "Luís Alves' indistinguishable features were compensated by his bearing; historian Thomas Whigham described him as someone who "learned the art of giving orders early in life. Immaculate in his dress, he was soft spoken, polite, and smoothly in control of himself. He seemed to radiate calm composure and authority." Is this ok? What about the ";"? Do you have a better suggestion? --Lecen (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure "indistinguishable" is the best word to put there. (not 100% sure) I think you're trying to say that his features were the same as people around him, but it almost sounds to me like "Luís Alves' indistinguishable features" means you can't distinguish one of his features from other features. Maybe say "unremarkable features" or perhaps "quotidian features". Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You're correct. Changed to unremarkable. Thanks a lot! --Lecen (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

On 10 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexis Bachelot, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Alexis Bachelot, who led the first Catholic mission to Hawaii, was suspected of being a covert agent of the French government by some Hawaiian chiefs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alexis Bachelot.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you extend the date that Camp Woodland is going to be deleted? I need a lot of extra time. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 21:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing that I can do at this point since the AfD is under way. If you comment in the AfD and say you can provide evidence of notability soon an administrator may extend the discussion. Also, you could flag the article for rescue. Even if it is deleted, if you can find proof of notability after the fact you can always open up a WP:Deletion Review. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For your outstanding copyediting of Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias and Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná. You deserve this. Thank you very much. Lecen (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• You're welcome, a barnstar is a great way to start off a monday morning! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mark. Thanks for copyediting the article, it's reading much better now. I also need to apologise to you as I didn't realise you were still working your way through it, and added something to the Tabak section which I'd overlooked, so I hope you don't mind that I've done that. I've tried to add it in the same style, so hopefully it should be ok. I'll put it up for GA in the next couple of days and see how it fares. Thanks once again. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to help--the prose wasn't bad to begin with. I think the article is in pretty good shape for a shot at Good Article Status. (Though I wasn't familiar with the case to begin with, so I wouldn't know about bias/comprehensiveness). I haven't officially joined the GOCE or anything, but I saw the backlog and figured I'd try to help out a bit where I could. (Since I was adding to it myself). I'm still a bit new to Wikipedia copyediting so I won't be offended if you disagree with any of my changes. There are a few sections I haven't gone through yet, but I should be able to finish up in a day or two. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi again and thanks once more for the copyedit. I agree with everything you've done, so the only change I've made is a small update as Saturday was the first anniversary of her death. I'll put it forward for GA today and hopefully it should be promoted after Christmas. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, I hope that the review goes smoothly. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please take note of the following:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You can display the ((User wikipedia/rollback)) userbox or the ((Rollback)) top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick service! Thanks, I'll get to work cleaning up vandalism shortly. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

	For the Copyedit
	Have a local brew on me. Your copyedits to 1740 Batavia massacre have the article sparkling. I'm tempted to go to FAC today or tomorrow. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• You're very welcome, I think the article is in great shape. It is always a pleasure to try to copyedit well-written articles, I think this definitely deserves featured status. (This was a lot easier than the one about the singer I did a few weeks ago!) Mark Arsten (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed completely; hopefully no dropped particles or articles. Well, fingers crossed! Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I'll keep an eye out for the nomination. I'm hoping to take an article there in 2012 (still on the research phase now), so I've been paying a bit more attention to FAC. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Which one? I'll take a look. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the offer, I'll plan to take you up on that! I'm working on a sandbox draft right now and haven't moved it to mainspace yet. I'm still waiting for a couple books to arrive, actually. Half the fun is doing the research though :) Mark Arsten (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You wrote me the following:

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Science of Logic, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you kindly provide some grounds to back up your assertion that my edit to Science of Logic was "unconstructive"? Xianmw (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, that was my mistake, I have restored your edit. I was using WP:IGLOO and I misfired, totally my mistake--I deserve to be hit with a trout for that. Good for you working on Hegel though, we need more contributors like you. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Please save my page "The Children and the Airline (2011 book)" I need this page in order to publish my novels. Even though I had not released it. You can trust me I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesDavidEderick (talk • contribs) 02:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I know what it is like to have someone try to delete a page right after it is created, so I know what you are feeling to some extent. I thought your page was a hoax at first, but I'll take your word that the book is real. But you should review Wikipedia's inclusion guideline for books to see if there are any guideline based argumentation that you can make in the discussion. If you find that your book does not meet the guideline but likely will soon, you can ask to have the page moved into a userspace location. Also, I don't understand why you need to have a Wikipedia page in order to publish the book? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	This is for beating me to vandalism 3 times tonight. :) Keep up the good work and happy holidays! -- Luke (Talk) 02:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• LOL, thanks for the barnstar. I was just complaining about Cluebot beating me, so I guess I can identify :) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for all your great work helping to get the prosperity theology article to GA status. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• My pleasure, I'm glad I stuck with this article and got help on it. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think my account has been hacked. I just logged on and i got like three messages. How do I changed my password? — Preceding unsigned comment added by S3XYman2043 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure--I've had the same password since I registered an account. Maybe ask on the WP:VP? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Will complete the review on Saturday. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, not a problem, thanks for the note. I'm sure I can find something on Wikipedia to keep me busy until then :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

On hold till 31st. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz ^Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding ((subst:Xmas3)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

• Hey, thanks for the Christmas wishes and the detailed feedback on the article. I should be able to sort it all out in the next week. Happy holidays to you too. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Mark! I hope you're doing fine. I wish you a Merry Christmas and I really want to see you and I working together again next year. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd like to wish you a Boas Festas, as well. I see you got another couple supports on the Duke of Caxias, good deal. Hope you get to bring a few more articles to FAC in the new year. Hopefully there will be a lot more edits to FAC and less to ANI/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests then. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I won't. I'm giving up the FAC. I asked for one thing: impartiality. That's all. I don't believe someone who has issues in the past with an editor should review the latter's FAC. That's simple and reasonable. And I'm the kind of person who believes that we should all treat ourselves with respect. It isn't because we are protected by anonymity (well, at least not me anymore) that we have the right to call someone an "arse", "idiot" or tell them to "fuck themselves" as that said person did before. I just want to finish Caxias' FAC and I'm done here for good. Anyway, I wish you a good Christmas celebration. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you are giving up on FAC, I wonder if the process is eventually headed for reform. Oh well, I guess time will tell. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice that we have always the same small group of editors taking part on the FAC process? There are no newer editors appearing interested on reviewing articles. I see the contrary: there has been quite a few good and experienced editors giving up. What to do? I don't know, but the delegates do not seem to have the will to propose any improvements for real. But forget about it. I just wanted to thank you and wish you a nice holiday. You're a great person and deserve it. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

My statements are factual. Do you deny them? A taser is a torture device, and this is obvious to anyone who's seen any news article concerning their use in the last decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.102.240 (talk • contribs)

Hi, thanks for asking. On Wikipedia, additions to articles must be written in a neutral tone and should be cited to a reliable source. Statements such as this appear to be biased to me and did not cite a source, that's why I reverted you. If you believe that this is accurate, please open a new section on Talk:Taser and attempt to discuss the matter with other editors. It will help a lot if you provide citations for your claims. Thanks and Happy Holidays, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

How do you reason with a anon user that trolls you and keeps reverting your edits? The problem is that they have no incentive to discuss or register as a user to engage in discussion.MonkeyKingBar (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and how do you reason with a sockpuppet [1] who refuses to discuss edits, refuses to follow the rules, and has been banned several times[2][3][4][5][6]? 99.224.54.167 (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, my talk page is getting crowded. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I've raised the matter at WP:ANI, hopefully they can sort things out between you two. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mark, I'm editing the AUS site and got a message from you, of which the word 'vandalism' made me sit up. It's my first time to work on Wikipedia copy so please let me know if I have overstepped the mark in my editing. I'll start reading the guidelines now. --Frances Barton (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry, that was actually my fault--I removed the vandalism template a couple minutes later. I restored your edits to the page, you did nothing wrong there. What happened was I saw that there was one empty section with Xs (you removed it here) and though that you were just adding a bunch of Xs to the article. Then when I saw that you had made more edits than that I restored your work. Please continue helping out around here, we need contributors like you. It is good to read the guidelines, but there are quite a few of them. I recommend Wikipedia:The End for some good introductory information. Thanks Mark Arsten (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark, shall do. --Frances Barton (talk) 06:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I live in Bridge City. I cannot recall the name of the lady (then a child) who was honored by having her suggestion for the name of the bridge made official. Somethings just don't have references, but ask anybody in Bridge City how the "Rainbow Bridge" got the name Rainbow Bridge, and they will tell you about the little girl, who was a friend of Ruth and Henry Darder. Since you feel it isn't interesting, how come the bridge was renamed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.59.12.226 (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for reverting you like that, your edit here was not vandalism--when I looked at it I thought you were saying that the name was given after it was put on the NRHP list. That being said, when you add information to Wikipedia you should always include a reference. See this page: WP:V for Wikipedia's policy on the issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I may be able to find the copy of the lcoal paper from the late 1990s which related the story. If so, I'll add it as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.59.12.226 (talk • contribs)

Thanks, and sorry again for the misunderstanding. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You undid my edit to Rick Ross. I had added a category in that edit. Also in that edit, inappropriate language had been replaced with symbols for some weird reason. I did not mean to replace the swear words. The next time when something similar to this happens, do not undo the revision, but edit the page and put the swear words back into the page. Because you undid the revision, the category that I added was removed. I later put the category back into the page. Jawadreventon (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the category added at the bottom at the time just the bowdlerizing symbols, I would have re-added it had I seen it. Also, in your last edit to the page you re-censored the article with "@#!*%" over the profanity. Do you have some sort of text filter on your computer? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

On 29 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zeami Motokiyo, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a complete set of the treatises of Japanese playwright Zeami Motokiyo was not published until almost 500 years after his death? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zeami Motokiyo.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 20:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree the Jediism article needs more material I do not feel I am yet suficiently qualified to provide such material. I am learning though. If you do find a jedi knight or master let me know. Perhaps they would accept a padawan. Circuitboardsushi (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I will tell you if I find one, but there aren't many around Wikipedia these days ;) Mark Arsten (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why were my edits not constructive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolduncanshusband (talk • contribs) 02:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have explained that. I thought you were vandalizing the page, but I suppose you might have been honestly trying to improve the page. If you think the pages should be changed, please gain consensus on the article's talk page first. Also, you might want to read Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but reading Wikipedia policies on Fringe theories will not help anything. The Catholic Church in Rome had Galileo arrested because he said the earth revolved around the sun. Now you're accusing us of vandalism and making fringe theories because you don't agree with these well documented theories. What we're doing is NOT vandalism, and we not propounding FRINGE theories. Read up on it, and stop destroying the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolduncanscousin (talk • contribs) 03:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, unlike the Catholic Church in Rome, Wikipedia works via consensus, so please discuss the matter with other interested editors rather than just changing pages. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus about the authorship question, so the article should state that, and alternative theories should be allowed to be mentioned in the article. We can't broach this issue because the discussion page has been blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobevanssausage (talk • contribs) 03:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the talk page for Macbeth is not locked at the moment. Also, please stick to one user account. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The talk page or discussion section for Hamlet has been blocked or locked. Therefore, it is impossible to discuss it there. There is NO RELIABLE source for "Ur-Hamlet". There is no source, no evidence. It is just a theory. So why is this undocumented, unsourced, uncorroborated claim allowed on Hamlet when the Oxfordian theory, for which we have so much evidence is wiped out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobevanssausage (talk • contribs) 03:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The talk page is only locked until January 4th, so I guess you will have to wait until then. If you keep adding that to the article it will be locked, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like an interesting article. I will try to go through it over the next 3–4 days and look for anything obvious that might hinder its promotion. • Astynax ^talk 06:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks a lot. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I finished a copyedit, working mainly on clarity. There is a hidden note in the Legacy section that needs to be cleared up before proceding to a GA. I also requested addition of a photo on the talk page header (I think this will be mentioned in any review). I couldn't find an image in a quick search of Wikimedia Commons, but will look again later. • Astynax ^talk 10:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did a complete rewrite of my favourite Indonesian singer. Could you take a look and touch up the grammar? When I'm writing while translating sources I mess up at times, especially when the construction is completely different. How's your project coming? Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to go over the article later this week, translating sounds tough (I'm monolingual so it's all a mystery to me). It looks like the Batvia Massacre FAC is going ok thus far, I see that things have been pretty slow at FAC lately. I had been planning on working on Anti-Corn Law League this winter (that was the project that I mentioned earlier) and trying to go to FAC with it, but it looks like it would be a larger and less interesting project than I had planned, so I might put that on the back burner. I have a draft in a sandbox now, but it's still in rough shape. I'm thinking I might try to take Alexis Bachelot to FAC, it's kinda a short one, but it might give me a feel for the process. Oh well, I'll try to start on your article soon, it looks interesting. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• He had quite an interesting career, even if he never made it international (I don't even think he tried, it wasn't mentioned in his biography). Thanks a lot. Regarding FA, somewhat narrow topics can be quite short. MissingNo., for example, is three times shorter than the Chrisye article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ah yes, I recall MissingNo. now. It was one of the rare occasions where I read the Today's Featured Article in its entirety. Some the Hurricane Featured Articles are quite short too, well, thanks for the encouragement! I told myself that I'd stay up to learn who won the Iowa Caucus tonight, but it looks like I got more than I bargained for. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Long count? Obama will be running for the Democrats, right? (Out of touch with American [and Canadian] politics here). Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, basically :) Tonight is the kick-off of the Republican primary race to see who gets to challenge Obama in November. Mitt Romney is the most likely candidate, but a lot of the core Republican voters aren't sure about him so there is a chance someone could surprise him. They have a few really obscure states vote first in the primary, and tonight is Iowa. I just checked CNN.com and they had a 1 vote difference between Romney and Rick Santorum, out of 100,000 votes or so. I've never seen anything like that before. The story is that Romney is more of a business executive type and Santorum is known for his extremely conservative (even for the U.S.) stance on social issues. So it's interesting to me to see whether the economics or social issues will be more important in the Republican race. But I think I will go to bed now and figure it all out tomorrow. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ah yes... and the New Hampshire primaries are after the Republican candidate has been chosen, right? I must admit, I've read quite a bit about the process but some of the finer aspects still escape me. Good night. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well actually, the New Hampshire primaries (which are next week) are still part of choosing the primary candidate. They have primaries in different states for 5 months or so. I honestly don't know why they do it that way. Oh well, I already know who I am going to vote for! Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, right. When I read The Brethren it was in there, but I must have misremembered. Oh well. It appears Romney won Iowa. Regarding the 5 month voting period... perhaps it was initially meant to allow candidates time to travel to different states? Before the advent of flight it must have been a pain to campaign. Then again, I don't even know if they did campaign as vigorously. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for taking a look at the article. I've fixed both issues you mentioned on the talk page. Hope it was an interesting read! Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• That might not be a bad guess, actually. After all, we vote on Tuesdays for outdated reasons, as well. Well, I started on the copyediting today, hopefully I'll be able to finish it up tomorrow or Friday. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot. Hope it was an interesting read! I'll be dropping by the offices of Kompas later to copy some articles from the 70s and 80s. Probably not readable in full, but it could help establish release dates (which, although this article is probably the most complete English-language work on him available, would be expected at FAC). It would also help me finish this, which isn't ready for article space yet. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

(←) Sounds good, that's a lot of research! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed it will be. And pricey, too; the research at Kompas for May 1998 riots of Indonesia cost about $60, and I didn't even use 70% of the articles I found (for comparison, our grocery bill here is about $120 a month). Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I wish there were someway to be reimbursed for research costs by the WMF if an article got to Good or Featured Status or something. I think that would do a lot to encourage top quality articles. I was just thinking the other day how I had access to a high-quality research library back in my student days, but really didn't appreciate it much. Now I would be euphoric to have that kind of access. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed. Even just full access to jstor alone would give us a big boost. Oh well, I've actually made a net profit with my work here (not counting time spent editing, of course); I did some training for WikiMedia Indonesia a while back, and some translation work. Just wish I could have met Nia Dinata and Ucu Agustin while they were working with the foundation. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Really, that's pretty cool, glad to hear you made the money back. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed. Alright, well hope the race isn't as close as last time. Thanks a lot for looking into Chrisye's article for me! Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well, it was expensive as heck again. Argh, a month worth of groceries. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

But resulted in an extra 7000 characters of information. Sweet! Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, good deal! I guess that's money well spent :) Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Not bad indeed. Alright, cheers! Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

	Anugerah Musik Indonesia
	Thanks for all your copy edits of Indonesian artists (Agnes Monica and Chrisye so far). Also, thanks for the good humour which you've shown. BTW, in case you didn't look the user name is part Christopher Columbus, part Crisco, and part overeating Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks for the barnstar. DOH, on the username thing. I recall now I did read that before, I think the high volumes of caffeine could be affecting my memory now :) I listened to both of them on YouTube, and that was the first time I've ever heard Indonesian music! A couple weeks back I helped a friend on a grad school paper about Asian pop music, so this has been interesting to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• If you're looking it up on YouTube, for Chrisye I'd suggest "Andai Aku Bisa" ("If I Could") and "Untukku" ("For Me"); if you can find it, "Malam Pertama" ("Wedding Night") is pretty good. If you prefer harder stuff, you can't go wrong with "Cinta yang Lain" ("Another Love") featuring Ungu, "Menunggumu" featuring Peterpan, and "Jika Surga dan Neraka Tak Pernah Ada" ("If Heaven and Hell Never Existed") with Ahmad Dhani. All three have music videos, although the video for "Cinta yang Lain" looks like it was done after Chrisye went through chemo. Interesting choice of a paper topic... shame pop culture studies aren't big here yet. Makes finding references pretty difficult. The Shirelles was downright simple compared to the album articles I've written. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the recommendations, I'll check them out. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• I just discovered something with a nice riff; a little harder than Agnes or Chrisye. Check out the sample for "Kehidupan" by God Bless. I see why they've had a nearly 40-year career. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting, I'm loading YouTube now and will give it a listen. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

On 9 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Went Hensley, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the American minister George Went Hensley taught that Christians should eschew baseball and embrace venomous snakes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/George Went Hensley.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias is now a FA. Thanks, Mark. You did a great job there. I'm in debt. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, that sure was a long nomination wait! Mark Arsten (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

On 10 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elias Abraham Rosenberg, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Elias Abraham Rosenberg, a peddler from San Francisco, became an adviser to King Kalākaua of Hawaii due to his purported ability to predict the future? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elias Abraham Rosenberg.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I am reviewing your nomination, and have left some comments at Talk:Elias Abraham Rosenberg/GA1 and have place it on hold for seven days while you address them. Please don't hesitate to contact me with questions or feedback. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I should be able to work the article this week. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Article has been passed as a GA. Congratulations! Very interesting article with an insight into history that I never would have known about. Thanks for writing it! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review, I'm glad to have gotten it to Good Article status, but what I like the most is that we were able to improve the article further with your feedback. 17:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits and comments. Please take a look. I have replied to them. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'll try to look over it again soon. This was a genuinely interesting article to read since I'm very unfamiliar with the subject. A relative of mine is in India for a couple weeks, so this was topical for that reason, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive edits and Support. I have to address one of your concerns. Will inform you to take a look after that. Will address it this weekend. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, will try to remember to check back, good luck with the sourcing--that is quite tricky. It's actually kind of funny, my father is in India this week, so I was going back and forth between reading his updates and reading this article, so it was quite topical. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Added some info about Mahamoha. Please take a look. Thanks --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, the NFL playoffs will be taking up a lot of my time this weekend, but I'll try to make time to check it out :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for supporting Ahalya at FAC, which was closed as failed, but the process of improvement continues. If you would like to add any more suggestions for improvement, please do so at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ahalya/archive2. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to see that one fail. Hope you try again soon though, I'll take another look, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark, thanks much for the very thorough review. I've looked through your notes and the majority look straightforward, though I will have a few questions on some points you raise. I've made a number of direct changes already, will make more in the next day or so, then I'll post those questions in the peer review and look forward to your feedback. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Passed GA. Congratulations! Fascinating article in many ways. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'm glad that it is now a Good article, but more than that, I'm glad that it was improved during the review. Anyone can pass a good article, but few reviewers are as willing as you are to put in time and effort to improve pages under review. I really appreciate that. Hope your weekend goes well, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, but I've finally gotten around to the feedback you gave, and have addressed all of it. I will be happy to follow up with additional fixes as needed. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, glad to hear that you found time to get to it. I'll try to take a look at the article tomorrow or Monday and reply on about the review. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark!

I apologize but increased personal and professional obligations make it unlikely that I can do a GA review.

Wikipedians seem to be more interested in innovative stagings of The Crucible and Good Night and Good Luck than in writing, unfortunately, and an increased proportion of my decreased WP- time has been going to defending writers against "civility" fanaticism, which usually follows an opposition to a child administrator at RfA.

Again I'm sorry that I cannot review the article anytime soon.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, I saw the discussion at Ani the other day so I figured that you would be occupied for the near future. Well, it is good to have you back here, even if you are forced to spend your time defending others. I've been following the Civility Enforcement case without weighing in, I've begun to doubt that anything useful will come of it. In any case, I appreciated hearing your take on it. Hope your weekend goes well, Mark Arsten (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark, re your nomination of the above for peer review, the rules limit editors to one nomination per day, and you had already made a nomination a few minutes before Elias. As you were no doubt unaware of the rule I won't ask you to remove it, but please bear in mind that PR is very backlogged at the moment and progress through the system is likely to be slow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I was not aware of that rule--I had recalled the 4 open at a time rule and figured I was under that. I'll try to review some other nominations to make up for it! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I might have a hard time figuring out which one so I am wondering which information in the cast section and which quotations are the least relevant to have and are best to remove the article. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Good questions, I replied at the peer review. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I also replied on a few more of the reviews as well. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

NOTIFICATION:

Hello Mark,

Thank you for the notification about your “lengthy rewrite” (not expansion) of the entire VHEMT article. I have reverted your extensive “rewrite” (no consensus – WP:CON of fellow Editors) because there are three primary Editors (Nuujinn / Mitch Ames / Skyeking) who oversee said article and they have contributed significantly (edited collaboratively) to its development for 21-months.

SOUCE – WP:OAS
“Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert unconstructive edits in order to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia.” (WP:OAS)

Regarding the VHEMT article, we welcome you as a participating Editor and look forward to collaboratively editing with you.

Interestingly, you not request copy-editing participation from Mitch Ames or myself (quote M. Arsten as addressed to only Nuujinn and bobrayner) “I’d particularly be grateful if you could help with copy-editing the article.”

For myself, I am diametrically opposed to Mark Arsten’s extensive and lengthy (unnecessary phraseology and original research WP:OR) rewrite of said article (original version December 10, 2011). My proposal is that we (obviously inclusive of Mark Arsten) proceed from the original version and “slowly” (edit collaboratively) consider (discuss) “line-by-line” any-and-all “suggested” edits (WP:CON).

For myself, I am curious to learn about Mark Arsten’s “course of reasoning” (arguments) that lead him to a conclusion that an entire rewrite of the VHEMT article would somehow improve Wikipedia. My finding is that such a rewrite not improve Wikipedia, and at this time, I seriously question M. Arsten’s conclusion(s).

Therefore, my request to Mark Arsten is that he open a discussion topic at said article’s Talk Page and provide his fellow Editors an explanation about his “course of reasoning” (arguments).

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyeking (talk • contribs) 00:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that my new version was 100% cited to quality reliable sources and included all of the relevant sourced information found in the previous version, I'm curious which parts of the new version bother you? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your belief is erroneous, and I'm curious which of the "original" version edits bother you?Skyeking (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Will reply on the article's talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. Took me a few days to get back to the peer review, but I've spent several hours with it today, and I think I've addressed all of your major concerns. I have implemented changes where I thought it made sense, and offered a comment in response where I believed further discussion was necessary. In three instances I'm afraid I have relatively lengthy replies, and they are on the sensitive subjects of "Policy towards sexual orientation", "Campaign donations" and (perhaps less controversial) "Community involvement". As you may recall, the peer review was initiated in part because some editors felt that I had made the article too positive; well, it is my view that these editors have introduced some new problems, both in perspective and in chronology. I'll ping Silver about it, and suggest bringing some of those editors back to the table as well. As far as I'm concerned, you've been fair, so if you disagree with my points I'll take your advice. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note. I'll try to check it out soon, but probably won't get to it until after the strike. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries. It can certainly wait until after. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I just went ahead and weighed in--I wasn't too sure on a couple things. I pinged the last 6 or so editors who edited the article to see if any of them are interested too. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I have seen it, and another comment from Collect as well. As you'd said before, I likely won't have a chance to follow up before the strike, but I will after. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

See the article's talk page. Also, I've made a request for an article behind a paywall here. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, excellent work. Thanks a lot for finding those! Mark Arsten (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Mark Arsten. You have new messages at Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Request your answer.
Question is at SECTION: Article Image - Picture of Earth with VHEMT logo
Skyeking (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you asked before about plans to put Mitt Romney up at FAC, but I can say that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George W. Romney/archive2 is up now, in case you want to take a look. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, looks interesting. I'll try to find time to look over it and give you some feedback soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the FAC review again! I've dropped by the MoO2 page, and given them some pointers - with Malleus on the writing team, the actual article should be well-written. I also swung by your VHEMT GA review, as Skyeking's odd talking style caught my eye as I was scrolling down your talk page- sorry for butting in there if I'm not wanted. --PresN 19:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks a lot for doing both of those, I appreciate it a lot. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You should try posting it in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea since I'm not sure who to point you to. I'm sure somebody within the WikiProject can help you. Jae ₩on (Deposit) 22:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice, will do! Mark Arsten (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

hello,

thanks for your helpful peer review. Unfortunately it failed the GAN, mostly because of bad prose. Could you take a second look and if necessary improve the prose? Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 19:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that it failed due to the prose, that seemed to be a very solid article. I'll try to go through and find issues, maybe we can find another couple copyeditors too. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Mark. I've just responded to your questions at Peer review about nutrition and stockholders, along with two short proposed additions based on them. Let me know your take when you have a moment. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will reply there. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, saw your notes. I'll be offline most of today, but I'll update the draft at my next opportunity. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

When you close the peer review, there will still be some adjustments before going to the FA process. Would you object to the references being put into a more consistent format? • Astynax ^talk 20:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all, make any of the changes you see fit. I'm more than happy for the help. I've only looked at the sources online thus far, so I ordered a book just so I have a hard copy with me for the FAC process. I should have it next week, so there may be some relatively minor additions then. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I finally got around to making changes to the footnotes. They don't often object to the format used (though they do want to follow MOS on the headers for the notes/reference sections). The sfn template is more to save a headache once the process starts and once it gets listed on the front page, since editors unfamiliar with articles tend to break named refs. They might object to using the "Quote box" template in the [Theology section]. I've had a reviewer flag that before, insisting that anything other than the blockquote template is verboten per MOS:QUOTE. I think the quote box looks great as it is (especially as we don't have many images with which to work), and you may want to leave it as-is. I personally do not agree that MOS:QUOTE forbids using other quotation templates, and it might not be raised as an issue this time. I have looked around other references, and I believe the article to be reasonably complete and well-written. I'm glad that you know what to expect from the process, and it is OK if you want to list me as co-nom. • Astynax ^talk 20:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, I'll keep the quotebox in for now, and if anyone objects I'll be ready with the preferred template. I'll let you know when I get to nominating it, this should be interesting (FAC always is!) Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me, I've added the candidacy to my watchlist. Hopefully it won't be too rough sailing. • Astynax ^talk 02:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope not! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• I saw the comment regarding the lead this morning, but you had it fixed only minutes before I arrived. I'll do a read-through when I get a chance this evening. Seems to be a lot of copy editing going on right now, and I think it best to let it settle down before taking a look. If things follow the usual course, we probably won't get the bulk of comments until late this week. • Astynax ^talk 22:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is smart thinking, no need to be causing edit conflicts all over the place if we don't need to. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a note about the CoG (Cleveland, TN) bit: implementing reviewers' comments and suggestions do not always make for a better article. There have been instances where comments have had the opposite effect, and subsequent reviewers insisted that changes made to accomodate one reviewer's preferences be changed yet again, producing a mishmash of styles or worse (an article that no longer clearly reflected the sources). "Brilliant prose" is in the eye of a beholder. Even veteran reviewers (and this isn't a complaint about Wehwalt or anyone in particular) are not dispensers of unfailingly good advice, and it is OK to politely defend the statements in the article. Perhaps it is unnecessary for me to make the point, as I'm not sure how many times you've gone through FAC. I have no problem with those changes you've made that seem to you to be improvements—just concerned that you not knock yourself out with major reconstructions when the article still has a week to go before it gets toward decision time. • Astynax ^talk 18:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, that is a good point. I'm pretty unfamiliar with this whole process so I'm still getting the hang of things. I'll try to keep that in mind though! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think waiting the 2 weeks and renominating would be the way to go. There were some useful initial comments, but none of the reviewers followed up. After renominating, it wouldn't hurt to post a neutral (so as not to be accused of WP:CANVAS) announcement on the Religion and Christianity projects to alert reviewers who might be more inclined to look at the FAC. • Astynax ^talk 17:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I tend to agree with you there. A number of FAC regulars were otherwise occupied during the three weeks we had it open, (what with the Arbcom case and flu season etc.) so I think we would have gotten more support at a different time. Also, it was good to see that we didn't get any Oppose comments. Looks to me like this is just a temporary setback! Mark Arsten (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't mind the edit to my user page at all! I wrote on the GA Review page that this was the first of my articles that I've nominated. I appreciate your comments and edits. Thanks so much!  :) Wikipelli ^Talk 22:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear that it was a good experience. Different GA reviewers have varying levels of exactingness they require, but I encourage you to take more articles there. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your great copyedit on Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary! :) ♫GoP♫TCN 12:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, glad to help. In my experience thus far, a large part of creating high-quality articles is tracking down other people to help you out on it. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I was wondering if I could ask you a favour. I've been steadily improving and expanding the article on the ontological argument over the past few months. It could probably do with a copyedit from an editor who isn't me (a pair of fresh eyes) - would you be able to take a look at it please? Thank you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, sounds interesting. I'll try to find time to swing over and take a look. The Prosperity theology FAC seems to be going well, better than I had expected, actually. Hope we don't hit any unexpected bumps in the road! Mark Arsten (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much - I really appreciate it. And yes, the FAC looks on track to do well. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

As you know, I haven't been very involved in the VHEMT article, but what I've seen is more than enough to get Skyeking restricted from editing the article and possibly the talkpage. Would you want to put together an RFC/U? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Roscelese, thanks for your attention and help on this. You know, I was thinking a bit today about how to handle this situation. I think an RFC/U is probably the best idea here. I've come to the conclusion that talking to him/having others talk to him is not going to accomplish anything. I haven't done anything quite like this before, it sounds complicated. I'm sure that I can learn though. So yes, I would like to put together an RFC/U. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. While I find Skyeking's discussion style difficult (to put it mildly), and I disagree with much of what he says, I believe that he is currently trying to do the right thing. Also, I doubt that we meet the requirements for an RFC/U yet.

I think a better plan for all of us would be a bit more specific on the talk page about what changes we propose and why, or what changes we made and why, and to make multiple smaller edits (if for no other reason than ease of reference to specific changes) rather than few larger edits. And - where possible - keep the discussions about different topics (lead is to long, use of the word "gradual", "millions of volunteers" etc) separate on the talk page. (I'm trying to do this [7][8], but I need others to follow suit.) This makes them easier to follow. I know sometimes they overlap, and sometimes we expend a lot of effort on the use of one word, but if we can break the disputes down in to smaller, more specific problems we might have a better chance of resolving them. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether we have met the technical requirements for an Rfc or not is beyond my expertise, so I'll defer to others on that point. Perhaps another noticeboard might be advisable, as well. Also, Mitch, I think you have done a fine job working on this article thus far, and I admire your patience and optimism. However, I doubt that your proposed approach will be successful. I do support escalating off of the talk page (perhaps to an Rfc) because it seems to me that Skyeking is a tendentious editor and will not change his (I assume "his") behavior, no matter how many people try to explain it to him. His only purpose for being on the project seems to be to ensure that the page on VHEMT conforms to his personal view of the group, regardless of Wikipedia policies. I'll defer to Bobrayner and Roscelese on what a good next step would be though, as I am new to conflict resolution here. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, Mitch, that the behavior has improved. What I see as the problem with this user is that he's still arguing and editing for a system where he is the gatekeeper of all changes to the article - where other editors have to run their "editing plans" by him for his approval and where he reverts with a claim of "no consensus" without ever articulating the problems with the change, simply because he wasn't the one who made it. There's also an ongoing problem with original research. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you have a point. I'm not currently prepared to initiate an RFC/U, but I would almost certainly express an opinion in such an RFC - whether as "certifying", "endorsing", or "outside view" would depend on the details of the "statement of dispute" and "desired outcome". Mitch Ames (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, given that Mark and I have both recently pointed out to Skyeking that he can't/shouldn't ask people to stay out of a discussion on the Talk page, it would be somewhat hypocritical to suggest restricting Skyeking's editing the talk page. (Skyeking's style is odd and difficult, but for the most part - on the article talk page at least - I don't think it violates WP:CIVIL.) Mitch Ames (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, something that drastic would have to be a community decision; it's not something I'm intent to push for right away. Topic bans are sometimes given out though. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think Mitch Ames has a good point - in that Skyeking is trying to get along better with other people, compared to how it was before - but, alas, that's not sufficient. We still have the, err, bizarre text and the "gatekeeper" stance, and between them they consume editors' time & goodwill. bobrayner (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Personally, I only got involved after mediating a medcab case - the way it progressed was a surprise to me but is unlikely to be a surprise to people familiar with the VHEMT article. A former mediator is probably not the best person to instigate sanctions against one of the editors, but if somebody else opens an RfC/U or whatever, and if sanctions would allow other people to get on with their work and improve articles, I would add a supporting voice... bobrayner (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for weighing in. Wow, that was quite the interesting post when he first started. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If you aren't already aware of it, Temple Emanu-El (Honolulu, Hawaii) has some detail you might be able to use, with sources you may not have. Also I have a source from Proquest (subscription only) which you might find helpful. If you shoot me an email I'll send it as an attachment. Finally, see the reply at WP:RX. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for all your work on that, I'm impressed with how much has turned up. I'm glad I asked you for help on this. I'll shoot you an e-mail about the article soon. I found a book by David Max Eichhorn that mentions Rosenberg, I should be able to get my hands on it early next week. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Robert Burneika, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MMA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, now go bug someone else. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark, you do realize you're talking to a robot? (It will leave this identical message for you 1,000 times if you transgress in the same way unless you follow the opt-out instructions.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I figured this was my one chance to yell at someone for posting on my talk page without being hauled to WQA or something :) BTW, sent you an e-mail. Also, I got my hands on a copy of this book today, it has a couple pages about Rosenberg written by a Rabbi from Hawaii, looks like it will be really helpful. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That will only last until they can pass a Turing test and then we'll have WP:WQAI (yes, I realize how corny that is). Checking my email now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL, that would be something. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've already gotten derailed more than I expected on this FAC, but I think I've finally addressed all of your very useful comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George W. Romney/archive2. And thanks for the support in the mass formatting changes thing. Dealing with a large, intertwined series of changes, some helpful some not, is one of the hardest things to do in WP ... Wasted Time R (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I've added my support. That was some really detailed business on those references, I'm impressed that you could keep it all straight. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I found this. Using the date of death provided on his headstone, I easily found a book source and have added in the information, as well as some additional detail from the source about his death bed conduct. However, a search for the birth date of November 1810 from the headstone turns up nothing. Using the gravestone directly I'm not sure about, though my gut tells me dates of birth inscribed on gravestones, given the way they are provided by people truly in the know, are generally highly accurate. I considered added something like:

Joseph Adler writes in The Hawaiian Journal of History that he was born c. 1809. However, Rosenberg's gravestone lists his date of birth as "November 1810."(cite)

with the citation being to the gravestone photograph itself, i.e. the headstone as the reliable source, and not Find-A-Grave, which only hosts the photograph. In that regard, see Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. I leave it up to you to use or not use as you see fit. One other thing on this: that site also reveals that he was not buried in San Francisco. The Hills of Eternity Memorial Park (which an independent search confirms is the cemetery of Congregation Sherith Israel) is in Como, CA, which I believe is part of the San Francisco Peninsula but is not in San Francisco proper. On another matter, you say the local nicknamed him Rosy and Holy Moses". I came across this source which provides that the Holy Moses appellation was leveled against him as a jeer by newspapers; not a endearing nickname given him by locals.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, good job fact checking there. The Joys of Jewish Folklore source you linked to is a previous edition of Jewish folklore in America (which I guess is abridged, somewhat, I guess). I check JFIA again, and it does have the same birth year and death date/dying words, so that will be easy to fix. I think what happened with the Adler DOB was he listed Rosenberg's age at death and I just subtracted and put "c." to cover myself. JFIA states that "Holy Moses" was derisive, as well. The Adler source and the Honolulu magazine source just mention that was a term used to describe him, so I will change that. Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I took a stab at fixing things, hope this works. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've found some sources here. Goodvac (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that these have anything new or useful but see:

• http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cdnc/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&cl=search&d=DAC18870717.2.24&srpos=1&e=-------en--20--1--txt-IN-%22elias+a.+rosenberg%22----
• http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cdnc/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&cl=search&d=DAC18840105.2.52&srpos=3&e=-------en--20--1--txt-IN-%22elias+a.+rosenberg%22----

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thanks guys those do look good. I'm really surprised how many sources we've ended up finding about this guy. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, I meant to ask, what do you think of the idea of nominating the picture of the four people watching Hadji Ali spit the water out for Featured Picture? It looks like a pretty good picture and it would be awesome to have it as Picture of the Day sometime. I don't really know anything about the whole Featured Picture standards, "compression artifacts" etc., they may as well use divination for all I know. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have little doubt my cluelessness as to featured pictures could give your depths of ignorance a run for its money. I just looked at the criteria and also the picture and when you view it up close it has a lot of what looks like "noise". Anyway, I don't especially find the photograph compelling. On the other hand, I think the poster is spectacular. However, given how little I know to even begin to access if either actually meet the criteria, a nomination might make me the equivalent in the image sphere of those poor souls who nominate a completely unsourced, misspelled, incoherent near stub for FAC.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL, I guess we should stick with what we know! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Since there haven't been any new people entering into the peer review, do you have any final comments to make there? If not, i'm thinking of having the peer review be closed and the article submitted for GA (once i'm done with reference formatting today or tomorrow). Silverseren^C 22:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I think everything I had mentioned has been taken care of. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for all your help. You've helped us improve that draft significantly. Can we expect you to be involved in the peer review specifically for FA that we'll be doing after it gets GA? Or do you think you've used up all of your suggestions? :P Silverseren^C 22:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've used up all my Cracker Barrel time for now, I could probably come up with a few things though after taking some off though :) Mark Arsten (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll make sure to let you know then. Silverseren^C 22:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Might I ask why you added this comment? My interactions with Rlvese were all quite positive. Personally, I think the November 2010 issue was a great overreaction on the community's part. I see absolutely no connection between the above user (HtDLS) and Rlvese. So I am a bit curious why you asked that question in the discussion. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, at the time it seemed funny to me that there was one thread about someone retiring again and then someone starts a thread an hour later claiming to be a clean start account. I didn't honestly think that the satanist and Rlvese were the same person. I'm not familiar at all with Rlvese, for good or bad, that was all before my time. I guess in retrospect that was a dumb comment to make, sorry. I'd redact it but I think the thread has been closed. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for the explanation. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I was a bit discouraged after the first failed nom, but I felt like the second one just failed because everyone was on vacation so it was just more like refreshing the nom page. Thanks for taking the time to review it so closely! --PresN 00:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just had time to look over the lead today. I thought it pretty long for such a person, and I tweaked and trimmed it a bit. I'll try to do more shortly. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you found time. I'll try to clarify the details you mentioned on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I've been reviewing Cracker Barrel Old Country Store and only have two remaining concerns Talk:Cracker Barrel Old Country Store/GA1 - especially the links to homosexuality vs LGBT rights by country or territory, and what is "OBIE Hall of Fame Award"? Perhaps you can clear this up. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, will check it out, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Mark. Good to see you again. I was ready to leave this place for good, but Alarbus insisted so much that it would be rude to not come back. I saw your message on my talk page. Thanks for that. Always good to see that there are a few nice people left around. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lecen, glad to see you back. It's always a shame to see productive contributors leave the project. I realize that after years of contributing quality content things can get quite frustrating here. I see that in many people who are involved at FAC these days. I hope that you find a stress-free way to contribute though, I'll see you around! Mark Arsten (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

		The Cooperation Barnstar
		Thanks for your assistance to WikiProject Cooperation, and efforts to help improve Cracker Barrel Old Country Store!

Thanks again for all your help. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure, glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Just a quick note to say thank you for the copyedit you did for the ontological argument a few days ago - I wanted you to know that I appreciated it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. It was interesting to read all that, it looks very well researched. I bet it was a tough article to work on, you did a good job. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark, how are you? I just wrote another fairly big article and I was wondering if you could give it a look-over. It's on an Indonesian literary magazine that was active from 1933 to 1942. If you can help a bit, please take a look at Poedjangga Baroe. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Things are going well, I guess. I'm navigating FAC myself right now, that really is a tricky corner of the project! Your article does sound interesting, I've got a lot on my wiki-plate at the moment, but I should be able to find some time to give it a good once-over. Hope things are going well with you, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Still have the da*n cough I came down with in Australia, and I lost 4 years worth of data when my laptop's harddrive went Dodo on me. Other than that, not bad. As for FAC... yeah, definitely something else. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• That is a lot of data to loose, too bad. I've had quite a cough myself the past week. I lost my voice too, making Wikipedia communication much easier than talking in the real world. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Probably a reflection of how stunted my social development was, but I find that true every day :-) Except for interactions with certain, unnamed editors. Alright, good luck with FAC and I hope you find the article interesting. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This article is basically good to go, but there's one potentially contentious statement which needs supporting citations for me to pass it - please see the review. Thanks. --He to Hecuba (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for doing the review! I'll try to get that bit cited later today. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Ive copy'd a template. But it seems to have copied the autocollapse function for the template... How the hell do you turn it off??? - Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.208.231 (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I really don't know too much about templates. You might want to ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Also, please try to use edit summaries when making changes, it helps other users see what you're doing. Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No probs, I was just creating links between 2 wiki page templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.208.231 (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, not a problem, feel free to keep working on it. Also, you might think about registering an account if you plan to be active here. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks for giving Poedjangga Baroe a look (and trimming excess verbosity). I should do Tony's exercises for conciseness, but... no time LOL. Hope you found it an interesting read. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, that was actually a pretty interesting read. I never figured out how to pronounce it though. One thing that I do find helpful for sharpening my skills is to looks a the copyediting changes that Malleus or someone like him makes to a relatively well-written article. It gives me things to watch for. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• LOL, mix Dutch spelling with a third language and the result is admittedly confusing. It's roughly poo-JAHNG-ga ba-ROO, with the "r" rolled like in French. I'll try and put IPA and non-IPA pronunciation as well. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ahh, Ok, I got it now. I kept mentally calling it Porgy and Bess for some reason. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Better than calling it Porky's Revenge... Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• You had to go there... Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Would you prefer Porky Pig or Porky Minch? (odd how many Porkies there are...) Although to be honest, Porgy and Bess was something I had never heard of. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ahh, I spent many fond hours playing EarthBound back in the day. What a fun game that was. I'm surprised our articles on the subject aren't of higher quality, compared with the Chrono Trigger or Final Fantasy series. I'm actually not too familiar with Porgy and Bess either, I just know about it from the song Summertime. In other news, I just lost an hour of sandbox work when my computer crashed. How dispiriting... Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Argh. I had that happen when I was working on KLa Project (note that it's still a red-link)... I haven't gone back to it yet. I hate when that happens, although mine is usually because of a browser error. :-( Now, like on Poedjangga Baroe or Sjumandjaja (another mouthful, eh?) or the Great Mosque of Central Java, I go one source - save - one source - save and so on. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think it was static electricity or something that froze the computer, I felt a shock when I picked it up. I worry about biting off more than I can chew on this article, so losing an hour of boring work isn't helpful. I was working on a bit project in december and got bored halfway through the research, hopefully I'll get around to doing the rest of the work eventually! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ugh. Well, I just repaired my external hard drive so hopefully most of my old pictures are rescuable... but anything from 2011 (pretty much) is gone Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I finally got it there. Plus I got a Four Award, makes me proud.--WillC 02:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not to be too snarkish, but... this old thing? Or do you mean Turning Point (2008)? Of course, this would be an interesting FA if someone could pull it off. Congratulations, btw Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• WOW, I had never seen Toilet paper orientation before, that is amazing. Might take a few tries to get that one through FAC though. I wonder what the record is for most nominations? S&M (song) is on its 6th nomination in the past year, whoever is behind that one must be a really persistent person. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Crisco--WillC 05:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• You're welcome, Will. Nice article. Regarding the other comments, the European toilet paper holder actually was TFA on 1 April 2005, aka the first year we put hoaxes on the mainpage (other such content was ITN: Britannica buys Wikipedia). However, it was as a fake article as indicated by some German name. As for FAC... I'd expect it to not be as many as the AFDs for GNAA (22 and counting). Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• The question is, how many tries at FAC would the GNAA take? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• there's like 3 already... needless to say, if The Human Centipede drew a firestorm on the mainpage, GNAA would certainly bring about the apocalypse. If someone could keep the article free of vandalism and well sourced, it could probably pass without too many FACs. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, the GNAA as TFA would pretty much be the end of the world--it is funny to think of though. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Very. I've seen several weird articles that would make great TFAs. Perhaps the Wooffan SS (aka Furred Reich). Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There's something called the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop where you can request to have a photograph fixed up. User:Crisco 1492 uses it a lot. I was hoping that your article passes FAC (besides being really fascinated with it) so that Crisco and I could feature the snake photo in on the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-13/Featured content - the next issue. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be awesome, I'd love to see that picture make it into the signpost. (I forgot you work on that, I love the signpost.) I'm a bit clueless about the graphics stuff though, would they know what to do if I just asked them to "fix it up"? Or is there some jargon I should be using? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm... which picture? But if its a photograph you must go to Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. The illustration workshop is for SVG files and whatnot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• LOL, I love edit conflicts on my own talk page. I've been getting them more lately... if only I had seen your post a minute earlier I could have saved myself a revert there... this is the picture we're talking about. Any ideas what to ask for? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• I probably sound like a photographer asking a copy editor to "do something with all those letters to make it better". Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict for me too!) Hey, I didn't know about that one, Crisco! I just love all the illustrations you come up with! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• A slight crop for the Signpost maybe... not much else to do to the image. Lighting is pretty nice and it would be counterproductive to try and get rid of all the people in the background. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Seeing the context, I'd use it without editing, probably. Sometimes great pictures are left out from the report. For the above-linked upcoming edition, the Mona Lisa was left out because we were already showing The Starry Night, and a nice picture of Girls' Generation was left out as well (to minimize the number of pictures I nominated, for that one). Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, well, I think we're counting eggs before they hatch at this point, I'd hate to jinx the article... But I see an excellent writer has started taking a run through the article tonight, so that is a good sign. BTW, that's a really good picture of Girls' Generation, it's pretty awesome to get a picture of a band like that rather than a picture somebody took at a concert. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well, it looks like they were able to clean it up a bit, it does look a lot nicer if you put them side by side. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, the only pain was identifying them (as I noted at the nomination, my students could probably do it better than me). Luckily they have some fans on-wiki who were willing to help. I'll have to take a look to see what they did. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mark. I noticed this article on User talk:Astynax. I made a few edits to help it along. I saw the ref = CITREF… and changed them to use ((sfnRef)) which is designed to do exactly this encoding. It results in clearer cite definitions. However, they could simply be ref = harv… So I figured I ask: Did you do this to avoid the "&" and get "and" instead? Or possibly to avoid having "|" in the ((sfn))? Alarbus (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alarbus, thanks for helping out with that. Astynax actually handled the citation templates for this article, I hadn't used sfn in the past (although I'm starting to like it). I guess you'd have to ask Astynax about the ref fields to be sure. (All this template stuff is way over my head!) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I just pointed Astynax at this. I've worked on a lot of articles that they and Lecen did. Ping me if you've cite template questions. Alarbus (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This sounds fine to me as well. In the past, I've used named CITREF's while an article is still "under construction" just because I'm used to it and at that point it is not always clear what references (some from the same authors/years) might be added or changed. You are more familiar than I with variations on the templates, so I've no problem with changing/simplifying the cites. Thanks. • Astynax ^talk 18:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I have (finally!) made my way through the main body of the article. I now need to go back and check the lead for proper summarization. I'll probably do that tomorrow, along with one more quick pass through the whole article, though I don't expect much else to change besides the lead. Just FYI, I'll probably trim the lead fairly significantly... some stuff might migrate back into the main article body, but from a quick first read, it looks a bit long for the total length of the article. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh hey, thanks a lot for doing all that on the article--I'm so glad I asked you to help. It's hard to get good copyeditors around here these days so I am really happy that you got to take a good look over the article. Feel free to trim back the lead, I do tend to generally make those too long. (Easier to delete excess summary during a review than come up with new stuff.) I'll probably nominate the article at WP:FAC within a month or so. (I have a couple articles there already, so I have to wait for one to be closed before adding a new one). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, I haven't forgotten this... I've got the lead outline on paper, I just need to type it up, and I plan to do that this afternoon.  :) Do let me know if you nominate it at FAC, I'd not mind following the process. I have a closet dream of working on some WP:VITAL articles and getting them at least to 'A' class, but I have no experience with the article review processes here. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 13:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I read through the article again yesterday and was very pleased with your work. I really appreciate it, I'm glad I asked you. I'll probably nominate it at WP:FAC soon, I have two co-nominations there right now (the limit)--but it looks like one will probably be flunked soon (I haven't gotten any opposes or supports on it, and I think they flunk them if they go three weeks without a support) so I should be able to nominate it soon. Would you be willing to help me out again? (As usual, take all the time you want.) Elias Abraham Rosenberg is next in line on my FAC nomination list after Bachelot--it's not too long of an article and I think it's in Ok shape as far as prose goes. Not a problem if you aren't interested though, you have done quite a bit for me as it is--feel free to ask me to help with anything you find yourself working on.

I'll definitely let you know when it is nominated, interesting to hear your thoughts about work on vital articles. I haven't worked on any, but I followed the brouhaha at WT:FAC a few months back. I guess the hard part of vital articles (like Musical instrument, for example) is that they often involve a lot of research and they attract a lot of attention from know-it-alls who want their specific perspective to be reflected in the article. So it takes more effort in that sense--but your work gets read by a ton of people, unlike the easier articles on more trivial topics. Plus, it really too bad how many traditional "encyclopedic" topics we have in poor shape these days. My best advice is to find people who have a lot of experience getting high-visibility articles improved and get as much help from them as you can. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've finished with the lead and I took one more pass through the whole article... I think I'm done. Let me know if you have any issues with it. I'll be back to your talk page to continue the discussion on Vital Articles... I've got the flu and I'm heading back to bed now. :) Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for helping with the article while you're sick. I had a bad case of the flu last month, that is really a vexing sickness! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Actual. Positive. Made of stone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.105.148 (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Sir. Thank you, Sir. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark. I just posted Gauss' Pythagorean right triangle proposal and will be posting to DYK soon. I was hoping to have someone take a quick look, and point out anything glaring. You know that when you're the writer, you're too close to the subject to sometimes to see even obvious errors. If you're too busy, don't worry about it. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that is an interesting article. Not a bad idea either... Mark Arsten (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick glance and made a couple small changes, hope you don't mind. I'll try to look again when I have more time. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much Mark. Good idea using the convert template! I wish there was more written on this subject but I haven't found much else than what you see.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, it's quite a funny article though, really interesting to read. I tend to believe you when you say there isn't much else on the topic, I sure trust your research skills! Mark Arsten (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hah! Good call. I did that pretty much for my own amusement, but I do understand that it's against the rules. Cheers! MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 01:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I understand--it is often quite tempting to do that! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I originally voted to keep the article on romney neologism, I like your proposal to merge it with the Seamus (dog) article. The two topics are related, and I think that if we have to merge this article, it would be far better to merge it with the Seamus article than to add it the Mitt Romney article, where it would be considered undue weight.Debbie W. 01:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to know you liked my !vote. (Sometimes I wonder if people ever read what I write on those things.) I guess I tend to be a bit of a Mergist myself, these days. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, shame it didn't obtain FA status, but thank you for reviewing it. All the best. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC))

Hi Mark, thanks for your comments on this FAC. I think I addressed all of your points. Would you care to take a look again and provide support or further opposition? Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for pinging me, I tend to forget to revisit things. I'll read through the article one more time before I reply. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Left a few minor points at Talk:Early life of L. Ron Hubbard/GA1. Shouldn'y take much to sort out. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks, I'll try to work those out later today. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Mark, I don't know if you remember giving the article Chrisye a copyedit, but it is now at FAC if you'd like to provide feedback. I'm hoping this can be TFA on the anniversary of his death. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh wow, it's at FAC already. Sure, I'll try to make time to go over it again. I officially have a featured article to my credit as of about an hour ago, so I guess I'm an expert on the process now :) Mark Arsten (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    • LOL. That's one more than me. Mind you, I rarely have the chance to find so many sources about a topic. GA is the last stop for many of them. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, that's not necessarily a bad thing, writing a lot of did you know/good articles arguably provides more value to the project than focusing on one or two featured articles a year. But you can certainly learn a lot by having you work scrutinized by FAC reviewers. And it certainly helps to have a featured article or two if you run for Admin. Oh well, the important thing is that you enjoy what you're working on, I guess. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Of course. I'd be unable to handle most of the math-related articles, for example. Even the simplest drives me to sleep. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
          • You're not alone there--I've noticed that we have very few featured (or even good) articles about math (or maths, if you prefer). By my count, if one excludes biographies, we only have 38 good or featured math articles. For reference, that's less than the amount of good or featured articles about Beyonce (fifty something). Wow, that is remarkable, but definitely understandable. I've never been much of a Beyonce fan, but I certainly find her more interesting than the Shapley–Folkman lemma (Don't tell Kiefer I said that.) Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
            • • Meh, even some we do have (Infinite monkey theorem, for instance) are in poor shape. :-( Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is it so often "penis" anyway? Well, I guess thirteen year olds spend a great deal of time thinking about uses for them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

lol, that is a good question. I bet Freud would have a field day analyzing Wikipedia vandalism. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh, you know, I actually had no idea that you were an Admin until a minute ago. I would have been more obsequious had I known :) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Uh yes, kowtow now worm, or I shall smite thee with my mop.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes sir! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm what they call a low drama admin. For instance, I avoid WP:ANI like the plague for the most part (not that I'm saying it doesn't serve some vital functions, but I have enough aggravation). If you ever need admin services please feel free to call on me (not "block this person that annoyed me", but more "move this article to a better name"; "do a history swap"; "edit this protected template", etc.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, I'll definitely keep that in mind. I think if I ever become an admin I'll try to keep to the low-drama lifestyle as well. I don't know how those admins who are always involving themselves in the most controversial parts of the project deal with it. I doubt I'd find that very fun at all. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, me neither (obviously) and it is somewhat amazing how often the same names come up over and over everywhere there's drama.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not talking about me by any chance are you? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 02:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it, I think you are much easier to deal with than a lot of the people involved in the Israeli-Palestinian articles, or the Balkan ones, for that matter. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to led you know, I've addressed your comments at the FAC. Thanks for the input! Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I just finished up some recent change patrolling, and I'll try to go over another section or two before I get too tired. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You know, it's really funny to me that you, Malleus, and I are editing at the same time, considering the time difference between the US, England, and Indonesia. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• That's an understatement, LOL. I don't think he usually edits that late. Congrats on Prosperity theology, btw. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• I should amend my statement from two days ago. Apparently two articles I translated from English to Indonesian have been featured on the Indonesian Wikipedia (after they fixed the language... I'm not a native speaker, after all.) Sitti Nurbaya (from this) and Belenggu (from this). Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, that's pretty cool that you have a couple featured articles there--especially not being a native speaker. I wonder what that project is like, are there many noticeable differences from en.wiki? RE: Prosperity theology, thanks, it is really cool to get that featured--it gets a pretty decent amount of page views too (~10k a month, I think). I thought for sure it would fail when we nominated it, but I guess I was mistaken. I actually got involved in the article because it seemed too negative and I wanted to try making a neutral article on a somewhat controversial topic. I think it came out mostly neutral in the end, it's one of those subjects where it's tricky to judge neutrality. Oh, and BTW, are you familiar with Wikichecker? Service is a bit spotty, but you can what hours of the day people generally edit. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, the Indonesian Wikipedia is completely different. For one thing, TFA is actually "FA for the next week or two", so Belenggu will be there for a while. Another is that FU images are used a lot more liberally. Some of their FAs on living people have 3 or more FU images. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Replied again. Interesting band name... Jazz, maybe? Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that does sound like Jazz. Alright, the FAC seems to be going well. I'll try to finish my read-through tonight. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've added a couple of lines to the style section. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I've supported--after fixing an unfortunate typo! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I noticed that. Good for a laugh. I'm done my comments too at the FAC for Alexis Bachelot... not as good as you at prose reviews though. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, I'm glad you're not quite as long-winded as I am on reviews! My co-nom helped a lot with the prose though, or else there probably would be a lot more fluff to be culled. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not to mention the article is a third the size of the one you reviewed... that kinda affects how much feedback I can leave. Interesting enough read though. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oh yes, it sure is nice to deal with a relatively small article now and then. I did a review of George Romney a few weeks back, that sure took a long time. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• George W. Romney? Oh my... yeah, I wouldn't be able to write that much. Chrisye was fairly easy (if expensive), but getting stuff like Poedjangga Baroe to even a third of that length would require a lot more effort than I'm willing to give. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't know how Wasted Time R does it. He's actually planning on pushing Mitt Romney up to FA if he locks up the nomination (which is looking more likely as of yesterday)--that will be a long read too. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Don't know who did it, but they had McCain and Obama as featured articles during the last election. US presidents and presidential candidates have many fans, I guess. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• ...and many detractors, as well! Mark Arsten (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, the Oscar Meyer Weiner could be president. Then everybody would be in love with the president. (Considering some towns have elected goats and dogs and foot powder, that is frighteningly plausible). Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The Oscar Meyer Weiner would probably do better than the last American politician named Weiner... Mark Arsten (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, he played with his 'ie' and she played with her 'ei'... Oh, brain bleach! Mind you, it would be nice to have "Weinergate" on the main page... And yes, I just realised I left a typo up there. Blah. Wienie whistle. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• lol, that is funny. BTW, I just pinged KAVEBEAR and a couple other people with Hawaiian userboxes, hopefully they can set me straight. There really aren't that many Hawaiian speakers on Wikipedia, I guess. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• KAVEBEAR is really into Hawaii-related topics, so he should be rarin' to help. Replied to your email, btw. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I was just thinking, perhaps it would be preferable to either strike the addressed issues or move them to the talk page, per the page header.

  To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with ... ) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.

Maybe the long list of comments is preventing people from taking a further look. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You know, that actually occurred to me but I didn't get around to doing it. On my way now. Thanks for the image review on Bachelot! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. Not sure if the FA regulars will accept the image review, but I can't imagine being wrong on any of the images currently in that article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, worst case scenario is that somebody re-posts the same thing you did. Well, they can't say we didn't try to make it easy on them. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Mark, for helping to promote William S. Sadler to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give someone a pat on the back today. Wikipelli Talk 21:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hey thanks for the barnstar, I'll add it to my collection :) Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice article. I replaced your image of King Kamehameha III with another one of his in his youth; the one you had wasn't dated to 1824 but 1850. Do you want to use this image showing the French and British meeting with the Hawaiian king and chiefs?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and the help with the images. Yes, I think that one would make a good addition to the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that the deportation of the Catholic missionaries occur the same year as High Chiefess Liliha's fall from power after her attempted rebellion.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll see if any of the sources connect the two events, I recall seeing something about her rebellion in one of them. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know I have replied to your question on my talk page. -Jhortman (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have replied to your comments on S&M. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 21:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'm not sure if I'll have much more time available to work on it though. Best of luck, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Lol, I don't expect you to do anything else to it, but a Support or Oppose would be appreciated. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, no support or oppose, but I posed a summary of my thoughts. Hope the rest of the nomination goes well, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you thought of doing Julian Assange? Saw an interest piece on pbs last night. Kinda of an inscrutable person. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

He is a very interesting person, definitely has that sort of mysterious, ambiguous quality to him. I'm not really a fan of his, but I can't say that I really dislike him either. I hadn't thought of working on his article though, I'd be worried about running into editors with battleground/POV mentalities. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad though. I guess it's B-class now, so it wouldn't be unthinkable to get it up to GA, with some luck. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if I work on Assange I'll work on Andrew Breitbart too--just for the sake of balance. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor responsible for Campaign for "santorum" neologism and promoting the Dan Savage stuff was desopped through an Arbcom not too long ago for being an inveterate POV pusher. Unfortunately I can't find the arbcom case. He's still a checkuser at Wikinews and POV pushes there. The editor is User:Cirt. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, that was the Cirt and Jayen case. I talked with Jayen briefly a few weeks back, but I don't think I've interacted with Cirt in the past. The whole santorum neologism kinda bothered me though, I mean, I'm certainly not voting for Santorum, but the whole "let's call him frothy mix" nonsense is so juvenile. I mean, I do like low-brow humor sometimes, but that's not even low-brow funny, just low-brow stupid. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree completely. I have great respect for Jayen and it took great skill to finally nail Cirt. Agree with you about Santorum. I have no understanding of the guy and no interest, but I don't think it's wikipedia's job to exaggerate a controversy over him, while meantime promoting an dime-a-dozen opinion-pusher like Dan Savage. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, on the bright side, at least Campaign for "romney" neologism was snuffed out. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Ahalya needs some work on the prose. It needs some copyeditor(s) and reviewer(s), who can go through the whole article and perfect the prose in terms of MOS and redundancy. Please let me know if you know anyone like that or if you can take a look. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. I mean, wow!!! The sentences you touched, really flow better. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Glad you liked them! I'll try to go over the rest later. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. You can really remove redundancy and reword in accordance with encyclopaedic registrar, without changing the meaning of the sentence. I dont know if you have tried it before, but you can a great help to the community as a copyeditor too. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it's really good to hear that. I've been trying to improve my copyediting skill recently, so it is excellent to get this kind of feedback. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on the promotion of Bachelot. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm shocked that it got promoted that fast. Wow. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I had a question: In "Gautama then curses Ahalya to remain invisible to all beings for thousands of years, to fast by subsisting only on air .." is the second to needed? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I recall seeing that sentence, kind of a tricky one. I think I'd put it: ""Gautama then curses Ahalya to remain invisible to all beings for thousands of years and fast by subsisting only on air". Mark Arsten (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to inform you earlier, but I opened up a new peer review for Cracker Barrel to focus specifically on meeting the FA criteria. I'm not sure if there's anything else you can think of to improve the article, but if there is anything, please feel free to leave a comment about it in the peer review. And thanks for your help in the prior one. Silverseren^C 19:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the notice, hope it goes well. I'll try to revisit the article soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, are you trying to go to FA with that? 10k characters and counting, oh my. Can you imagine the backdraft if the article reached the main page as TFA? Don't know if you noticed, but I gave you a better image of him leading the march as well. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the second image, it looks pretty good. Well, my first thought was to try to go to GA--but now that I look at it, there's no real reason that I should have to stop there. It has been pretty easy to find sources about him, I found at least 20 books on Google books that have at least a few pages about him. In my (admittedly small) experience, sourcing is the most important part of writing a near-FA article--everything rests on that foundation. You can find other people to copyedit and peer review your work, but nobody is going to dig through old books on your behalf. And in this case, a lot of people have written about that sad chapter in American history. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. On any article I write, the main issue is finding sources. Even for US topics like Teaserama. The sources were there, just n oone took a look for them. If you do bring this to FA, I think it will be a good indicator that Wikipedia can cover even the most heinous topics neutrally. Wow, still up? Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed about covering heinous topics, I think the best example is how Diannaa and Wehwalt have gotten several Nazi articles to GA or FA. Pretty impressive. On a lighter note: Teaserama, huh, hadn't heard of that before. Another potential shocking TFA... BTW, speaking of the KKK, Cracked.com has a piece today about Operation Red Dog, what an odd story that was. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, it takes real talent to take a controversial or heinous topic/person etc. and craft a neutral article. And such articles make the most interesting reading! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, I red that (I read Cracked every day). Well, looking forward to seeing how far this gets. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Hiram Wesley Evans, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Department of Education and McFarland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Take your stinking paws off me you damn dirty bot! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I take it noone ever told him "no means no". Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• lol, it's gotten to the point where I try to double check when I add links to avoid these talk page messages. I guess I should have realized that there was more than one [[Department of Education]]. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

How did you do that? Not even 1 week! Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no clue--I was so surprised to see that. I can't recall seeing anything get promoted that fast before, quite mind-boggling. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, thought that wasn't allowed but very nice to see. Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, we have a couple new FA delegates, so I guess they are doing things a bit different than our old ones did. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• It's great for me. Interesting topics and you usually have an image I can use! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed... wow, two weeks in a row Mark's name will be in the Signpost for an FA. That's what, 4 now? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, it is really cool to be in it two weeks in a row--I should probably savor this while I can. (Actually only two!) Mark Arsten (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For this edit summary... Eisfbnore talk 14:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'm glad you like it. I really couldn't resist saying that, "In Soviet Russia..." jokes never get old in my opinion. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"Nodel reports that Rosenberg might have sold emu eggs from Australia."... I'm recasting this sentence... did he sell emu eggs from Australia while in Australia, or bring them with him when he left Australia and sold them later? I don't want to change the meaning, but at the moment it's really unclear. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question, I wasn't too sure how to phrase it (I might remove it), there's a single sentence about it in the source, it reads: "He is reported to have sold 'ausgeblosene' [blown out] emu eggs which he gathered down under". It almost sounds like he gathered them in Australia and sold them elsewhere? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds plausible to me. Reference? (I'm watching your talkpage, no need for ((tb)).) Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 01:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The sentence I just provided was on Nodel page 360, irritatingly, he doesn't say who originally reported it. Thanks for your help on this, hopefully it will be another easy FAC. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll cite it as such. I've hacked apart the San Francisco section. I'm not a fan of naming the source in the prose, so I've taken all those out. I understand you're naming sources within sources, but since you're citing page numbers I don't think that's necessary. I've recast things pretty significantly, but I don't think anything was lost. Can you compare the before and after, and let me know if you're OK with it? Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 01:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I like how you did the part with the emu eggs. I'm fine with the changes up to this point removing the source names isn't a big issue for me. Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I'm working on the next section now. I'd like to finish this one tonight, I have about another hour to work on it. ;) Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 01:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. It may seem like a short article, but it is actually remarkable that I managed to expand it to this length since the sources were so tough to dig up. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm done for tonight. It's probably 98% done, but I tend to miss a few things the first time through. I'll take another look tomorrow, but if you spot anything in the mean time, go ahead and edit. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 02:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, you sure got a lot done tonight. I'll try to take a read through and check out all the changes. My plan was to nominate this at FAC when the one for the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is closed. I have a peer review open though, so I guess I will wait for that to finish up too. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Now, that's an interesting one... Seriously though, it's been fun. It's so much easier and more fun to work with an author who cares about the subject and responds to questions. I'd be happy to keep working with you on your next one. I'm happy to wait until Rosenberg is up for FAC (ping me when you post it so I can do an (obvious) support and keep an eye on the discussion), and then we can start on the next one—assuming you have more in your stable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 03:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you enjoyed it! I do some copyediting from time to time, but I often find it quite tiring. I'll definitely ping you when this gets to FAC. I do have a few more I'm thinking of bringing to FAC, hard to figure out which one to try first though... Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

One other question: did you read through the Notes section at the bottom? I see you didn't make any changes there, but I wasn't sure if that was because you didn't see anything that needed changing or because you overlooked it. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I took a quick look and didn't find anything glaringly horrible, but I'll look again when I do the last pass through. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I guess it was easier for me to polish the notes, since they're just one or two sentences. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I recall you doing a small copyedit on Turning Point (2008), I was wondering if you would be willing to perform another on Sacrifice (2008). Its at FAC and a copyedit has been requested.--WillC 05:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh hey, I do remember that. I think that was the first FAC I got involved in. I saw Sacrifice on there earlier when I was looking things over, I'll try to go over it and see if I can help out the prose a bit. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thank you very much. Its much appreciated.--WillC 17:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It was alright, almost horrible. They've done better shows like Lockdown, TP, and Slammiversary. I'm more of a fan of their 2005 shows, which is what I primarily work on these days. Alright, take your time.--WillC 02:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Huh, interesting. Well, I finished my first pass of the article, left a few notes on the FAC. Hope I did Ok... Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I've edited some more. What do you think? (I'd like to see this guy get his FA as he's a good natured hard worker, and his topic is difficult to write about since it doesn't seem to have a popular wiki following.) MathewTownsend (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Thanks for helping with that--I wish he had pinged me before nominating though. I'll read over it one more time, but I think I am close to supporting on prose. It is interesting that pro wrestling doesn't have more interested contributors, we're always hearing about how Wikipedia is so male-dominated, one would think such a masculine subject would have more coverage. Nope, people only want to write about hurricanes and Australian military officers (which are fine topics, I guess). Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! I was admiring your great work on Christianity-related articles, which made me think you should sign up for the 2012 WikiGrail. It is a friendly competition for Christianity-related project members that awards points for good articles, featured content, and other markers of editing skill. You simply just have to list your name here. Hope to see you there! Warm regards, – Lionel ^(talk) 09:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I have gotten a couple Christianity topics up to FA this year. Interesting about the competition, I hadn't heard of that. Sounds interesting, I'll check out the rules and try to get back to you. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Lionelt's talk page.

I've never come across the "Thank you for not breeding" bumper sticker! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

lol, I haven't seen it either. That does make a good slogan. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Understatement of the year: "The VHEMT platform is more moderate and serious than the Church of Euthanasia, which advocates population reduction by suicide and cannibalism."!!! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, they're not that radical, they specifically state that cannibalism should be: "strictly limited to consumption of the already dead"! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
    • oh, my! Thanks for clarifying. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
      • "So my best friend committed suicide, then I ate him per our doctrine." -- Perfect murder per CoE Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
        • ROFL, that's so bad... actually, now that I think about it, I wonder if Jeffery Dahmer was a saint for them? (Thanks for your support on VHEMT, BTW!) Mark Arsten (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Shame you can only !vote once. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Hey, fantastic! Looks like you're going to have an FA three weeks in a row - wow. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I hope so, but I'm wary of counting chickens before they hatch--or species before they go extinct, as the case may be... Mark Arsten (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oh, BTW, if anyone reads this, WillC asked me for a copyedit on Sacrifice (2008)--feel free to pitch in. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... I'll see. Building some preps for DYK right now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
    • No problem if you're busy, just thought I'd mention it. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• ok, now it's official. Congrats! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the congratulations and the note, it is good to get a talk page notice when something gets passed, saves me the hassle of checking my watchlist :) Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I will prepare a small article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool, no rush, I just thought it would be helpful to have a link to that in Ahalya. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stay off the article for a few hours to avoid edit conflicts. Thanks, Alarbus (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, will do--thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

 diff. Alarbus (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for doing that. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I'm always looking for interesting articles to work on. Alarbus (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey: George Went Hensley#Endnotes should be done like Ahalya#Footnotes, using ((efn)). Those cnote things are terrible. Due to WP:REFNEST, the cites should not be as footnotes, but as inline harvs in the explanatory notes. See User talk:Wehwalt#John A. Macdonald for a longer explanation of this. Alarbus (talk) 06:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the advice. I'm going to take another pass through GWH in the next few days, hopefully I can get that all straightened out. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd be glad to rough it in. They'll need names that mean more than "A", "B" (and add one, and that all off). I was just looking at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 4#Template:Cref2 which should have resulted in delete after fixing up the less than two hundred uses; but now there are 262 articles using it. I'm going to try and talk Crisco 1492 into shifting things over to {efn} and the like. He does great work, just with a wrong template. Alarbus (talk) 06:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Not to point fingers or anything, but I started using the Cref2 templates after seeing Crisco use it. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

See his talk; I just left him a note, pointing here. Alarbus (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've read through your comments here and on Wehwalt's page a couple times. I think I get what you're saying now. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Meh, I just started using them after looking at Jane Austen. And now they're on like 10 of my articles. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  They can be fixed ;-) Jane Austin would be an article started many years ago using now antiquated techniques. Articles tend to stagnate where there were first built up and this often leaves key articles using older techniques. I've been looking at articles using these and their kin with an eye to refactoring them; it's all do-able. I quick-fixed a few that were simple. Alarbus (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done a lot of this and think this the best approach. These older templates (((Ref)), ((Note)), ((Ref label)), ((Note label)), ((Cref)), ((Cnote))) all should be beaten with a stick until they really can be deleted. It is the nature of wikis for poor practises to linger because as people cut poor things out, others (innocently, in good faith) are propagating them further.

You seen the millions of {dot} templates in navboxes? They make editing navboxes unpleasant, produce inappropriate html in served pages, and melt servers and make page loads slow. Some months ago, we started killing of the {dots} in favour of WP:HLIST, which uses a wholly different approach and addresses all of the issues. See User:WOSlinker/wrapping for progress. Alarbus (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiGrail! The competition has officially begun! Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A judge will then update the main table frequently, which can be seen on the WikiGrail page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Full Rules. There's also a section on that page listing the differences with the WikiCup. For those currently competing in the WikiCup, note that you can submit your WikiCup content to the WikiGrail. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! Good luck! – Lionel ^(talk) 06:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

<Slow clap> Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, this really has been a remarkable week. Thanks for all your help on Bachelot and VHEMT. I'm pretty glad to have my VHEMT project finished, I only had to get one person banned to get it there. I was surprised how much irritation that article caused me... well, it was a learning experience certainly. It's really cool to have a featured article on a small environmental group like that, just the kind of thing that Britannica wouldn't cover. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "I only had to get one person banned to get it [to FA]". You and Mathew are just making me laugh today, LOL. Maybe I'm feeling sadistic. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Glad we could brighten up your day a bit. Well, if the most sadistic thing you do is laugh at people, you're probably a pretty good person... Mark Arsten (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Laughing at people for being banned? A bit sadistic, methinks. Mind you, I like understatement so that could have been a reason. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I guess that probably would qualify as sadistic--some people really take being banned pretty hard. Actually, I'm banned from Metapedia for vandalizing, that doesn't bother me very much though. In this case of VHEMT, the humor was more in the talk page debates and the reactions people had. For example, this comment really cracks me up every time I read it. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Lol, that's Drmies for you. Shame he doesn't like FAC. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, you know, it really is too bad how many skilled users we have who don't go near FAC. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• They probably see it as more stress than it's worth. Even some WM chapter members I've met take the same standing. Mind you, a lot of people seem to push for it because GAs don't get to the main page. FP is much funner. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• You know, it kinda seems to me that the stress really wears on the long-term FAC regulars. But anyway, we need to get GAs on the main page. That would be a very good thing. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't doubt it. Mind you, it's daunting for new editors as well. As for GAs... the main page is fairly crowded already, methinks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• You know, I'm probably in the minority here, but I'd be willing to ax In the News and replace it with 5 GAs a day. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry for butting in unexpectedly in a semi-private discussion, just can't suppress the desire to express what I've in mind. I see the FA List section is nuked from main page. As Mark said, some GAs will do good in main page, but nuke the useless "On this day...". The same events appear in main page year after year, in 2010, in 2012, again in 2013, and so on... That does not serve any purpose. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 08:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nothings private, this is Wikipedia! Within 24 hours this entire thread will be copied by gosh knows how many bots. I was thinking more like, we do two blurbs about GAs and stick it above POTD/TFL. Obviously, I wouldn't want to displace DYK... Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• What does TFL mean? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 09:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Today's featured list. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• But that section is gone! --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 11:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• I said "above"... I didn't say get rid of it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• He said gone, not great... geez. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Don't worry, Wikipedia:Today's featured list is still running, it's just on Mondays--List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein will be up tomorrow. I'd be more inclined to keep "On this day", since articles about historic events are usually more encyclopedic than the recently cobbled together articles on very obscure news events from throughout the world. But putting Good Articles below wouldn't be such a bad idea either. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware that TFL is featured only on Mondays. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

William T. Anderson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Black flag, Cooper County and Missouri State Militia

Hiram Wesley Evans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Unionism and Nativist

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• In Indonesian, we call you "jablai" bot. You just keep looking for attention. Shoo! Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• Dear Bot, please see this video for my opinion of you... Mark Arsten (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mark, I tried to add a copyright to the pic I posted on the American University of Sharjah site and can't find the box to post it in. Can you help? We bought the pic from the photographer, so can I just give his name? Thanks--Frances Barton (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not much of an expert about images and copyrights etc. I think the best place to ask would be Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, they'd be able to help you more than I can. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Congratulations on the FA status of Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Drmies (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the barstar! Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this up your alley? I just heard an NPR piece about it. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be right up my alley, along with Discordianism. I've heard a bit about them, pretty funny group. I wonder how much research I would have to do though, probably would have to sift through a ton of articles--but I'll make a note of that next time I'm thinking up future projects. I was very close to starting work on Otherkin actually, then I saw someone else had just expanded it in a different direction than I had wanted to go. Jediism might be a fairly easy article on a postmodern religious group though. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised that you got such results for jablai, but look at my results for "A Converted British Family". Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bottom row. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• lol, obviously, if someone searches for "A Converted British Family" they're really looking for a Russian woman in a Bikini, duh. I recall accidentally turning up porn on some very innocuous searches over the years, that's part of the reason I laugh at all the people who freak out about nudity on Commons... But this brings an interesting point up: look how small our article on Google Images is. One learns almost nothing from that article... on a pretty well-known topic. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• A 5x expansion (up to 9k characters) and we could put it on DYK. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• That would certainly be possible, there are tons of hits about it out there, even legal cases and controversies and so on. To be honest, I'm starting to get tired of reading about the Klu Klux Klan. Hopefully I'll be able to finish up the research soon and get to polishing and organizing the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't doubt it. I've gone diving head first into movie posters to get rid of the aftertaste of doing those images (found some nice free ones, like for The Mummy, White Zombie, and The Painted Veil)If you go to GA first, let me know so I can do the review :-D Of course, a quid pro quo review would be nice... *hint* Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• That does sound like a good idea, I haven't done too many GA reviews. Well, the research is almost done, I'll see how long it takes me to get it polished up. How many Good Article nominations do you have pending? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Umm... Atheis, Poedjangga Baroe, Belenggu, Maria Ulfah Santoso, Sjumandjaja, and Sang Pencerah are waiting, and Chinese Indonesians is (supposedly) under review. So 6 + 1. Several of those have been waiting for over a month, while two are brand new (this weekend, in fact). It looks like the KKK review will be an interesting one, although you don't seem to have linked book URLs. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, that is a lot pending. I'll try to pick off at least one of them. It's funny how Peer Review deals with backlogs with such zeal, limiting people to one open request at a time. I haven't been linking book urls, I tend to put as little as I can get away with. The ones I used should be pretty easy to get on Google books, though it's hit or miss which pages you can see, I guess. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• They just instituted that recently, actually. Before then you could have several. Nobody reviews, though. Same at GA, noone is reviewing. I've reviewed 24 articles, but only have 11 (12?) GA credits... There's a much better ratio at DYK, methinks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Noone is reviewing? wow, that is pretty cool :) Mark Arsten (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

*Personally, I love how some Western names mean completely different things in Indonesian. I once met a professor of literature from Germany, and her family name was Bandel. In informal Indonesian, Bandel means "naughty". Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• I knew someone who had a cranky old Indian landlord with a name like "Khul" or something. I always thought they were being sarcastic and calling him "Mr. Cool" as a joke. But speaking of German professors, I had a German philosophy professor who pronounced "Kant" in a way that would get him banned from Wikipedia (if you know what I mean). I'm not sure if that's actually the correct pronunciation or not, but it made it really hard not to laugh during long lectures about the categorical imperative.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Arsten (talk • contribs)

• Gee, interesting. I've met a Mini as well, and there's a Chrisye song about a girl named Lenny. And my sister-in-law is Kheni (pronounced Kenny). Mind you, they have trouble pronouncing Western names too. Both my given and family names have been horribly mangled by Indonesian speakers. BTW, I replied at Belenggu, but I can't do any major edits til about 1pm my time. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Have you ever show your sister-in-law an episode of South Park? Maybe you shouldn't... BTW, it's really helpful how you have your local time on your talk page. We just went through Daylight savings, so things are all messed up. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• In Abu Dhabi I saw a brand of beer(?) called Kilkenny or Kilkheni or something like that. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oh yes, that must be Kilkenny (beer). Interesting that they have it in Abu Dhabi. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• The airport, so not too out of place. An Irish pub, to be precise. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering if you were thinking of running GWHensley through FAC again, as the 2 weeks are up. Although some of the edits during the last nom period may not be seen as constructive by some reviewers, I'm not certain what other "work" would need to be done (ask 10 people how something should be written, and you'll likely get 10 different answers). Should you decide to renominate, it would probably be good to note that the previous candidacy produced no supports or opposes. Let me know once it is up and I'll post notices on the projects to attempt to get more reviewers to take a look. • Astynax ^talk 22:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I was going to drop a note on your talk page saying the same thing. I was actually planning on renominating this week and was making some minor tweaks over the past couple days. Feel free to do the same if you want. I think it will be best to renominate and hope for the best, waiting for a peer review could take some time and probably wouldn't come up with much unless we lucked out and got an excellent reviewer. I think it's in pretty good shape though, I've been following FAC pretty closely and worse articles have been getting supports lately. One never knows with FAC though... Mark Arsten (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• "One never knows with FAC though..." -- Another tittling understatement. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• lol, it's true. Different reviewers have widely different standards (and widely different amounts of help they're willing to give you), so sometimes it's the luck of the draw what you get. Hmm, you know what occurred to me? FAC should have a reviewer of the year contest. People would be judged on number and quality of reviews they do and the winner gets prompt reviews on any of his/her articles for the next year. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

@Astynax: I finished my run through the article, if you could read through one more time I'll re-nominate right after you're done. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I've gone through the article again. Some of it I have returned to something closer to our original wording, as I think that there were several edits after the last nom that muddied things before the reviewers had a chance to look at the body of the article. Too many cooks, too soon. You can have another look and renominate whenever you have the time. • Astynax ^talk 10:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, great, thanks for doing that. I'll try to renominate later today when I have more time. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

	Not Kilkenny
	I'm a Guinness man myself, but here's a second glass of Bintang for you. Thanks for the speedy GA review, and I look forward to reviewing one of yours soon. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, it was good to work on a GA review in real time like that. No sense keeping it open for a week when it was in good shape. I did end up staying up a bit later than I should have though... Mark Arsten (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't doubt it (I'm off to bed now myself). Did you see this? Myself and another editor seem to have kicked off a little firestorm (I reviewed the article and suggested the hook), and this DYK of mine (probably shouldn't open it at work) seems to have stoked the fire. Last time I saw a thread this long for something I did, it was when I nominated MissingNo. to be TFA. Fun times; night, and thanks for the review. I'll prowl for one of your nominations tomorrow. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I did see that discussion about the adult video that was a DYK, I hadn't realized you were involved though (should have guessed it was somehow your doing!). I seem to recall that an admin actually got desysopped years ago after a conflict that started with a racy DYK--this is another one of those things that keeps coming up for years on end. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oh, and BTW, I probably won't have anything nominated for a few days, most likely by the weekend. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Alrighty. I'll probably go to a Wikimedia event in Surakarta on Saturday, but I'll have time to review. Cheers! Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark. Check your email. Don't be surprised if my email takes a long time to open; it's big, as in megabytes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that was a large file--downloaded it ok though and have started sorting through. Thanks for the quick response. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sent you what I found for later years but there's not much, at least in this database, and surprisingly no obit. He may have been mostly out of the headlines by then (by 1960 he was 75, maybe in retirement). Although it only goes through 1922, are you familiar with Chronicling America? How about Old Fulton NY Postcards? You might find this Scirus search useful also--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like he was basically out of the news by then. I plugged him into the chronicling america site, there are a number of hits from early in his career. I'll try check on the other two soon. Hopefully I can get this to "comprehensive" fairly soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

William S. Sadler is a WP:GA and already a very fine element of content for the project. I am not a medical expert and it is in a pretty highly developed state. It is not an article that I could really help out a lot without a lot of research and effort. Try either WP:PR or pinging some of the talk page project. I added a few projects to the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, it's hard for me to judge my own work so it is good to hear that from you! I probably will send it to peer review once the article I have there now closes (since we're limited to one open request now). Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• I was going to start a new section, but I don't like seeing the same topic three times in a row! Anyways, you know what I was going to say (you're acting on it already!) Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • lol, thanks, nothing wrong with threadjacking--I've done it myself a time or two. Thanks for those comments, they look pretty good--only a couple I disagree with. I'm going to have to dig into a couple sources for dates etc., but I think I can handle it all. I keep getting mixed up though, because I have three works by the same authors, I keep trying to pull up information and using the wrong source and then panicking because I think I totally messed up. Going to have some more coffee now... Mark Arsten (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, you have my support yet again. Good job! On an unrelated note, Poedjangga Baroe, Chrisye, and Atheis are all FAs on the Indonesian Wikipedia now; apparently you are allowed to close your own nominations there if there is enough consensus. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Huh, I can't see that idea taking off here anytime soon! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
        • You're telling me. The RFC would be a nightmare. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
          • lol, that would be quite a mess. So much time-wasting drama around here. But there is some good news, I saw on Jimbo's talk page that they're going to give out some HighBeam accounts for free==that's a big step in the right direction, I really hope I can get one. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

        WP:IAR

        • “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.”

        and see the threat in the second box on my talk. There isn't even a rule against it, just an autocrat. Alarbus (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

        Yes, I saw that box, I had a good laugh about that one. Oh, and thanks for changes the notes on Sadler, I had meant to change over to efn but hadn't gotten too. I must admit, I am baffled about the .27 business though. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

        Do read the Examiner piece by Thekohser. On Sadler, the {efn} need better names; I left a comment in there about it. As things move or new notes are added, the correspondence between the names and the generated [a-z] links will get lost. .27 is an encoding of an apostrophe character and it's needed in {sfnRef}. It just means (in pairs or triples) italic (or bold). In the {sfn} encoding is not needed, so use actual apostrophes. But they have to correspond or the links break.

        You should install:

        • importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
        • User:Ucucha/HarvErrors

        very useful for these templates. Alarbus (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

        • Ok, I think I get it now. I'll make a note to install those scripts, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• IAR, eh? Jenna Jameson, welcome to the front page! Now to see if we have a nude picture of you on Commons... Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • What's really strange to me is that Jenna Jameson is the only pornography FA that we have. One would think that if Wikipedia was really as male dominated as people make it out to be there would be a lot more of them. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Most guys aren't academically interested in porn... Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  Use this; maybe no one will notice the difference ;-> looks better, and safer, too. Alarbus (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, we don't want a bunch of angry porn nerds (perds) chasing us for mixing up the two... the mess would be terrible! Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  The greater concern would be the other woman's lawyers. (What would Sadler think of this thread?) Alarbus (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• He'd tell us to handle a king cobra to show we have not deviated from the Lord's path, most likely. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• lol, Hensley would tell us to handle a snake, not Sadler. Interestingly though, Sadler was sorta laid back about sex for a man of his era and compared to his mentor John Harvey Kellogg, he was downright libertine, but that's not saying very much.

• Kellogg's article is downright hilarious, I envy the person who got to write that one. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• This got me thinking about the lack of high-quality pornography articles though. I think a large part of it might be the difficulty of finding high-quality unbiased sources. There are a lot of promotional sources and a number of polemical sources criticizing things, but one would probably have to work hard to find FA-quality sourcing. Not to say there isn't any though, I'm sure there are a few academic works on the subject. Oh well, I have enough on my plate at the moment as it is with snake handlers and white supremacists. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, Graham of Graham cracker fame was pretty hardline as well... "Eat food with dull flavours, for that is how thou shalt avert sin". Sorry for dumping that second one on you! Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Huh, maybe that's my problem, too many exotic spices in my food. Or, I could be having too much protein. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Some of those topics you do should get rid of any excess drive... depressing. Me? I'm expanding the article on a western. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) Interesting, I've never gotten into westerns, maybe I should look some up. Are there Canadian westerns? I hear there are cowboys in western Canada. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm... never checked. I'm only doing this article because the poster is awesome... and free! Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• And it's old, so you won't get yelled at for "promoting commercial interests". (A charge I find quite silly.) Mark Arsten (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Meh, they don't care about new Indonesian films either (many of my DYKs were of 2011 films, like ?, Under the Protection of Ka'bah, and The Dancer). Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, that works at least. I like the idea of a did you know ... that ? Mark Arsten (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Meta, I know. :D Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Great copyedit! BTW, I have a new suggestion, what do you think? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I like copyediting short articles more than huge ones. Your proposed wording looks ok, maybe "have suggested" would work too though. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added a cite video template [9], but the director's name is not displaying. Could you fix it? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 06:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I haven't used a cite video template before, but I can take a look. BTW, sorry if I introduced any prose issues in my copyedit. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No prob. BTW the citation issue is solved, it was happening because the citation template does not have "people" parameter. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 07:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

My apologies if this has been addressed, this regarding an edit you made back in January but went unnoticed/uncorrected until now. you might want to look at the scripts you are running with AWB. this edit did indeed fix a malformed image tag, but in doing so introduced a syntax error that resulted in template code being displayed instead of the intended image. Cheers, Dave (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for pointing that out to me. I try to review the AWB edits, but occasionally I do miss something like that. I'll keep a watch for that issue in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking if Les U. Knight meets WP:BASIC. There are multiple coverages on him in mainstream sources (for example this one). What do you think? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 11:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think he does meet BASIC notability, I'm a bit surprised no one has created an article on him before. (Though of course there is a chance that someone would Afd it anyway.) I guess the question is, why should we have an article on him? For most people, that's a very easy question to answer. It's a bit more complicated in Knight's case since we have an article that tells a lot about him already. He does seem to be notable though, use your best judgement, I guess. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:George Went Hensley preaching.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the ((non-free fair use in|article name that the file is used in)) tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

How dare you nominate that for deletion, you mountebank! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this picture has merit. It shows him preaching, and (perhaps) one of his wives holding the book beside him. Shows him in situ. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe that was hasty of me--but I find all the nuances of our fair use policy baffling. Feel free to ping J Milburn about it, maybe you can change his mind. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I contested it on the deletion page File talk:George Went Hensley preaching.JPG. But I think you should put it in the article, as I think one reason for deleting a fair use image is if it's not being used. Personally, I think it conveys a lot about the atmosphere around his preaching that can't be conveyed in words and I'd really miss it. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I would too, and I was pretty irritated at the thought of deleting it--but I was worried that J Milburn would oppose on images owing to the NFCC commercial image thing. I really don't know what to do here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

well, I've seem all sorts of Fair use justifications, and it really seems to depend on how articulate the rationale is. I think the image is very Appalachian (just look at those women) and nothing but the actual picture shows that. He's not in a church, in a pulpit, wearing preacher's robes, but in his shirt sleeves with a few people around him. And he's exhorting! It's an old picture and of poor quality; it's not like your ruining some photographers livelihood by using it. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That is true, maybe I jumped the gun there. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

After all, they justify scenes from current TV programs etc. under Fair use, things that are obviously copyrighted and where the owner may have something to lose by it's use. Just put it back in the article, near a description of his preaching and justify how it portrays the atmosphere of an Appalachian (sort of fringe) preacher. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the speedy for now, hopefully we can get more input on this. There's a helpdesk or something for that, right? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm contesting it also. Unfortunately, it is difficult to know whether or not some of the images out there may actually be in the public domain, and we are not IP attorneys with the resources to discover the exact status. I also noticed an image being used by a school here that also seems to be a publicity shot, and wonder if that one would also be usable. I'm not sure who to contact there to even find out. • Astynax ^talk 18:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've got to run at the moment, feel free to swap it back into the article. I really don't have a clue here. Man, that one of him with the snakes would be perfect, I wonder if fair use would cover it since it's the only one of him with snakes? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a great one. Completely different. Doesn't show the sleaziness of the other, but much better photo and shows his charisma. Maybe they'd let you use it. (They don't say where its from.) After all, it's on a site that's explaining research. Or a "great" fair use rationionale. Somewhere there's a write up on how to write those things. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't find a place to put it in the article. Since it's from 1947 it would have to go in the section that already has an image. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that it could go in the Legacy section, but only if we can determine that it is either public domain or other rationale that will allow its use. I couldn't find anything on the sgis.org site that spelled-out usage restrictions for images appearing on the site, or a contact who could tell us about the image. • Astynax ^talk 19:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the original image in the article for the present. They are very demanding of images that appear in FAC, because of several past cases where Featured Articles have been slammed for containing copyrighted material. In this case, I think that there is a solid Fair Use rationale, and additionally it is not at all clear (to me) that the image was not originally created for wide public distribution. • Astynax ^talk 19:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok then, I guess we'll go with that one. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The NFCC are clear that "[n]on-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media" (NFCC#2). This is a copyrighted image from a newspaper; the original market role was to show the likeness of the individual. Pictures like this are normally only acceptable when commenting on the picture, as opposed to what is depicted, and for a time there was a speedy deletion criteria for cases similar to this. Now, as has been pointed out, this is an older picture, and so the issue is less pressing, but the NFCC do not actually differentiate between new and old- just free and non-free. If we have publicity photos which were released for wide distribution, the use of one them would not be contrary to NFCC#2. As such, unless there's a particular reason why this image is preferable NFCC-wise, I think the publicity photo would be the best choice. J Milburn (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Running out the door at the moment, but I think the picture Astynax linked to on the St. George's site is actually not Hensley--it looks more like Dewey Chafin to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Why can't you use File:George Hensley headshot.jpg at least? MathewTownsend (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Ehh, I guess I could use that, even though it kinda looks like he has leprosy or vitiligo or something. I'd like to get it ok'd with J Milburn first. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
    • If that's just a family photo released or a purpose-taken publicity photo, then that would be absolutely fine NFCC#2-wise. A slight reduction in resolution would help with NFCC#3 and probably improve the look a little. J Milburn (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I've uploaded a lower-res version. J Milburn (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Ok, thanks for all your help with this, I've re-added it to the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Just here to say that your edit summary literally made me laugh out loud. (And that I'm a little sad about the other picture getting axed – it was so good!) Accedie^{talk to me} 00:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I take it you mean this one? I'm glad I could make you laugh today. Actually, that was kinda funny. It was a shame to lose such a picture, but one needs to keep a sense of humor when dealing with all the detailed criteria at FAC--have you seen this video? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahahaha, no, I hadn't seen that! En dashes... hehe...

Hey, speaking of, are you going to Wikimania this year? Steven Walling and I submitted a talk on editor motivations, culled from interviews with a bunch of FAC writers. Might be of interest to you. Accedie^{talk to me} 00:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You know, I actually have been thinking about it--it sounds like something I might like and it would be nice to see some Wiki-people in person. I guess I'll have to check on my available vacation time and so on, will try to get around to doing that. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Do it! It'll be great to meet you :) Accedie^{talk to me} 00:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I do appreciate that as the verifiable directorial debut of a notable person, this article meets a criteria of WP:NF, and that it does have coverage... but I ask that you take a look at this edit and consider that a "redirect" is pretty much okay for now just so long as there is no prejudice toward a recreation of the article if/when more sources become available AND as long as the returned article be properly sourced and maintain a properly neutral tone. Reasonable? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Jesse L. Brown is interesting, as the subject represents an important milestone in black history. You may enjoy reading it, if only to get that wizard out of your head. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Not kooky enough for Mark. He's only interested if there is some kind of weird angle! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I hope he does like it. Not everything can be kooky. But if he wants something odd, he should check out the plot of Saman Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• hey, that's one I reviewed for GA! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed. My GAs have been piling up recently, but FAC... a wasteland Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of Brown before, that does look interesting. I've been meaning to work on a military history article since that project gives people a lot of help polishing articles, one of the few wikiprojects that actually does anything anymore... My new realization has been that I should rely on peer review as much as possible, looking at some of the most prolific FA writers it does seem like they get a lot of input at peer review. But yes, Saman does look like an interesting one, I haven't really worked on any book articles much, just to create some stubs here and there. This whole Kony 2012 business just gave me the idea of working on articles about African warlords or something, that's about as far from the Klan as one can get! Mark Arsten (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed. Some articles go quite quickly at FAC, while some, like Brown, go quite slowly. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that was kinda an epic fail on my part. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Hiram Wesley Evans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Bootleggers, James Watson, James W. Johnson and Vatican

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Guess who's back / back again / botty's back / tell a friend. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have been getting sloppy, but when I'm working on a draft I don't tend to check for dabs, only when I get to polishing it up. That's why I like to work in sandboxes. But then I forget about them... Mark Arsten (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• You're not the only one. I think I have two or three started but since abandoned. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

He has persisted.[10] What should I do? 119.237.156.246 (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the next step would be to discuss the contents of the edits that you would like to make with him on his talk page or the articles' talk pages. Registering an account would be a good idea, as well. Hope it goes well, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that he reverts whatever edits I make. He left no edit summary. There's no clue what I can discuss with this person. 119.237.156.246 (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried asking him on his talk page? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

But there's no clue what he disagrees with. He basically undoes whatever I do. There's no specific reason. 119.237.156.246 (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Both of us were reported at 3RR.[11] 119.237.156.246 (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your contributions to William S. Sadler, which has fairly recently achieved WP:GA status.

This user helped promote William S. Sadler to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you're welcome! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead--it should be deleted now. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• You think the new image is terrible? Check out our image for Titiek Puspa. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, that one isn't great either... Mark Arsten (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

IMO, this img looked better on Hensley article. Also, it can't be in Snake handling due to WP:FAIRUSE "contextual significance", mainly no snakes ;)--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It did look better on Hensley, but after all the work that has been put into the article it would be a shame to miss the promotion on a technicality. But, at least our Hensley headshot isn't the worst image on Wikipedia, File:Elof Erickson.jpg might take that crown... Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... That looks like the ghost of Erickson... ;)--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

lol, I should add that image to Ghost or something. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oh my... terrible image. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		Mark, thank you for all of your fine work and useful commentary at FAC. I know the nominators value your input. Laser brain (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for the medal, that means a lot. I'm glad I got involved at FAC. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	I am soon going for another FAC for Ahalya. No matter it becomes a FA or not, you deserve this for improving the article and bringing all your great editor friends in to improve it further. Redtigerxyz Talk 18:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• You're welcome, it's great to see this kind of article getting brought to top-quality. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark,

I've uploaded a copy of the article that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link to the article on that page.

Best, GabrielF (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I appreciate the talk page message too. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the nom for further improvement. Please discuss in the talk page of the article and give your suggestions. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 04:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, will do. You might want to open up a peer review, as well. FAC is a tough place--hope you take another shot! Mark Arsten (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Opened a peer review. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 06:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, the discussion is archived by a bot. Do you have any idea why? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 10:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure why, that is odd. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank for the reverts. The bot gone mad, I've informed his owner. Cheers! --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed all of your suggestions on this FAC. Let me know if you have any other comments here. Thanks again for your review! —Ed!^(talk) 00:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'll review the changes shortly. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

So where's the nomination? I'm itching to review. I have a debt of honour, after all. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, that one. Well, I finished the bulk of the research and the article is basically written, but it needs a lot of copyediting and probably some reorganization. I just had an idea for a new article to work on though, so I guess I'll take a little time to start building that one before I do any good article nominations. If you haven't noticed, I like starting projects much more than finishing them... Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just so long as you don't like starting reviews more than finishing them. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, see, that I would feel bad about. BTW, do you know much about the WP:NFCC? There's a bit of a dispute going on about a picture on Talk:Snake handling. The NFCC may as well be the Voynich manuscript as far as I'm concerned... Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Urk. My suggestion is to put a blurb or two about resistance to the snake handling movement, including legal resistance. That would tie in with the picture and better pass the NFCC. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• You know, if you do want to pay me back for the GA review, I currently have a peer review request open for William S. Sadler... Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'll try and have a look, although for peer reviews I'm not exactly world class. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, just post what you would have if you were reviewing it at FAC--that will probably be helpful. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds alright. I'll hop on it tomorrow after I'm finished translating Soedjatmoko from English to Indonesian (I smell a sixth FA...). The head of Wikimedia Indonesia told me to stop throwing books her way, and MissingNo. was too difficult as 90% of the terms were not on the Indonesian Wikipedia. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• lol, how is the coverage of Pokemon on id.wiki? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Worse than ours. Okay, I'm out. My bed is calling. I should hopefully have a PR finished by tomorrow night my time, depending on how much time I spend with the guy from the Javanese Wikipedia tomorrow ("v", not "p") Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• I wonder how often those two are mixed up. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Considering 80% of English speakers don't know there is a Javanese language, quite often they think they hear a "p" instead of the "v". Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Done the review. Have a laugh on me. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey, thanks for the review and the copyedits--you are a pretty good peer reviewer. Also, why is it always Japan... Mark Arsten (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Try Malaysia. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
      • lol, that is pretty good. What will those zany Malaysians come up with next? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

99.39.132.200 (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, nice to see you today, Mr. Jackson. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've had with these motherf*****g posts on this motherf*****g page! Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's pretty much my response sometimes. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Voluntary Human Extinction Movement know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 24, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 24, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is an environmental movement that calls for all people to abstain from reproduction to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of mankind. VHEMT supports human extinction primarily because it would prevent environmental degradation. The group states that a decrease in the human population would prevent a significant amount of man-made human suffering. The extinctions of non-human species and the scarcity of resources required by humans are frequently cited by the group as evidence of the harm caused by human overpopulation. VHEMT was founded in 1991 by Les U. Knight, an activist who became involved in the environmental movement in the 1970s and thereafter concluded that human extinction was the best solution to the problems facing the Earth's biosphere and humanity. Knight publishes the group's newsletter and serves as its spokesperson. Although the group is promoted by a website and represented at some environmental events, it relies heavily on coverage from outside media to spread its message. Many commentators view its platform as unacceptably extreme, though other writers have applauded VHEMT's perspective. In response to VHEMT, some journalists and academics have argued that humans can develop sustainable lifestyles or can reduce their population to sustainable levels. Others maintain that, whatever the merits of the idea, because of the human reproductive drive mankind will never voluntarily seek extinction. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, my first TFA--all hands on deck, all hands to action stations! Mark Arsten (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Congrat! --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 00:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, this is pretty cool. Let's see if it stirs up some controversy... Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Add "mouth-to-anus" somewhere there. Sure will get hearts pumping. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• lol, people do get excited when there is talk about anuses on the main page. Part of me wants to get some proctology-related article up to featured status just to see what happens... Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Talks about this article is spreading throughout the net.[12][13] --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, that is good to hear, thanks for pointing those out. I'll have to keep my eyes out for more. So far there hasn't been much in the way of vandalism, I'm a bit surprised. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

VHEMT on the main page, woo! Congrats and cheers :) Accedietalk to me 21:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, this has been --not as much vandalism as I had expected to see. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Way to be a typical self-righteous wiki contributor, who doesn't even notice retarded mistakes in an article when editing out the vandalism. Is contributing to the world's knowledge by having ladyballs and no life working out well for you? Oh, and have you noticed that even on talk pages, your style of writing is insipid and uninspired? I mean there's a lack of flair and then there's too much time spent being neutral, and I'd guess you never exactly had much flair in the first place. Anyway have fun editing the biggest repository of knowledge for high-school students and people who are going to fail their degrees. Your work is very important, do not leave your basement, et cetera, et cetera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.235.165 (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a very interesting topic. I was thinking of doing some work in this article. Since you are interested in various topics including minority movements or view, you might be interested in developing this article. If you start working on it, I can join to improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SupernovaExplosion (talk • contribs)

Very interesting, I hadn't seen that article before--I'll take a look, but it sounds like the type of thing that I'd be interested in. I recall hearing about a bill in Switzerland or somewhere a few years back that would have recognized "the dignity of plants" or something similar, can't quite place it now. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

In Google Search, this article in RationalWiki comes first. It has lot of information, including the Switzerland bill. There is even an Universal Declarations of Plant Rights! --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a pretty funny site sometimes. I'll have to start reading up on this soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark. I just posted the above (it pre-existed, but as a one sentence stub) and will be going to DYK. Would you mind taking a quick look for anything glaring?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that looks pretty cool. Sure, I'll try to go over it later today. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mark. I don't know why but I never remember to use the convert template.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot to do so myself on a regular basis. The article looks pretty good though, not too much I could do. I wish it had caught on... it looks pretty fun. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw a TV program that said this wrestling is fantastically popular worldwide and especially in the UK. I wonder why there's no interest on WP. I've worked the article over a little more. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a very good question. There's a stereotype that only rednecks and so on like wrestling, (i.e. W.T.F.) but I don't really buy that--I had an accounting professor back in college who watched it religiously. I hear so much talk about how Wikipedia is 99% (or whatever) male and how "male topics" get so much coverage, but then I see the lack of quality articles on things like wrestling and pornography and I really wonder how true that is. Anyway, thanks for all your help with the article, I'm sure Will really appreciates it as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the "in traditional Hinduism" suggestion. Much clearer. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem, oddly enough, I'm bringing someone to the airport tomorrow for a trip they're taking to India. They were in India the last time Ahalya was at FAC too--quite a coincidence. I'm taking one more read through the article and then I'll comment on the talk page (thus far it looks supportable). Mark Arsten (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Have replied to them. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Is it OK if I strike out the Comments and write Support besides it for clarity? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Once I decide that I want to make an article, I try try till I succeed ... :)--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the spirit! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)