User talk:Cirt/Archive 7
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | This 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. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
RfD nomination of Domaining
I have nominated Domaining (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. FCSundae ∨☃ (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter
The July 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Chilling effect
Hi,
as you were involved in the back-and-forth moving of Chilling effect, please have a look at Talk:Chilling_effect. Thank you. --Austrian (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
User:76.172.176.45
You blocked 76.172.176.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) recently. He's back, and he has repeated a bunch of edits that are against Music project guidelines and have been reverted multiple times by various editors. I am not sure why you blocked him before—I wasn't part of that process—but if it was for the Music-related edits, he hasn't learned. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked. Cirt (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Let's hope it helps. A small percentage of his edits are constructive, but the failure to work collaboratively makes him a liability and not an asset.
- I'm curious--the note on the talk page doesn't include the duration of the block. Is that SOP? — John Cardinal (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
GA sweeps user box
Can you look at Wikipedia:Help_desk#GA_Sweeps_review_userbox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Template renaming
I've suggested renaming Template:Sun Myung Moon to Template:Unification Church. Since you contributed to the template you might want to express your opinion at Template talk:Sun Myung Moon. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Cool
I today stumbled over a Miles Fisher American Psycho video and downloaded the EP. Haven't heard of the guy before and checked the Wiki, thinking is it going to be worth it but voilà, a good article, really informative. Proves the Wiki can be a good place to read about anything. Kudos! Hekerui (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Domaining
A new user named DomainDeveloper has just registered an account, and as his first edit he linked to this website. He then quickly reverted his own edit, which leads me to believe it was a mistake. Nevertheless I take this as evidence that he is the user who created the domaining article and has returned to try to find a way to get it restored. I thought I'd let you know about this since you were involved in closing the AfD. This is cross posted to RegentsPark's talkpage as well. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 18:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- It would seem that we have given the guy a second chance and have unprotected the Domaining article, although it is being edited by people from all sides of the debate and not just his side. User:DomainDeveloper may have been a sock of some other user, but if so, that user probably decided it wasn't needed. Or it could be just a coincidence. In any case, I would say that all is well for now. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 01:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
nevermind, plz ignore me
the article on mark bunker already mentions it was a 'citizens arrest', and cites a local report in a ... newspaper? tv? something like that. thanks Decora (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Alternative text for images in film articles
Hello, since the guidelines to add alternative text for images are being proliferated, I would like to ensure that the Good and Featured Articles under WikiProject Films have such text. Since you are a primary contributor to the articles listed below, I ask you to review the guidelines to add text to images in the body. For the image in the infobox, please add alt= above caption= and include alternative text in this field. For an example, see the text for Fight Club (film): alt. Here are your articles and a tool assessing them for alternative text:
- Battlefield Earth (film) alt
- Lord of the Universe alt
- 29th Golden Raspberry Awards alt
- The Wiz (film) alt
- est and The Forum in popular culture alt
If you have any questions or would like a hand collaborating on alternative text, please let me know! —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks very much, I will get on addressing the above articles. Cirt (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I helped out a bit by adding alt text to The Wiz (film). Incidentally, does fair use really allow showing essentially the same image twice, like that? I would have thought not. Anyway, I hope the alt text can help serve as a model for the other articles. Eubulides (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Did some stuff YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Request for assistance
I am currently trying to help the editors in the Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) topic area move away from POV pushing and personal commentary. (Please note: Talk:Falun Gong#Topic area review.) You are an editor that I believe can help facilitate this change. I am looking for some uninvolved people with experience and savvy to become involved in the editorial process. A review of the article and associated discussion, in a style similar to a good article review or broad RfC response, would be a good first step and very helpful. However, some leadership in discussion and editing as a whole would be invaluable and sincerely appreciated. This can cover a very broad range including (but not limited to) identifying article flaws, keeping conversation focused on content, reporting disruptive editors, making proposed compromises, boldly correcting errors, and so forth. If you are willing to help out, please look things over and provide your feedback on the Falun Gong talk page. Essentially, we need some experienced editors to put things on track. Any assistance in this regard is gratefully welcomed. Thanks! --Vassyana (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I thank you very much for thinking of me. I don't know if I will have time for this, but I will take a look. Cirt (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're a good administrator, often add a constructive balancing voice to NRM topics, and possess a clear understanding of our content policies and standards. Thus, you came to mind quickly when I was making a small list of editors to ask for assistance. If you do not have the time, I quite understand. There's only so much that any of us can take on at once, especially in regards to complex and contentious areas. Regardless, thank you for taking the time to respond and look over things. Whether or not you can commit yourself to the topic area at this time, could you recommend a few other editors that you think would have a positive influence on both the content and editing enviroment? Even a few recommendations to help build a critical mass of savvy editors would be quite helpful. --Vassyana (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Vassyana, I thank you very much for these kind words about me. I will endeavor to take a look over the issue, and at the least will try to recommend additional editors that may be of assistance. Cirt (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're a good administrator, often add a constructive balancing voice to NRM topics, and possess a clear understanding of our content policies and standards. Thus, you came to mind quickly when I was making a small list of editors to ask for assistance. If you do not have the time, I quite understand. There's only so much that any of us can take on at once, especially in regards to complex and contentious areas. Regardless, thank you for taking the time to respond and look over things. Whether or not you can commit yourself to the topic area at this time, could you recommend a few other editors that you think would have a positive influence on both the content and editing enviroment? Even a few recommendations to help build a critical mass of savvy editors would be quite helpful. --Vassyana (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride
Hey there, Cirt! Remember me from WP:DOH? Anyways, I hadn't realized that you had claimed the article at Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive/season 1 and no-one had really edited it in the article history, so I decided to do to expand it a lot. Now that it's almost ready to go to GAN, I was wondering whether we could co-nominated it? :) Thanks for your time, I'mperator 18:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and apparently, I accidently "stole" Best Friends Forever too. :( Cheers, I'mperator 18:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is always a good thing when a skilled editor helps to improve the quality of an article, and most appreciated when it is done on the topic of South Park. :) No need to credit me for the GA nom, as I have not (yet) done much work on it. And thanks also for your work on the other one. Cirt (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
FAR revisit requests
Wikipedia:Featured article review/A. E. J. Collins/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sheffield/archive1. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism again
Hello,
Just a heads up that User talk:95.104.59.184 is changing things at Military equipment of the Georgian Army again without sourcing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- No worries - he's been blocked for two weeks.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for this, Cirt; it's much appreciated. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Marc Koska's recent edits
The edits of this article since my last edit of 23 July 09 throw into question several issues concerning WP's vandalism policy, as far as I can tell. e.g. possibly NPOV violations, Making bold edits, Unintentional misinformation, Unintentional nonsense, Disruptive editing or stubbornness, Harassment or personal attacks. It's obvious the edits are fueled, primarily by the editors' attitude towards Scientology, more than anything else. 7 mentions of 'scientlogy' or 'scientologist' is a little excessive! The addition of a link to a well-known Scientology enemy site, twice, is also a bit of a give away. That link is perhaps relevant in an article on Scientology but not on an article about a person who just happens to be a Scientologist. I am going to address the dispute about whether or not Marc was the first to invent the AD syringe, or indeed whether he has ever made such a claim, but with these claims and counter claims, I'm not sure who has to produce what evidence. Also, if these edits are worthy of being reported as vandalism to any degree, I'm not sure what I am reporting and to whom. Can you offer any help here please?Johnalexwood (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted the vandalism from the article Marc Koska, and reported the vandal user Mkoska (talk · contribs) to WP:UAA. Cirt (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help with this! Johnalexwood (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see my recent edits - can Like resume be removed now?Johnalexwood (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- IMHO, stills seems a bit too much like a non-neutral, promo-page. Cirt (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Marc Koska's page has been vandalised again! Johnalexwood (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted the vandalism and warned the user. I will keep an eye on the page for further vandalism. Cirt (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks again for this Cirt Johnalexwood (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Need your help again! Despite articles in the Musicians' Union, Basildon Recorder, Chichester Observer, Peterborough Today, London Evening Standard, The Sun, Belfast Telegraph, BBC website, and despite appearing in allmusic.com and being played on BBC Radio 2, and performing and recording with many celebrity musicians such as Kenny Ball, Rolf Harris, Isaac Hayes and Chick Corea - Michig seems to think they are still not notable enough to be listed, even accusing the references given to be "pseudo references". I can add more media references if you think it would help (I thought 16 was enough!) - but I've got a suspicion that somebody doesn't want to see this band in WP.Johnalexwood (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
So what's your verdict then? Johnalexwood (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure this satisfies WP:NOTE, will have to do some research on this. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't work this one out. I'm certain I added the Zimbabwean Scientologists cat to this entry, backed up by http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/22/lawrence-anthony-conservationist but there's no trace of my edit (possibly a year ago) in the history of his listing nor in my contributions page. How can this be? Johnalexwood (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Will do, but I thought all edits remained in the logs forever. Johnalexwood (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
It all seems fine and has stayed put this time Johnalexwood (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
If you're not too busy, could you check out the above article and maybe do a review or a copyedit? Thanks, Theleftorium 16:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Film article request
Hi Cirt, I wonder if I can ask you to put this article on your watchlist: My Name Is Khan an upcoming Bollywood film which has from time to time attracted vandalism due to its subject matter. The last few days, for example, have seen quite a bit of activity of this nature. I'm trying to give myself a wikibreak for a few weeks, though I've been just watching this one page for vandalism. It would be helpful to have an administrator watch it as well. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps try WP:RFPP, and/or an informative post about it to WP:ANI. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ok. I'll leave it to administrators to decide whether or not it needs protection but I'll leave a post on ANI. Thanks-Classicfilms (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Karl Rove
Here's another hot-button topic for you... Karl Rove. We have a brand-new editor who appears to have an agenda, Malke2010. See what you make of it. I reverted some of his edits. Jusdafax (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- For something like this, would be best to engage multiple admins via a post to a communal forum like WP:ANI. Cirt (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Noted. Situation has gotten worse today, so I'm headed there. Thanks as always! Jusdafax (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Nafaanra FAR
There has been work done on Nafaanra since you nominated it. As far as I can tell, the most important issues have been fixed. Since you still appear to be in favor of de-listing it, do you think you could provide some specification of what needs to be done?
Peter Isotalo 12:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
disambig
It doesn't look like the search facility in WP has 'seen' this new page Teresa Cooper (author) yet because it is not appearing when I search for teresa cooper. How do I speed this up? Or is it a disambig issue? Johnalexwood (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- If it is the only person under that name, then it could be moved to simply the name without (author). Cirt (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
When you search for Teresa Cooper, it returns this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_Cooper Johnalexwood (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there- you made a delist comment back in mid-July on this FARC commentary, which is still open. Materialscientist has now done quite a bit of work in response to both yourself, me, and another editor, fixing the article Diamond, but your delist 'vote' is still sitting there. Can you revisit the article and revise your comment at the FARC if appropriate? Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
David Miscavige edits
Say Cirt, I'm curious to see what you make of the latest David Miscavige edits. They don't smell right to me, but I defer to your experience. Jusdafax (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with you, and I reverted. I asked interested parties to read the talk page in my comment, where I posted the following:
"On Aug. 5, 2009 I undid an edit to the David Miscavige article made this same day. A whole paragraph of sourced material is removed by an editor, 170.206.224.50, who has made very few previous edits, yet cites a number of wikipedia rules. With all due respect, this topic is so hot-button on Wikipedia that I feel we need to go slow on deletions of this type by an editor who has little track record.
I invite, welcome and strongly urge further discussion here on the talk page, but undoing my undo will not lead to an edit war, but to an admin who will rule on the situation. Let's not go there. Please assume good faith, and talk over your reasoning for these changes to what is currently one of the most sensitive subjects on Wikipedia. Jusdafax (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)"
Interesting that the IP address (suspicious in itself), when copied and linked, doesn't go anywhere. 'Special Contributions?' 'Special page?' Hm. But perhaps it's something I don't know about. Thanks as always for your time on this, Cirt.Jusdafax (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I have enabled it. Jusdafax (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, as I'm sure you know, this IP address just went back at it, with no discussion on the talk page. I'm out of good faith, and toss the ball to you rather than revert further. Jusdafax (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
|
The Admin's Barnstar | |
| Awarded in recognition of your even-handed, fair but firm manner of dealing with tricky issues regarding Scientology and David Miscavige editing. Thanks for all your good work! Jusdafax (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC) |
Needs a revisit. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Cult
Hi Cirt. Working on various pages about religious movements I stumbled on Cult and I was suprised at the bad state in which it was. It has serious POV problems since it unquestioningly adopts the popular negative definition of the term and the sociological viewpoint on the topic has largely been relegated to the spinoff article New Religious Movement (in my opinion a POV fork). It also has serious issues with coherence, style, tone and referencing. Reading the archive I realized that these things had been discussed before and that you had shown an interest in the article. In order to improve the problems with the article I am trying to invite all editors who have previously edited the article or otherwise shown interest in the topic to come to Talk:Cult and discuss how we can best improve the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Criticism of wikipedia's content regarding Scientology
Stupid question, I know, but I was wondering whether you knew where it was where you at one point provided links to other sites expressing criticism of wikipedia's content regarding Scientology. John Carter (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you add Adams to the G&S portal? Hope you're having a nice summer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. In the future, would help better for organization to leave these sorts of progress updates and notes on the talk page of the portal. Cirt (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry for being so direct - but this was a mistake. I never had seen the article, I realized it only because at de:WP the interwikilink was removed. Maybe the artilce was bad. So a deleltion could be OK. But not because of relevance. I've wrote the german languafe article (and at de:WP the criterias are much more harder than here). 2007 and 2008 she was the most succesfull danish female Biker. 2008 she was danish champion with the team. Notable success. Please think about the deletion once again. Maybe you can add some of the Informations by yourself (my english is too bad), you will find them here and there. And "almost qualifying for the Beijing Olympics last year" is also a sign, for being not as bad at all. Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- The AfD consensus was pretty clear here. Cirt (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Simply because they don't know about her, I would bet. I bet, it was a normal Sportsperson-article for en withaout any quality. But - she definetly relevant. Is it here really so, that couting is more worth than arguments? Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Your block of Davydotcom
Hello! I noticed that you have indef blocked User:Davydotcom for spamming and promotional purposes. However, I cannot find any spamming in his contributed edits -- they all look like legitimate additions to our Biblical-related articles. Furthermore, there is no such company called Davy.com. I can understand confusion based on his name, but I don't see the reason for issuing a block of this nature. Can you please explain this? Pastor Theo (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- As luck would have it, someone unblocked the editor while I was posting this message. Never mind. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Sonic 2 Alpha & Sonic 2 Beta
Was there any need to delete Sonic 2 Alpha & Sonic 2 Beta instead of just redirecting them & leaving their histories untouched? SNS (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- If the histories are needed due to some (sourced) material, they could be restored for this purpose. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I am frankly amazed that you were able to generate so much relevant content in so short of a time. Thank you very much. I think we are probably going to, ultimately, need a category or something to the effect of "organizations accused of being cults", or something similar. Let me propose that on the work group talk page and see what answers we get. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the positive comment on the work I have done recently on this article. Cirt (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Would appreciate some courtesy
Cirt, regarding the "list of groups referred to ..." I forgot to add my reasons to the talk page, but you saw my edit summary and it should have been clear to you that I had reasons, whether or not you agree with them. I would appreciate the courtesy of being notified and perhaps asked for my rationale as opposed to simply removing the tag on a technicality. You know where to find me. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- In the future please don't forget to add a rationale to the talk page. Cirt (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- You clearly already disagreed with the rationale that I already presented in the edit summary. This is made even clearer by the speed at which you are responding. Removing the tag without responding to it, based on a technicality is simply going to stir the pot and create conflict. Again all I ask for is some courtesy.PelleSmith (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is common practice to fully explain the rationale for placing a tag such as the one you did on the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah I can see where this is going. I tried. Thanks for nothing.PelleSmith (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is common practice to fully explain the rationale for placing a tag such as the one you did on the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- You clearly already disagreed with the rationale that I already presented in the edit summary. This is made even clearer by the speed at which you are responding. Removing the tag without responding to it, based on a technicality is simply going to stir the pot and create conflict. Again all I ask for is some courtesy.PelleSmith (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Cirt. So I found one print source to add to the Reception section, but not a lot else. I still feel between that and the other sources we already had established, plus the quality of the rest of the article which you said was acceptable, that this article is ready for GA. But since it's been in limbo for so long I don't want to hold it up one way or the other anymore, and since the other P&R season 1 articles have already passed I want to pursue a good topic for them. So could you take a look and assess whether it's GA-worthy now one way or the other? — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- A bit busy lately but will certainly reevaluate soon. Will most likely pass it, just want to give it another read through. Cirt (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Nafaanra FAR
This thing appears to be nearing the end of the line, and I'm still not sure why you're keeping your delist vote. If you still feel that improvements are needed, now would be a good time to specify what needs to be done.
Peter Isotalo 01:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello there:
I have been working on the Delrina article extensively of late, particularly on the references. Since you had already voted to delist the article, I was hoping that you would take a glance at what has been done and leave comments on what you think remains to be done.
Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see some improvement, still needs a bit more work however. Cirt (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Could you be a bit more specific? I realize that there are still some things to be done, but I believe I have already overcome most of Matisse's points (see my most recent comment on progress at the bottom of the FAR). Would appreciate constructive comments on what you think still needs to be done. Captmondo (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The Simpsons
Hey just wondering if you are still working on these? CTJF83Talk 05:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Now I'm Andrea.Rho (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC) ! =) --
Say Cirt I'm having a mini-issue with Ixag who is obsessed with some minor unreferenced material in the Creedence article, and keeps replacing my deletions. No biggie but I don't want to get flagged for edit-warring. Thanks! Jusdafax (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Help regarding how to proceed with an article with multiple issues
Hi Cirt,
First of all, thank you for welcoming me when I joined earlier this month!
Can please give me some pointers about how to proceed with an article that has multiple issues? Specifically, So_Far_Gone_(Mixtape), which I noticed when patrolling recent changes. The main issues are:
- The largest section of prose in the article (first paragraph of the 'background' section) is directly lifted from the source (which is cited, FWIW), so I tagged thae article w/ some copyright problem tags.
- All three of the references are actually blogs, though it's not obvious without actually following the links and looking at the sources. Reference #2, which is the one that has a large passage directly lifed from it, probably is an acceptable source because it's a blog associated with a published magazine (Complex magazine); the other two references, as far as I can tell, are "true" blogs.
- The infobox lists many reviews, but no references to the actual reviews, and mostly has internal links to the Wikipedia pages on the periodicals that supposedly published the reviews.
- The article could possibly benefit from some level of protection. Reviewing the edit history, there are many IP edits, which obviously wouldn't be a problem in and of itself, but the majority of the edit summaries contain few or no informative comments about the edits. A fair number of edits have been reverted and undone, so it seems there could be an edit war going on.
There are a few less important issues (confusing use of "mixtape"; need for improvement of some of the writing; need for disambiguation from the album by the same name and same artist), but the above issues are really what I could use some guidance about.
If one or two of these issues existed in isolation, I'd know how to proceed, but there are so many issues happening here that I don't the best way to proceed.
Thank you, Hananekosan (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cirt, for the quick and helpful reply. I will see what I can do about these issues, one by one. Have a great weekend! Hananekosan (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Scientology
Cirt, in keeping with your administratorial tasks I noticed that you keep removing edits on a Scientology topic that call into question the validity of arguments and statements made on the behalf of scientology. In keeping with your impartiality in never using your authority to gain an advantage in a dispute in which you as an administrator are involved, I wonder if you remove the edits out of your love for this insidious money making cult? (Scientology) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gold333 (talk • contribs)
- If you are referring to your disruption at the article Dianetics, I made it clear to you at your talk page that I removed your edits because you inserted wholly unsourced information, multiple times. Cirt (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Did You Know question
Hello! Your submission of List of UFO religions at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Art LaPella (talk) 06:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Burns Verkaufen der Kraftwerk
Hey there, Cirt! I noticed that you claimed the article at WP:DOH/TOPIC; however, it hasn't been touched since February 2009...If you don't intend to work on it anytime soon, do you reckon I could work on it? I just rented out the Simpsons season 3 DVD with the commentary, and, if I don't finish the article within the week, I can't do the Production. If you will do the article, just tell me, and I won't bother you :P Thanks for your time. Cheers, I'mperator 00:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Howsabout you start off working on the Production part of it, and we can go from there? Cirt (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Kitten
TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
"Recent Death" templates
I'm reverting a number of your additions of "recent death" templates as they're not appropriate. Bobby Robson's death was on 31st July, not, according to the {{Recent death}} template "recent" (the template documentation states "It is intended for appear for a few days only my emphasis, and is subject to removal if it still appears seven days after its posting."). The death of Robin Cook some four years ago is certainly not "recent". I may remove the template from other articles as well. Regards, Tonywalton Talk 22:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- The Robin Cook was an oversight, my mistake. Feel free to remove those that you feel are past the need for the template. There was, however, no need for the bolded emphasis in your posting. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I find emphasis tends to counteract TLDR ⚔ Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 22:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would have understood your post just as well without the bolding, and it would have come across in a much more polite, kind and warm demeanor without it. Something for you to keep in mind for next time. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Dully noted. Tonywalton Talk 22:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would have understood your post just as well without the bolding, and it would have come across in a much more polite, kind and warm demeanor without it. Something for you to keep in mind for next time. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I find emphasis tends to counteract TLDR ⚔ Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 22:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Protection of "current" templates
I noticed that you fully protected a few current event templates. I don't really see how they can be considered to be "highly visible templates", tho, since they're usually used on less than a handful articles at times. I don't see how protection is necessary in that case. --Conti|✉ 16:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- The articles that the templates are used on are most often highly trafficked during that time period. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I highly doubt that. That may be true for articles that use Template:Current, but not for those templates that you protected. Noel Gallagher, LCROSS or Kokang people are most certainly not one of our most highly trafficked pages. Not to mention that these templates have existed for years without ever having been vandalized. --Conti|✉ 08:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Cookie
TomCat4680 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
One of your actions is under discussion at WP:ANI
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:dreamshit blocked for username violation - review please for details. Regards SoWhy 11:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
DYK for List of UFO religions
|
On September 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of UFO religions, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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. |
NW (Talk) 23:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Removal of PROD from Valentine Nonyela
Hello Cirt, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Valentine Nonyela has been removed. It was removed by Jclemens with the following edit summary '(Declining prod because of overtagging.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Jclemens before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
WikiProject Films August 2009 Newsletter
The August 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Ciao, Cirt. Any objections if I restored Rick Levine and redirected it to The Cluetrain Manifesto? It's a plausible redirect term, and the history might be useful elsewhere or in future. Regards, Skomorokh 11:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello!
Would you mind restoring this article to my userspace, please? This actor easily passes WP:ENTERTAINER but the article lacked proper sourcing. It would make it much easier for me to tweak the existing info and source it properly rather than to re-write from scratch.
Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Done, see User:Big Bird/Bill Dawes. Cirt (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
BeyondRelations
User is requesting unblock, a chance to change username and promising to edit in a non-promotional area of interest. Any comments? Daniel Case (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
"Diego Lucio Rapoport"
I have not been around since this article been marked for deletion and I have just started to develop and improve the article. What is this timing of yours to delete, now! --Webmaster6 (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Ian Halperin
Don't revert my changes without reason. WillOakland (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Removing a valid source from the article for no reason is vandalism. Cirt (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Looking for insight
Was the block of this ip a mistake? I'm not seeing a point, so I figure I must be missing something. If I didn't ask, I'd just miss a learning opportunity. Thanks. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Cirt, now I'm wondering what I'm missing about that ip. I spotted it when looking through recent changes, and it seems to me that this IP has *only* contributed spam. I can't ARV them for vandalism because the "appears to be a vandalism-only account" option is greyed out. I figure there must be some reason for this, though I can't imagine what. So, can you please tell me how I should handle this? Are we not to report vandalism (or whatever) if the option to do so for a given user is grayed out? Is there some other procedure in this case? Thanks! Hananekosan (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks to you both! Hananekosan (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Shilpa Shetty article
Hi Cirt, I have been trying to add to the Shilpa Shetty article that she had a rhinoplasty early in her career. This is my source http://www.metro.co.uk/fame/article.html?in_article_id=41925&in_page_id=7. As an individual who made her start in modelling and is world famous due at least in part to her looks I believe this is pertinent information and is of interest to the reader. In addition as the article states she is not attempting to conceal this fact. There is a user intent on keeping this information off the page for what appear to be personal reasons. Please can you look into this. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.199.17 (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
AfD on Andrew J Newman
Hi, I noticed you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew J Newman on the 3 September. Did you notice that User:NuclearWarfare had relisted it that same day diff? I was wondering if this was intentional or if you closed this AfD by mistake. Thanks in advance, Bonewah (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Let's see if the article could be improved, and perhaps AfD could be revisited at a later point in time. Cirt (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witch (etymology)
I don't understand why you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witch (etymology) as keep. The keep arguments were not grounded in policy; at best this should have been 'no consensus'. Powers T 14:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Can I also register my surprise at your closing of this debate - as far as I can see none of those saying "keep" explained how this was (a) more than a dictionary definition, (b) how it could be more without duplicating what is already at Witch and Wicca, and (c) why the section about the word and term "wicca" is at all relevant to the etymology of the word "witch". Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I happened to see this discussion. The article Witch (etymology) is surprisingly good for what it is and it has a ton of references, mostly having to do with the etymology. The only section that might appear to stress the parameters of the title is Witch (etymology)#Modern "Wicca". Even that is not an open-and-shut case, so the 'dictionary definition' argument doesn't seem very powerful here. I gather that LtPowers and Thryduulf aren't complaining about Cirt's count of the votes, but they are asserting that the voters did not understand policy. I'm not persuaded by that argument. Consider WP:DRV if you still think this closure was eccentric. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- EdJohnston (talk · contribs) got it pretty much right with this above comment. Cirt (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I happened to see this discussion. The article Witch (etymology) is surprisingly good for what it is and it has a ton of references, mostly having to do with the etymology. The only section that might appear to stress the parameters of the title is Witch (etymology)#Modern "Wicca". Even that is not an open-and-shut case, so the 'dictionary definition' argument doesn't seem very powerful here. I gather that LtPowers and Thryduulf aren't complaining about Cirt's count of the votes, but they are asserting that the voters did not understand policy. I'm not persuaded by that argument. Consider WP:DRV if you still think this closure was eccentric. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review for Witch (etymology)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Witch (etymology). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Thryduulf (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Can I have rollback please?
Thanks --eric (mailbox) 05:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not too familiar with your contributions, and you seem a bit inactive and don't have a need for the tool. Perhaps instead you could request at WP:PERM? Cirt (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Help with an obvious sock
I see that you are actively administrating right now. 88.91.14.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is being very active today, and taking up a bunch of my time. WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-11233/Archive shows the detailed history, and the socking is extremely obvious: how many anonymous Norwegians are there that only edit articles about Jay Sean, a British rapper? I filed WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-11233 again, but that always runs slowly. A one-week block would help immensely. —Kww(talk) 15:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Potential Superpowers
Hi, we already discussed asking for protection and decided not too because the correct dispute resolution channels are being taken and the disruption has tailed off (admittedly since blocking the two offending IPs) can I suggest removing the block and the re-instating it if disruption flares up again? I'm not a huge fan of blocking, and especially if it's done in response to issues that are being/have been dealt with. Cheers, RaseaC (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC).
- Let's see what discussion on the talk page brings in the next 24 hours. Cirt (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
DYK for San Jose Mercury News West Magazine
|
|
On September 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article San Jose Mercury News West Magazine, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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. |
Staxringold talkcontribs 23:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Forum shopping
Many thanks for your comments about this. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Landmark
George D. Chryssides' book Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements, ISBN 0-8108-4095-2, pp. 290-291, has an entry on "Self religions", although it acknowledges in that entry that "para-religions" and "therapy cults" are other terms that have been used to describe such entities, as well as the much broader "human potential movement". Maybe the first thing to do would be to make sure we have an article for at least one of these titles and include a link to that in whatever article exists. That article, whatever its name, would probably include a lot of the material relevant to a lot of these groups. By the way, others mentioned in that article include PSI World, PSI Mind Development, School of Economic Science, Lifespring, Insight, Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness, Actualizations, Exegesis, Self-Transformation, Samuri, Lifestream Seminars, the Living Game, isa, i am, and Life Training. John Carter (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it's at least a start at Self religion. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Happy Labor Day!
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A NobodyMy talk 03:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
What do you think? Enigmamsg 15:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like he's threatening to use sockpuppets to evade his block. Enigmamsg 21:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revisional Cosmetic Surgery as redirect, but then you deleted the article. Which close did you intend? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
crmmetrix
I have created a new account palomaben (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for crmmetrix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who you blocked after counseling him regarding conflict of interest. Fred Talk 18:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I assume this individual (if it is an individual and not multiple people behind one account) will refrain from editing on their conflict of interest? Cirt (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Am I missing something here? Why is this a username violation? (The bot reckoned it was similar to Goatse, which I can't see myself. I had to look up Goatse itself to find out why that might be considered a violation). — Tivedshambo (t/c) 13:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Not to be too easy on vandals...
...but IMO the block on 166.205.5.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was over the top. If you look at the timestamp for my test1 warning, it was after the ip's last edit to Irony. Essentially, they didn't edit after my warning. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Re. Portal:Indonesia at WP:FPR
Hi there Cirt. Thanks for the note regarding the above portal. I've just moved back to uni and at the minute I'm stuck with a 3G mobile internet pen. Unfortunately the bandwidth and speed is shocking so it's a struggle to load things. As portal maintenance requires loading a large amount of pages I can't really work on the portal just now. My broadband gets installed on Monday and I'm going to make it my priority to work on the portal. It's entirely up to you - no problem if you want to demote it (it's in a very bad way at the minute) - if you do, I'll work on it and renominate it when I'm done - no big deal either way in my opinion. On a personal note, I hope you're well both here and in real life. Take care, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Nickbatz block
Hello! I reviewed the unblock request made by User:Nickbatz, whom you indef blocked earlier this evening. I can agree that the editor deserved to be temporarily blocked for not paying heed to concerns raised about his ignoring the no original research requirements. However, I believe his action was an honest error by a very new editor who didn't read our rules and policies; I don't see this as deliberate vandalism and I felt an indef block was harsh. I approved the unblock request, with the request that the editor read up on Wikipedia policies regarding WP:RS. Thank you and be well. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Unclear removal
So why was AIMMS removed (Sep 5, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AIMMS, was AIMMS)? This is a software package used by many in the mathematical optimization field. Would appreciate if you just keep it in as it is referred to internally (like GAMS, CPLEX, AMPL, MPL etc.), see General_Algebraic_Modeling_System, CPLEX, AMPL_(programming_language), etc. or are you planning to delete all those as well. Information was/is very general and not commercially oriented. People in our field should be able to find all products in this field and find website representing the product as well (this is where an encyclopedia is for in my eyes). Seems odd to me that people seemingly unfamiliar with the field can just delete this info. Please place it back. Wikiquestions (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cirt, would you mind giving more clarity here (your reply of 'The article was deleted due to consensus at the WP:AFD' is not very specific). I do not see a broad discussion (except for a relisting for deletion by User:Ron_Ritzman on August 30 to generate a broader discussion and 2 comments), nor a well funded reason of removal of this article. Besides, did anyone try to google 'AIMMS Software' (this is more specific and filter out all the other things that also are called AIMMS)? Again AIMMS is a software product (like any other product/brand as iPOD, FORD, Windows Vista etc. only we are used in a (nice) market of mathematical professionals where you encounter also pages for CPLEX etc. posted in a similar fashion and intent: to share what products are out there and how they relate to each other. For example, AIMMS is an enabler of CPLEX). What does it take to have it back up? Should the article be rewritten? If so, this is an invite to do so Wikiquestions (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cirt, so I added 'Delrev' to the page, I hope this helps. Still it would be nice if you provide some specific answers to questions above (so the actual reasoning for deleten can be understood and challenged)? Wikiquestions (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cirt, I am very confused about what's next and still don't see any clear answers to questions. Indeed put up the info again (copy of NEOS, a well trusted source in our communinity); other comparable tools to make it more neutral. If there is anything else that needs to be done, be my guest. That is more fruitful than a complete deletion. Wikiquestions (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- So did a rewrite with very basic info based on comments received. Hope this suits all. Wikiquestions (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Ney v. Landmark Education Corporation and Werner Erhard
|
|
On September 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ney v. Landmark Education Corporation and Werner Erhard, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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. |
WP:DYK 23:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Werner Erhard and Associates v. Christopher Cox for Congress
|
|
On September 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Werner Erhard and Associates v. Christopher Cox for Congress, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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. |
Wikiproject: Did you know? 12:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Peer review
I've spent the past six weeks overhauling the hip hop dance article and now that I've finished I posted it for peer review here. I decided to invite you to review it because (1) your user page shows all the articles you've helped obtain GA/FA status and (2) you sent me a welcome message on my wikiquote talk page ;-). Perhaps you can add a FA star for the hip-hop dance page in the future. Anyhow, you're familiar with this process so I would appreciate your feedback. Be forewarned that this is a long article. Not including refs/external links, templates, and categories it's 7 pages printed. If you accept my invitation to review you may want to print it first and make your edits that way. I found it easier to read and to correct when I did this. Although long, it makes for a good read during a lunch break, a bus ride, or pure boredom. I learned a lot myself while rewriting this article. If you like to learn, this could be an incentive for you. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
AFD of ArticleAlley
Cirt, I note you closed the above AFD as no consensus. My thought on this was that the keep !votes were hedging on sources that didn't prove WP:N - particularly, Google Books - so my take is that it should have been deleted. May I know how you came to your conclusion, and your opinion of the AFD in general? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Those commenting keep made some good points, just not persuasive enough to firmly close the discussion solidly as "Keep", thus the no consensus close. Cirt (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Placer County Youth Orchestra article
Dear Cirt - Would you please reinstate the Placer County Youth Orchestra article? Thank YOu. Waylando91 (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Andrew Peach
Re your question - I'm afraid I'm not experienced enough using Wiki to understand. Who should I address my request for unprotection of this page to? Very much appreciate any help you can give in unprotecting the page if only for long enough for me to add some info. 132.185.144.120 (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of True Family
An article that you have been involved in editing, True Family, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Family. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Borock (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
AfD closes
not tha tI disagree with your closes, but 7 days = 7 times 24. Once we start sliding even a few hours earlier, it's always degenerated further. Just a friendly reminder. DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
List of Khatri Surnames
Hi Cirt, just curious, why did you delete the List of Khatri Surnames page? This was only requested by 1 or 2 people, but the page actually contains useful information not found on other pages. I am a Khatri by background, and those people who requested to have it moved are not of Khatri origin, so they make requests like this from time to time. Please let me know when you will be re-activating this page. Thanks.
--KhatriNYC (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Cirt, but the concensus was made by people who are not of Khatri origin even. So what right do they have to request to remove it if no harm is being done by keeping it there?
--KhatriNYC (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
STOP acting like Raj Thakrey, the me Marathi thing. JUST because you're a Khatri, that doesn't mean ONLY Khatris have the right to edit such articles. THIS IS Wikipedia- The Free Encyclopaedia--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC) that anybody can edit.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Cirt -- can you check and see if an OTRS ticket was really sent in on this picture, because if not I am going to tag it for deletion. Thank you --Admrboltz (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing came up in a search, but please leave a note for Spike Wilbury (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you give the portal a review, please? Staxringold and I are looking to improve it for featured candidacy. Durova318 23:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. Put it up for a WP:PPREV, and I'll review it there. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
United Prosperity deleted on August 31
Hello Cirt
Consensus seems to be this page is to be deleted, and I accept that ,even though it was not my view. I am still left with an unanswered question- have the actions taken by a overzealous volunteer led to the organisation being banned forever from Wikipedia? If not, what level of interest - shown by respected and independent publications - would allow the site to be relisted?
I think the organisation will become more widely covered over time but I don't want to waste my time - and that of editors - putting up pages that will be deleted.
Sorry to be so slow in responding to your deletion but after asking questions n the page, I was a little discouraged to see the page simply disappear.
Herne nz (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Article writer
Hey, it was only a joke and it's not meant in any way nasty, it was meant in respect, that you are a good article writer, respect to your writing. I f you still want me to refract it I will. Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Since this AFD had been open for 13 days with no one but you and one !voter arguing for deletion, I closed it as "keep". However, you do have a point about it being an unsourced BLP. There's probably hundreds of stubs like this and if there was a good redirect target for it, I would have done it until it was sourced.
At least it only includes who he is and what shows he's been in. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I've undertaken a GA review for the above, per the discussion at the GA talk page. Ping me if you've any issues or questions. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Redirecting Someday (Rob Thomas song)
Why did you redirect Someday (Rob Thomas song) to Cradlesong. If it's a real song by Rob Thomas Ricky3374 (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Someday (Rob Thomas song). Cirt (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
99
Editing from 99 years into the future? :o Enigmamsg 22:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- It stops the archival. I know, I know, I really gotta get to this. :( Cirt (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Wow. Thank you, you didn't have to do that!!
On the Bethel Church page, you have really stepped in. This is huge. I can't thank you enough for rewriting the article, it looks really good so far! And fair and balanced, too! I hope the current members can keep their edits off of it once the semi-protect comes off. Thank you, thank you thank you so much!!!! - o0pandora0o (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is always good to watch skilled and highly-experienced editor work. I don't care anything about the article, but that was cool just to watch. :) - Sinneed (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- The article is a lot better, it was very poor before, but it is still poorly cited and has weak claims to notability. Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Where are your comments regarding the mansfield chad from? this...Savidge, Katherine; Rob James (March 2, 2000). "A Special Chad Investigation". Mansfield Chad. How are you quoting it? Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I have the actual physical newspaper articles from the New London Day with pictures, if you would like to have the pictures scanned in to use for the Wiki article.. Sam Wibberley, Jean Spademan, John Hibbert, The front of Bethel church..- o0pandora0o (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, good deal. They're there for reference, if you change your mind or whatever. - o0pandora0o (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't been by there in like 18 years, but I may be able to steel my nerves and snap some pics of Peniel.. King's Chapel changed names a couple years ago. I don't think I can get away with taking pics of the pastors' houses that were renovated by church members without attracting suspicion. I wonder about screencaps of "bird's eye view" bing maps? - o0pandora0o (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- How's this? :) edited to add: I also snapped a pic of the "Peniel" sign, where you can see the words "The" and "Chapel" ghosted underneath the "Peniel" from where it's been painted over, if you'd like that one..- o0pandora0o (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't been by there in like 18 years, but I may be able to steel my nerves and snap some pics of Peniel.. King's Chapel changed names a couple years ago. I don't think I can get away with taking pics of the pastors' houses that were renovated by church members without attracting suspicion. I wonder about screencaps of "bird's eye view" bing maps? - o0pandora0o (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Werner Erhard (book)
|
|
On September 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Werner Erhard (book), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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. |
NW (Talk) 07:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Please undelete the edit histories of these articles. I am not contesting the redirect, but as no one in the discussion seemed outright opposed to a potential merge, we could use the edit history as a basis to start and as no one expressed any concerns of the material needing to be deleted for legal reasons. Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- There was nothing sourced on those pages. Cirt (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- The information can still be helpful per WP:PRESERVE, i.e. we can merge it as worded, but add sources to confirm it, i.e. copy and paste the verifiable information, but add such reliable sources as references as found here, for example. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Please don't
Please don't change the reflist formatting. The Literature articles are no longer relying on Harvnb functions and are going on a clean, non-html approach. This is mass spread and common now, and it would require a large consensus to turn it otherwise. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I created that coding. It is from the Harvnb template. It is the same thing. The project does not want linked footnotes anymore. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is code from the Harvnb template. Obviously, it is standard HTML. However, if you look at the Drapier's Letters, I added that in there long ago. There were many responses like this, which showed its popularity and started the fad of the Harvnb alternative. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Look at the date. Consensus changed since then. Look at To Autumn, an FA in -poetry- that does not use the style. That is how the current consensus operates. GA does not require any of it regardless. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Listen, if you don't believe me, ask Sandy Georgia. If you want to make a big deal about it, fail the GA and I will take it to GAR so others can speak on the matter. I've told you how it is, as I have over 20 GAs in literature right now and many FAs in the field. If you don't want to believe me, find, don't. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
If you think my tone is harsh, then let me get this straight - if you are going to continue on the subject which I have already demonstrated is highly inappropriate, then I will ask for a topic ban of you at GAN. Your pursuing this matter which has nothing to do with standards at GAN nor is acceptable in various wikiprojects or even at FAC, is completely disrespectful to not only me, but to the whole process. I am through with you on this matter. Any further word on it and I will propose the above.Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is code from the Harvnb template. Obviously, it is standard HTML. However, if you look at the Drapier's Letters, I added that in there long ago. There were many responses like this, which showed its popularity and started the fad of the Harvnb alternative. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
[4] [5] Cirt (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Cirt, I do not have anything against you. I do not dislike you. I don't have any ill will towards you. I was stating over and over that I understood exactly what you were talking about and I provided evidence that yes, I felt the same way. As I pointed out, I was overridden in the matter long ago as consensus favors not using those links because of the additional sizing that it adds to the page and possible problems related to that. I stated the above about a topic ban merely because I do not feel like dealing with arguing over links like that and you didn't seem to understand that. It has nothing to do with the rest of your review or anything like that. As per the review, I went off a book -devoted- to the critical responses to the work. Sure, there may be little, non-notable reviews about the work, but they would fall under: "Reviews were favourable for each poem, but the completed set received divided reviews in the United States while it was received overall favourably by the British. The American critics liked the poetry but many did not like the religious content of the work. The British response connected to Eliot's nationalistic spirit." The notable reviews by notable authors who have worked on T.S. Eliot and don't just mention some off hand comment about Four Quartets are included. There are probably some others, but many of the notable ones are on the individual poem pages. Regardless, I count 8 individuals listed in the "Critical response" talking about effectiveness. Another critic is mentioned in the themes. On the four poem pages, there are 14 additional individuals. Having 23 critics blatantly acknowledged and having the generalized response in both America and the UK given is more than what most poetry pages have, especially pages dealing with a poem that is only 60 years old. For GA, which only has to have a large view and not a comprehensive view, that is above and beyond what is necessary. If you found some major Eliot critics that say something about the effectiveness (not a theme, but overall if the poem was successful or not) that you think should be included, please, mention it. If it talks about the Four Quartets in general when doing so, then I can work it in. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I expanded the lead. I did so after I added in some other references - as you can see, some of them aren't the best as they aren't the most reliable (such as the New Dehli reference), or some are notable but not Eliot focused (Abrams, being the one notable enough to be worth while). I added a quote from Stead, who I used above. I believe I have added six now. Anything more will really be scrapping at the bottom. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- My only concern with you was over the wikilinking the notes. The rest of your critique was perfectly fine (although I wish you would take another look at the grammar and rest to see if anything stands out as confusing). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to copy edit at will. I have a problem knowing if there is anything confusing with the subject as I have spent a lot of time in the field that my mind fills in the gaps. So, it is important to have such commentary. 21:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yah, if you have the time. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Cirt. We should talk about possible expansion. It could never be FA worthy because there are no PD images of Eliot that have been accepted at Wiki and some of the others haven't been tracked down (such as a title page of the first edition, which might be fair use worthy). However, there are probably a few things that should be expanded (such as the discussion on Hindu religion within the works, which there aren't many books on but could use a little more). Ottava Rima (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Always busy irl, but that's how it goes. I am still weary about some of the Eliot sources in general, as there seems like a lot out there but much of it is really crappy. A problem when trying to push my real life articles and having to go through the scholarship. One of the problems also with google books is that annoying snippet view. You can never really determine what kind of results there are, and when you get a hold of the book sometimes it is a waste of time. Google should really offer say 5 lines instead of just three or so. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Cirt. We should talk about possible expansion. It could never be FA worthy because there are no PD images of Eliot that have been accepted at Wiki and some of the others haven't been tracked down (such as a title page of the first edition, which might be fair use worthy). However, there are probably a few things that should be expanded (such as the discussion on Hindu religion within the works, which there aren't many books on but could use a little more). Ottava Rima (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yah, if you have the time. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to copy edit at will. I have a problem knowing if there is anything confusing with the subject as I have spent a lot of time in the field that my mind fills in the gaps. So, it is important to have such commentary. 21:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: WT:GAN
Hi Cirt. Regarding my comments on WT:GAN, I don't believe that having two reviewers would be productive at all, so I'm not going to try to take over the GAN review. However, I do believe that Hamiltonstone's actions were unethical and rude, since he evaded attempts at establishing consensus through discussion. I'm criticizing his actions, not the review itself. --Edge3 (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Recent AfD closure
You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homecoming (2008 Short Film) with the result "delete" and then deleted Homecoming (2008 Short Film). However, during the course of the debate, an editor moved the article to Homecoming (2008 short film) (capitalization change); that article has not been deleted. Can you address this situation? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third Sikh Holocaust 1984
Can you remove the sorting template from this AfD as it's still showing up on the society topics AfDs. I would have done it myself, but you've protected the page. cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 21:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for undertaking the evaluation of the article. Viz the naming of the "likely" killer, I don't anticipate anything other than minor edits from this point onwards. The information released by Hampshire Police on 17/9/09 didn't shed any new light on, or reveal fresh evidence about, the case beyond naming the perpetrator. As Lace didn't leave a suicide note, all that the police could provide was his criminal record, the rather scant confession (which confirmed the original scenario the police had envisioned, albeit with a different killer), and the details of his suicide. The case will build up a little momentum in the press for a few more days, with past acquaintances revealing more detail about Lace's "private life", but I doubt there are any significant facts to be added to the article. I think it more probable that David Lace might get his own article at some point in the future, if - as police have intimated - they find links with him and other attacks in the south west of the country. I had teresa de simone and sean hodgson on google news alerts in anticipation of this latest revelation, and had guessed it would be simply a case of adding the new sections as I have done. On a related note, I was a little disappointed that it transpired he wasn't also the killer of Linda Cook in Portsmouth - that was my pet theory shot to pieces heh. Keristrasza (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Question
Hi. This is going back a little bit, but I was back on the “List of new religious movements” article and noticed that you replaced Landmark Education on the list. I read the two policies that you pointed to. I also saw that you added two references to the entry on the list which I have not read. None the less there is something about it that just doesn’t seem logical to me for a company that offers seminars, (controversy notwithstanding), be on a list. According to their website, and several news articles I read they are a company. Why do you think it belongs on the list? Don’t know a lot about it but I have to admit that now I am curious. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- The standard for inclusion on the list should be discussion as such in secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for answering so quick. I think I understand. I will go ahead and check out the references you gave, because is still doesn't seem logical to me. Anyhow thanks again. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Estate of Jack Slee v. Werner Erhard
|
|
On September 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Estate of Jack Slee v. Werner Erhard, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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. |
≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
GA Review
Please see Talk:Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control/GA1 for more information. The article has been reviewed and is now put on hold. Chris (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:FILM September Election Voting
The September 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by September 28! This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Crown Fountain FAC 4
At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4, we have been asked to clip the Crown Fountain main image, File:Crown fountain spouting.ogg, from 50 to approximately 10 seconds. I do not know anything about .ogg files and am unsure if my co-author knows how to edit them either. Are you willing and able to edit such a file type? Leave a comment at the FAC if you will be able to help.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure how to do that. Cirt (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
...for answering to the IP, I don't know too much about enwiki politics yet. Regards --by Màñü飆¹5 (m†¹5™) 17:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Bethel Church
No problems mate, if AfD needs anything, it's more editors like yourself who can not only make a well-reasoned argument, but who are also willing to roll their sleeves up and repair those articles that can be fixed. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC).
Family Guy
Look if you have any time can you do me a favor and check Family Guy and tell me on how i can improve it. --Pedro J. the rookie 04:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
DYK for New England Institute of Religious Research
|
|
On September 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article New England Institute of Religious Research, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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. |
Shubinator (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Twisted Scriptures
|
|
On September 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Twisted Scriptures, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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. |
Shubinator (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Good Article nominations
Hello! It is, of course, entirely up to you what GAN's you review, but I am curious: why did you choose to review an article that was nominated 16 minutes ago rather than one of the many articles nominated over a month ago? --Tango (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Noticed the issues on the talk page, then saw that the article seems interesting. Will give it a read-through soon. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Jbuds 876876=7
Could you knock User:Jbuds 876876=7 on the head, please. He's now taken to removing his listing from WP:AIV.
- Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Hiya, what's going on there? Interesting revamp, but the red Portal links look awful. - RoyBoy 03:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- It works just like Portal:Current events. Cirt (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- See for example, Portal:Current events/2009 September 17. Cirt (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate that was/is the intent, but the result is dead wikilinks. I guess I should be asking who/what are supposed to be making the inclusion boxes. Such as this Portal:Current events/Science and technology/2009 September 16. - RoyBoy 02:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps the same folks that contribute similarly to subpages such as Portal:Current events/2009 September 16. Cirt (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate that was/is the intent, but the result is dead wikilinks. I guess I should be asking who/what are supposed to be making the inclusion boxes. Such as this Portal:Current events/Science and technology/2009 September 16. - RoyBoy 02:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Got it. Me, myself and I. While the new design is spiffy and obviously lends consistency to the Current events portal; there is currently 1 semi-regular contributor. Acquiring more responsibilities elsewhere, I've had to rely on the organic timespan of what was listed on the main page to provide some semblance of content (having multiple months listed). If this overhaul brings a few crumbs of wikiaction, great... if not, then its all for naught. - RoyBoy 02:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Here's hoping. Might also be a good idea to post to Portal talk:Current events, etc., to encourage contributions. Cirt (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Got it. Me, myself and I. While the new design is spiffy and obviously lends consistency to the Current events portal; there is currently 1 semi-regular contributor. Acquiring more responsibilities elsewhere, I've had to rely on the organic timespan of what was listed on the main page to provide some semblance of content (having multiple months listed). If this overhaul brings a few crumbs of wikiaction, great... if not, then its all for naught. - RoyBoy 02:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Yup, please confirm this edit is good. The boxes were nesting so I fixed'er. - RoyBoy 02:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
MickMacNee
I know you have to do your work with the interests of Wikipedia in mind[6]. Maybe MickMacNee is just off form today and I would have no objection to the block being significantly shortened if the an unblock issue arose. Thanks. Tfz 16:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- If there is an unblock request, I would defer to the judgment of the reviewing admin. Cirt (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
There is an admin on Micks page that was originally going to block him for one week only. Would you be willing to look at his comments and reduce if you feel appropriate. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cirt. At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_and_Peronal_Attacks. I have proposed shortening the block to 48 hours, as the option most likely to reduce drama. Would that be okay with you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'll defer to your judgment on that. Cirt (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for being so helpful. Now unblocked, with a note here. I dunno if this will work, but it's worth a try. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Charlie Pickering
Can you please semi-protect Charlie Pickering? ANd also block the usrs/ips associated with vandalising it? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Differential protection
You just can not tamper with certain definitions. The website Whpq is refers to does not and can not carry exclusive copyright to the definition of differential protection, this same definition or a different variant of differential protection can be found in various other books on electrical engineering. You can refer this issue to an administrator who has a background in electrical engineering. For example one does not rephrase Newton's Laws or definition of acceleration or various other physical phenomenon. So I suggest you may undo the delete of this page Sarvagyana guru (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Abuse of editing privileges.
I had been temporarily blocked claiming that I had abused editing privileges. It would be kind of you, if you can point out where I had indulged in vandalism. In fact, in couple of articles I had been repeatedly pointing out vandalism, tampering of various user pages, refactoring of talk pages etc. And now you accuse me of same, its preposterous. Before exercising your power to block any user you are to inform him and foretell him citing specific instances where he/she had indulged in vandalism. These rights should not be exercised on assumptions. Regards Sarvagyana guru (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- See comments already present at User talk:Sarvagyana guru. Cirt (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Cirt, You have not answered my specific question. You have accused me of vandalism. I had requested you to list the instances where I had indulged in vandalism. The reason you have put on my talk page are alleged copyright violations. Further you may review your deletion of the article on differential protection. Regards. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Agree w/ assessment provided at user's talk page by admin Anthony.bradbury (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Cirt, You have not answered my specific question. You have accused me of vandalism. I had requested you to list the instances where I had indulged in vandalism. The reason you have put on my talk page are alleged copyright violations. Further you may review your deletion of the article on differential protection. Regards. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Signature
Quick question if I may, re: my new signature. Is it wiki-legal? Note that the 'talk' wikilink is in the second half. Thanks. Jusdafax 13:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Dove
Aemanops8135 has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!
Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Your block of RedRumRon
Thanks, I susspect that DangerRON (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock / meat puppet of RRR. --Triwbe (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for the link to the citation templates. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I tried to follow your instructions but I am not sure if I got it right. Can you please check the List of New Religious Movements article to let me know if I did it right? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Appreciate your vigilance on the BKWSU article. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Resdat
Resdat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created JamesBecwar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a replacement account. Fred Talk 21:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Block on User:70.92.0.147
I hate to do that as I do plenty of vandalism blocks too, as you know. I was about to post that the edits of User:70.92.0.147 are not vandalism, and furthermore he/she has not been appropriately warned when you blocked. Please read the history again. The user is certainly pushy with OR and may be admonished for that, but I don't think is cause for a block (yet). -- Alexf(talk) 21:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Rob Miller move
I'm not sure at all about this. Normally for a politician we use the name they go by in the political arena; hence Al Gore, not Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.. I have never heard of Miller using his middle name in public; actually, I had trouble tracking it down when I wrote the article, and it was added later by someone else. Could you gather more consensus? Thanks. Chick Bowen 21:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
A quick point on an AfD you closed today: three other articles were nominated in that batch, and there was no objection to deleting those, so I assume they too should go. Thanks. - Biruitorul Talk 01:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
RfA question.
Hi Cirt, its been a while since I last sent you a message, apologies for that lack of contact on my behalf. I would like to ask why on RfA nominations, why the "oppose" feedbacks have to be so negative? In my application, there isn't one comment in the "oppose" that bares any positive constructiveness (phew that was a long word to type out, while having swine flu). With too much negativity around, it can be very off-putting for anyone wishing to submit a nomination themselves, who views these negative comments from other nominations. Right now, I've had that much negativity that it has put me on a low, and what hard work I have put into articles, I now starting to wonder is it worth it after all. I suppose in a few days time, I will have put all of this behind me, and continue as normal - but I fear for future nominees, who will see these comments, and be too scared to want to put themselves, or anyone else they know for that matter - forward for nomination. I'm sure there is a lack of admins around at the moment. But a prevention of negativity would be the solution to this. Is there anything that can be done? I respect your honesty, and response. Pr3st0n (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've posted a reply to your thread on my talk page. Regards, Gaz Pr3st0n (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Non admin closures
I see your name regularly on the AFD pages, replying and closing, and thought that you might be able to give me your insight on a non admin closure question that I have. Over in my sandbox you will see a AFD that was open a few days ago, seven days had past since it was listed. Would this be an approprite afd for a non admin closer? What if the OP had just posted it and not left the follow up comment? Thanks Click23 (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Canola deletion
So I noticed you decided to delete the Canola article sans discussion. Did you see my note in the history indicating my intention to expand and improve the article? Can I have a chance to do so? GeneralAntilles (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canola (software) was quite clear. But feel free to do so in your userspace. Cirt (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, the discussion page that requires that you be a wikipedia insider to find. "Not nerds" indeed, if you can't keep your personal bias out of a discussion. . . . Thanks, but no thanks. Wikipedia isn't a project I'll be wasting my time contributing to in the future. GeneralAntilles (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to provide you with another two dozen software articles that are far less notable than Canola, but I'd rather not have you delete those, too. GeneralAntilles (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you choose not to be civil, then I am afraid this discussion, and thus your requests, will prove unfruitful. Cirt (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- As the only interactions I've had with Wikipedia administrators (who seem only to swoop in, rain on productive work then swoop out just as quickly) have only served to make contributing to the project vastly more difficult (and decidedly unfun). As I feel it's a project-level sickness that I don't have the time or energy to try to fight I wont waste any more of my or your time here and more on to contributing elsewhere. Thanks. GeneralAntilles (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to work on the article if you wish to do so in your userspace, at User:GeneralAntilles/Canola (software). Cirt (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- As the only interactions I've had with Wikipedia administrators (who seem only to swoop in, rain on productive work then swoop out just as quickly) have only served to make contributing to the project vastly more difficult (and decidedly unfun). As I feel it's a project-level sickness that I don't have the time or energy to try to fight I wont waste any more of my or your time here and more on to contributing elsewhere. Thanks. GeneralAntilles (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you choose not to be civil, then I am afraid this discussion, and thus your requests, will prove unfruitful. Cirt (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to provide you with another two dozen software articles that are far less notable than Canola, but I'd rather not have you delete those, too. GeneralAntilles (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, the discussion page that requires that you be a wikipedia insider to find. "Not nerds" indeed, if you can't keep your personal bias out of a discussion. . . . Thanks, but no thanks. Wikipedia isn't a project I'll be wasting my time contributing to in the future. GeneralAntilles (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Hands off my noobs :P
It's not that I'm particularly concerned about the loss of User:Youtubepoop333, but did you really need to step in and hardblock there?
I saw the test edits. I saw the deleted article. I saw the username that, while not violating any particular part of policy, managed to be an astoundingly bad choice of username anyway. I responded to these issues with the warning I felt was appropriate, feeling that the user could have a second chance under a less moronic username.
Yes, I am more patient with newbies who screw up than you are. We can each have our own approach to adminship. But I don't unblock and warn noobs you've just hardblocked, so how about you don't hardblock noobs I've just warned?
And if this was just an oversight, that's fine. Again, it is unlikely that Wikipedia will suffer from the loss of this user. rspεεr (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- It was an improper username, couple with vandalism-only edits. Cirt (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm quite aware that this user was on the edge and that there was a pretty justifiable reason to hardblock them as a vandal. If you had gotten to the user first and placed your hardblock, I would have been fine with it. But I'd already examined the situation and chosen to leave a warning, and I'm baffled why you would want to trump my decision like that. rspεεr (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Leona Lewis
Hi. Im new to wikipedia but i posted a page: Leona lewis Best Kept Secret, and it was removed by you... I work for Craze Productions, the Label company that owns this album. That are some mistakes in the leona page regarding this album and i believe best kept secret deserves and page like the one that was removed.
My question is how do i make myself known as a rightful user that the admins of wikipedia wont delete my posts because they know i have rights regarding that album?
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimrodm (talk • contribs)
DYK for The Book of est
|
|
On September 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Book of est, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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) 20:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Amalthea2
Hi
Uhm, would you mind if I unblocked my alternate account Amalthea2 (talk · contribs)? :)
Amalthea 20:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Sorry, looked like someone else was trying to be an imposter. Cirt (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, no worries. I tend to leave the talk page as a mess since I use it for Twinkle target practice among other things, and thought that people'd see me post there often enough to not be surprised by the account.
Thanks, Amalthea 22:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, no worries. I tend to leave the talk page as a mess since I use it for Twinkle target practice among other things, and thought that people'd see me post there often enough to not be surprised by the account.
Global Risk Management deletion
Hello Cirt. I understand you were the closing admin for the Global Risk Management deletion. Your deletion summary was "The result was delete". I read in WP:GD that "...A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached." As I'm a fairly new user getting to grips with wiki culture and my first article deletion, I could have done with a bit more insight -- particularly as I felt the discussion failed to address the changes I'd made to the article during the discussion and disregarded all the questions or points that I raised. Would it be too much to ask for a slightly fuller summary? I'd really appreciate the feedback. Thanks Dkeditor (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- The consensus at the AfD of previously uninvolved editors was quite clear for deletion. Cirt (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Paul Kirk
How did you find out about his personal life? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You left a message on his talk page a while back. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Manson & Scientology
Hi. I noticed this edit and had to wonder. Can we say that someone who read some Scientology materials while in prison and might have incorporated it a little in some later bizarreness qualifies as a former Scientologist? I'm not certain I could say with any authority that Charlie was anything beyond an opportunist and a manipulator, totally caught up in his own fantasy. Thoughts? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted your adding of the category a couple of times. Many articles had no mention of scientology, then they shouldn't have a scientology category either. Garion96 (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please see sources at List of Scientologists. Cirt (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, Cirt: I noted that you added Van Morrison to the category of former Scientologists and would like to make you aware that not only is it not mentioned in the article, but he is quoted in the article as disavowing any affiliation with any groups: "There have been many lies put out about me and this finally states my position. I have never joined any organisation, nor plan to. I am not affiliated to any guru, don't subscribe to any method and for those people who don't know what a guru is, I don't have a teacher either." All the best, Agadant (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- This info is sourced at List of Scientologists. Cirt (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. But it should be sourced at the same time as the category is added (or before). Otherwise it simply is an unsourced category. Garion96 (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is actually quite common for categories to be populated based on a sourced list. Cirt (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not if I can help it with articles on my watchlist. :) Especially when it is controversial information. Having been a scientologist in my opinion needs immediate sourcing. But even policy wice, a source in one article (a list) is basically irrelevant for another article. They both need to have the sources. Garion96 (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Much better. But you should not have twinkled back the category again without the sources. How did you expect that people verify the category? Go to the category and from there to the "list of" and there read the source? Garion96 (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that Van Morrison dedicated an album to Ron Hubbard does not make him a former Scientologist. He never joined and several souces can back this up. I provided his quotation and you changed a GA article around with nothing to go on but someone finding a source somewhere that he was a Scientologist. Agadant (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually no, now there are multiple sources. Cirt (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- In order to be considered a former Scientologist, he had to have joined, not just studied it. It has never been proven that he joined. If I were to be considered a former Catholic (as an example) it is very certain that I would have to be baptized as a child or have had to studied with a Catholic priest and joined and be baptized into the faith. Otherwise, I could not be deemed a former Catholic (or any other faith). If I quit studying before joining, I would not be a former Catholic, or whatever. Right? He studied it, was interested for a while and then withdrew due to lack of conviction before joining. Agadant (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually no, now there are multiple sources. Cirt (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not if I can help it with articles on my watchlist. :) Especially when it is controversial information. Having been a scientologist in my opinion needs immediate sourcing. But even policy wice, a source in one article (a list) is basically irrelevant for another article. They both need to have the sources. Garion96 (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is actually quite common for categories to be populated based on a sourced list. Cirt (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. But it should be sourced at the same time as the category is added (or before). Otherwise it simply is an unsourced category. Garion96 (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- This info is sourced at List of Scientologists. Cirt (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, Cirt: I noted that you added Van Morrison to the category of former Scientologists and would like to make you aware that not only is it not mentioned in the article, but he is quoted in the article as disavowing any affiliation with any groups: "There have been many lies put out about me and this finally states my position. I have never joined any organisation, nor plan to. I am not affiliated to any guru, don't subscribe to any method and for those people who don't know what a guru is, I don't have a teacher either." All the best, Agadant (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) From List of Scientologists (duly sourced):
A Scientologist is a follower of the doctrines and beliefs of Scientology.[1] Eileen Barker writes in New Religious Movements: Challenge and Response that the Church of Scientology considers any individual who has taken at least one Scientology course to be a Scientologist.[2] Scientology president Heber Jentzsch stated in a videotaped court deposition that membership statistics are based on the sum of all individuals that have ever taken any Scientology course since the organization's foundation in 1954.[3]
This is quite clear. Cirt (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Comparison of alternative ICE fuels
Hey Cirt, I noticed that you deleted my article called Comparison of alternative ICE fuels I know the article wasn't completely up to standards as it had a lot of information not filled in, the article however is still something which is of vital importance to the environmental movement, and I will try to improve the article with the help of another wiki. Is it possible to give me back the orginal text I written. I'll use this text to make another article at this other wiki (appropedia) and perhaps if the article is transformed later to something with better info and references, I could reupload it at wikipedia. For example, I could implement some info from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Energy_content (need to check up on some things first), ... Thanks in advance, KVDP (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please see User:KVDP/Comparison of alternative ICE fuels. Cirt (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cirt, thanks for the follow up there. I have been keeping an eye on him :). I just thought I'd wait a month, since some of these newbies surprise me by logging on after long periods of inactivity. Anyway, I don't have a problem with the block. Also, regarding username blocks where the username implies to user is a bot, would you personally warn the user first (as happened here), or block straightaway? None of the policy pages I've read really specify. Thanks again :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I take offense
I take offense to me being banned from wikipedia. As I've already explained to multiple users, this is not an IP address, this is my username. Additionally, there is a school which has a similar user name IP, which I keep being blamed for. Please do not ban me in the future. Thank you. 199.254.212.44 (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 15:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Appyenthusiast
User:Appyenthusiast had changed their name since I left them the warning. I don't see any reason to block them now. Gigs (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hawthorne (Series)
Many television programs on Wikipedia have information that is important to viewers of the page, but you keep deleting any information but the most basic facts. There appears to be an established standard for many programs, and it includes plot summary, character descriptions, and for programs still on the air, some sites have days of the week and times the shows air. There is a section for media reviews, which does not exist for many other programs, and the reviews are highly selective. Again and again I have written that this appears to be an abuse in the editing of the site by not allowing additions which would be permissible. As for the copyrighted material, shows such as "Raising the Bar," and the "Mentalist" also use plot summaries from the networks' web sites. The Episode Descriptions are directly from the network's web site, and are cited as such. Please allow additions to the site. 26 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.127.174.218 (talk • contribs)
- Poor practice at other articles is not an excuse for copyvio at this one. Cirt (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Mace Kingsley
As a note, how would I find the exact physical address of Mace Kingsley? I would like to figure out which country it is/was located in. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I will do some research. Cirt (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! As for moving the article, I just moved it because "The Ranch School" was the last known name the school used. I didn't think it was necessary to start a discussion about the move, because I didn't think it would be controversial. It doesn't matter which name is used. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Did the The Directory for Exceptional Children state an exact address, or just a PO box? If it was an address, what was it? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- From the book: "MACE-KINGSLEY RANCH SCHOOL Res — Coed Ages 12-17 Reserve, NM 87830. PO Box 428. Tel: 505-533-6854. Fax: 505-533-6858" Cirt (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, in that case I'll say that the school has a Reserve, NM P.O. box. Reserve itself is a small city, so the school's real location has to be outside of the city. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also here [7]. Cirt (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, it says "city" but that reflects the USPS mailing system. There are areas in Houston which have "Houston, TX" addresses but are outside of the city limits. A lot of times, the "city" refers to the USPS mailing city and not the actual municipality. An exact address would help me determine which county the facility was in (and if it was in a census-designated place). BTW, this shows that the school later had a different PO box based in Carrizozo, NM http://web.archive.org/web/20020925072528/http://mkranch.com/ WhisperToMe (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I also found the "New Mexico Ranch School" http://web.archive.org/web/20021125052126/http://www.nmranchschool.com/ - http://web.archive.org/web/20030210215019/www.nmranchschool.com/philosophy.html seems to indicate that it is the same organization, but I'm not sure how to tie it in... WhisperToMe (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Let me know if you come up with anything else. Cirt (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- If I find anything else about the school, I will be happy to let you know and/or edit the info into the article :) Thanks for your help! WhisperToMe (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Let me know if you come up with anything else. Cirt (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also here [7]. Cirt (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, in that case I'll say that the school has a Reserve, NM P.O. box. Reserve itself is a small city, so the school's real location has to be outside of the city. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- From the book: "MACE-KINGSLEY RANCH SCHOOL Res — Coed Ages 12-17 Reserve, NM 87830. PO Box 428. Tel: 505-533-6854. Fax: 505-533-6858" Cirt (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Passed Werner Erhard (book)
I passed the above and left some little notes. However, do you want Werner Erhard (book) to be listed in literature or some kind of pseudoscience or other type of category based on the subject? I will leave it up to you to decide. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sure thing. I'm just skimming through all of them and cleaning out the easy ones. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
List of NRMs
OK, but that might really lengthen the amount of footnoting, and I'll have a few days to get my hands on the books, which are at a library which isn't open as often as I would like. John Carter (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
TFAR
Your I-355 support seems to be misworded because it reads as if you support I-355 and I-355.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Philonexus has asked to be unblocked
- Unblock request of Philonexus
Hello Cirt. Philonexus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Ckatzchatspy 03:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Cirt, Philonexus' statement seems sincere. Should we give him a second chance, as long as he acknowledges the need to reference material rather than just adding links? --Ckatzchatspy 03:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- In the interest of completeness, he recently added a further statement here. Disclaimer - I have no opinion one way or the other. Tim Song (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Sara Northrup Hollister
To be aware: User talk:Stifle#Sara Northrup Hollister. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Hiram
Thanks for you work here, but Hiram Monserrate is not that important and he's going to be out of politics entirely in a few weeks. patsw (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
ANI Discussion
Hello, Cirt. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:WillOakland regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NW (Talk) 15:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI I have reverted my edit on this page as there was a valid citation provided to me; see my talk for more. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
User talk page enquiry
Hi Cirt, I have a quick enquiry, which I'm hoping you'll be able to help me with. It is with regards to user talk pages. A user posted a comment thread on my talk page, to which I left a reply explaining to the user that I had requested 4 times previous that they leave me alone to prevent further antagonising situations... in response, the user deleted the thread. I was under the impression that other users cannot deleted threads from another user talk page, without consent/permission Is this true? If so, then what action (if any) should be carried out in accordance to WP:Policies, and the frightening thing is the user who has deleted threads on my talk page is also an admin.. Much thanks in advance. Pr3st0n (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Verifiable sources
Hi, Cirt. Thanks for your quick response for my guidance request. [8] I could use some coaching on finding acceptable sources. Having been a church member for 32 years, I am primarily familiar with church and church-related sources. If there is an ocean of easily accessible information out there, I'd appreciate a pointer or two in the right direction. :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
recent edits
In regards to your recent edits to Uncle Ed's page - I have no idea what the dispute is between the two of you and I have no interest into getting into it. However, templating the regulars in that way is generally seen as pretty pointy and some of your comments are rather snarky, like you are losing your temper and need to take a step back. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- He has a very blatant conflict of interest - which is the only template I have used so far. He needs to learn to refrain from editing articles where he has a conflict of interest, and use the talk page. He also seems woefully ignorant of our key site policies. Cirt (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, it's okay. I had just a few minutes before that frankly come out and said that there could be a COI. I'm secretary to a
majorUnification Church leader and I am staunchly pro-Moon. I've also asked Cirt to coach me on sourcing standards. I'll let you know if I need help. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, it's okay. I had just a few minutes before that frankly come out and said that there could be a COI. I'm secretary to a
- Oops: A district leader with less than a thousand members under him is maybe not a "major" leader. Anyway, I'm a secretary of sorts: I pass messages around and maintain a database. Sort of what I did for WP in the 2001-2005 era: database maintenance, managing the mailing list, admin, first elected bureaucrat, that sort of thing. Everyone knew me as a Moonie back then; do you think some of the newbies don't know this? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, I screwed up.
And thanks for reverting the edit out.- Sinneed 18:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure what this is in reference to. :P Cirt (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I presume this use of rollback? Some kind of meta-comment on removing other people's talk comments? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Citations
Why did you add cites to the lead? of Hak Ja Han? I just got finished offering to self-revert because, just prior to that, you had said that the lede (or lead) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=prev&oldid=316718152 doesn't require cites[ if they appear lower down in the body?
Am I missing something? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: Moonie AfD
Thank you for your message. I took a look at the section you mentioned. It is very well-written and extensively sourced, of course. However, I find the treatment, as with much of the article, far too long for the importance of the material and in many cases somewhat repetitive. I will continue to recommend a redirect of the article. Powers T 20:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, no worries. Thanks for taking another look, and thanks for your kind words about my work on the article. Cirt (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou: Rankers Point Coaching Institute Indore
Hello Cirt, Abu Torsam has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Extremely Thankful to you for assisting in deletion of Rankers Point Coaching Institute Indore As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rankers Point Coaching Institute Indore "11:07, 29 September 2009 Cirt (talk | contribs) deleted "Rankers Point Coaching Institute Indore" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rankers Point Coaching Institute Indore)" ( Abu Torsam 12:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC))
User:AndreatSS
A user you blocked a few days ago for a username violation, User:AndreatSS, is asking to be unblocked to have their account renamed. Do you have any objections to my unblocking them to allow a rename request? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Admin
This is just to note that I accept the nomination. Cheers. ISD (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Re your uw block on the User:XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO
Did you see this posting. There had been a discussion on this user was a fair consensus that this username was not problematic. Has there been an actual complaint about it? Mfield (Oi!) 22:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
New Religious Movements
Hi Cirt! I have a favor to ask plus a couple questions. I have been trying to add citations for entries to the article but I obviously don't have the experience that you and John Carter have. I thought that I was adding the references in the fashion you requested but now it seems you want them in a different format. I don't know how to have the reference show up in the format you created at the very bottom of the article (different from the more common reference list). I have tried to understand it from looking at the edit history, but I can't seem to figure it out. Can you please point me to somewhere I can learn to do it in the format you want?
I have a question because I looked at the link to reliable sources that you sent me (Thank you very much!) and it did not say anything about a college newspaper being an unreliable source. Can you explain how can I know if it is not reliable? One would assume that a college newspaper would have appropriate oversight. Also do you have to take an entry out of the article just because I missed a page number as in the case of Diamond Way? (A Buddhist religious movement that started in 1971). I worked really hard to help add those references and it seems like you just plucked it out like it was vandalism or something. I am sure you didn't mean it that way, but a note on my talk page would be nice. Any way if you can respond to this I would appreciate it. Thank you. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- You can view the edit history and compare how I did the formatting to see how to do the cite formatting, to keep the article uniform.
- College newspapers may fit WP:RS for info about colleges, but scholarly sources or larger publications (larger newspapers with better editorial review, etc) are best for something on a controversial topic, which this is.
- Page numbers are key to verify the cites, every single other entry on the list has them.
Cirt (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It's been about a month, and I have 1 support, but no objections. Is this ready for promotion, or do we wait for more comments? –Juliancolton | Talk 01:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Request for assistance
Despite the fact that what has been described as the worst of the Falun Gong advocates has been banned from the topic for six months, there seems to be some problem with some other editors perhaps engaging in tendentious editing and POV pushing on the artices. It might be useful if a noninvolved admin were to maybe watch developments on the related pages. I personally think the terms of probation might be being at least slightly violated rather frequently, but at this point would be counted as an involved party myself. So, if you could just watch the pages, and remain otherwise noninvolved, so that no one can make the rather unpleasant argument that you are acting based on your own opinions, it might be beneficial. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd consider weighing in at a particular WP:RFC, WP:3O, something like that... Cirt (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you indef protect the userpage? It keeps on getting unilaterally reverted without discussion, despite the fact this is what is normally done.— Dædαlus Contribs 14:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've not seen that template used so fast before and I strongly object to its inclusion of the temporary userpage category. Have either of you previously attempted to get WH blocked or to have that image forcibly removed from his userpage? DuncanHill (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)'
- (edit conflict)No, I have not. I am completely uninvolved.— Dædαlus Contribs 16:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with the last edit summary by EVula (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Protecting a page in your preferred form when you are in dispute is an abuse of your admin tools. Please undo your actions. DuncanHill (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- You blanked the page and replaced it with the template, I reverted, EVula failed to discuss (BRD anyone?) and I reverted, Daedalus restored your version, and you have protected it in your version. There is a dispute, and you have used your tools to protect your preferred version. DuncanHill (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- DuncanHill, you're picking a horrible battle. Why are you edit warring over this? The editor is indefinitely blocked. Whether you've seen the template applied quickly before or not is irrelevant. Cirt's full protection of the page is not an abuse of admin tools. If he unprotects it, I'll fully protect it; going back and forth on it is a useless waste of time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Have to agree here. The matter of how quickly that template is added is really a minor one. Also, considering that there is no really good reason for an indefinitely blocked editor's page to not be blocked from the edits of others, the protection seems a good idea too. Maybe I could nitpick about how quickly it was done, but that would be a minor point. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- DuncanHill, you're picking a horrible battle. Why are you edit warring over this? The editor is indefinitely blocked. Whether you've seen the template applied quickly before or not is irrelevant. Cirt's full protection of the page is not an abuse of admin tools. If he unprotects it, I'll fully protect it; going back and forth on it is a useless waste of time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
(To EVula, after edit conflict)I'm not edit warring, after Daedulus's last revrt I came here to try to have a discussion, Cirt responded to this by protecting the page.. Cirt was bold, I reverted, you failed to discuss. Cirt has now protected in his preferred version, which is the same as yours, and you have said you will protect in your preferred version if he unprotects. DuncanHill (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- [de-indenting this bit of the thread] Let's try this from square one... what, exactly, is your problem with the {{blocked user}} tag? EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- (also, how about we move this to my talk page, rather than Cirt's? That work?) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Either place is fine with me. Cirt (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- EVula's page is OK with me, and I have answered (and Xeno answered too) at that place. DuncanHill (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Either place is fine with me. Cirt (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
All that conflict
Cirt, I would like to apologize for my confrontational tone in the last day or so. Although you have worked hard and given me some useful information, I was being very defensive. Actually, you are helping me to handle a delicate and tricky situation, and I owe you my gratitude an support.
See also my response to Durova on my user talk page.
Thanks! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Cirt, thank you for the fair deliberation on The Astute Recorder page.
I completely respect the decision of you and your fellow editors and am taking the Wikipedia guidelines into consideration for future possibilities.
Best wishes, Judy Asman Sept. 30, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AsmanJudy (talk • contribs) 20:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Heads up
Yo Cirt, an IP editor is requesting that I save the encyclopaedia from your dastardly manipulation here. If you could take a look, I'd appreciate it. Cheers, Skomorokh, barbarian 03:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hey thanks. Please check the edit history at Hawthorne (TV series). The article has faced almost continual vandalism in the form of page blanking, section blanking, and the insertion of blatant copyvio. Cirt (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- For example, the IP that posted to your talk page, 170.170.59.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), made this edit [9]. Cirt (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
BigDunc 16:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- and another. BigDunc 17:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
FICS - Int'l Fed of Sports Chiro
I have done much soul searching, and I now understand why you deleted this originally. However, I have now done a LOT of research, and I believe that I have corrected all the objections that could reasonable be raised to re-posting this page. The whole thing was re-written from the ground up; ALL claims are documented; there are numerous references to completely independent, 3rd party sources, and all the connections to all the important International agencies, and services provided by the FICS are now properly referenced. If this was your intent, i.e to make me do the work to earn this, then I thank you. I would like to re-post it now... as the FICS certainly should not be punished, just because the one person who should know most about it, originally posted a page for it. It's at my user page...
Drsjpdc (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- These sources all seem in some way affiliated with the subject of the article. Not really satisfactory, per WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I have tried, and tried to understand what you are talking about.... I do NOT get it.. I have shown that virtually every International Agency of any import "recognizes" this Federation; that it is cited in McGraw Hill publications; that it is under contract with the World Games Association to provide for the athletes at World events; that is it has offices in a facility for International Sports Federations, built by the City of Lausanne and the IOC. I am not some college kid who started a club and wants it recognized in Wikipedia. I just happen to be the actual founder of a legitimate World agency, and it appears that ONLY because I am the one who wrote this page, it is getting a drubbing that it does not deserve.
What more can I possibly provide on that page??? Are you expecting that MGM make a movie about FICS? It would seem that this is really unfair.
If you have some issue with me, please do not interfere with FICS' ability to be recognized her because of that. I am sorry I tried to write a bio. I realize now that this is the reason that FICS' page is getting this scrutiny, when other, very similar pages are not.
Please!
Drsjpdc (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am sorry but I do not agree with your assessment, the topic does not satisfy WP:NOTE. If you wish to contest this, you can take it up at WP:DRV. Cirt (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey Mr. Commons Admin
Over at an FAC I'm doing (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jackie Robinson/archive4), the image reviewer asked for the opinion of a commons admin. You're the only commons admin I know. Could you comment on File:Jackie Robinson Memorial.JPG, or point me in the direction of another commons admin? If you don't think it's free, or isn't a no-brainer, that's fine. There are tons of pics I can use, so I don't mind replacing any one of them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'd recommend Durova (talk · contribs). At times Awadewit (talk · contribs) evaluates images at FAC, but she is a bit under the weather lately. :( Cirt (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Awadewit is the one who asked. Thanks, I'll ask Durova. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstars
Just thought i would ask someone whos awarded one to someone else what they are.
And also if i qualify for any :P
KiraChinmoku (Talk, My Contribs) 16:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks very much KiraChinmoku (Talk, My Contribs) 16:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Sources
Thanks for yet another clear and patient correction. I believe I can learn the strict new rules. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- The strict way you (and Hrafn) are applying them is new to me.
- I see many articles with [citation needed] tags that are well over one year old.
- You are telling me I cannot add unsourced material, even though I am not familiar with a policy page that requires the first insertion of all material to supply a source.
- I have seen, on the other hand, a clear rule saying that unsourced material may be (a) challenged or (b) removed.
- After it's been removed, of course, the burden of proof that it should be replaced is on the party wanting to restore it.
- You are telling me I cannot add unsourced material, even though I am not familiar with a policy page that requires the first insertion of all material to supply a source.
GA Reviews
On Sept 18 you signed up to do 2 GA reviews: Talk:Harriet Frank, Jr./GA1 & Talk:Steven Erikson/GA2. Since there has been no updates since, it appears the reviews have stalled. Are you able to update these? maclean (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Frank Perry
Removed from infobox as per request. Has template. Has copyright info. Has rationale. As per previous 6/20/09 request. Pepso2 (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Van Morrison: No Surrender
|
|
On October 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Van Morrison: No Surrender, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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. |
≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
AfD
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MooniesBorock (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the heavy lifting on Moonies. I think you have saved the page. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on producing a "keeper". --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of MMA HEAT
I do not believe the article MMA HEAT should have been deleted. It provided information about a valid news source within the mixed martial arts (MMA) community. Everything within the article could be confirmed on the company's official website, http://www.MMAheat.com, as well as their Facebook fan page, http://www.facebook.com/MMAheat. If this article was not worthy of Wikipedia inclusion than UFC, Sherdog and many other articles should be deleted as well. MMA H.E.A.T. has been making notable contributions to the MMA community since 2007. Most recently, they were the only news organization to be filming Chuck Liddell's UFC 100 Tao Beach Party in Las Vegas on 7/10, Fedor Emelianenko's press conference discussing his agreement with EA Sports on 7/29 and Cris Cyborg's body slam of Tito Ortiz at Cleber Jiu Jitsu at the beginning of last month. Eckinc (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- This has now been listed at DRV. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Can you please help me understand why the MMA_HEAT article was deleted and what it was missing in order for it to be considered a valid article. I modeled the article after numerous other articles related to the same industry, i.e. Sherdog, Fighting Spirit Magazine, Faust (magazine), etc.
- MMA H.E.A.T. is a valid news entity whose content is syndicated with IMG, The Fight Network, KDOC - Los Angeles, MMA Jacked, FrankShamrock.com, etc. I would simply like to know what proof is required to validate the article. Thank you.Eckinc (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MMA HEAT was quite clear. Cirt (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Maryland Teenage Republicans - Deletion
Who or what gives you any authority to delete this page?
I am a co-founder and Executive Advisor of the Maryland Teenage Republicans.
You have no right to delete this page. I think it is entirely politically motivated.
So Wikipedia does not like Republicans?
Well...this is going to the news media!!!
Justin Fishbein justinfishbein@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthspeaker09 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, hahahahaha! Epic win Cirt! You should frame this threat to report you to Faux News. --Brian McNeil /talk 22:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryland Teenage Republicans was to delete. Cirt (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Hi, I saw that you put the semiprotection on Einstein's talk page. Now there is a kind of a problem on Ahmadinejad article, where few users try to add to the infobox ethnicity entry which conclude that he is of Jewish origin and to claim that he was born Jewish and converted to Islam (it's at the least baseless argument).--Gilisa (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Installation permitting guidance for hydrogen and fuel cells stationary applications
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Installation permitting guidance for hydrogen and fuel cells stationary applications Hi Cirt I'm the author of the article and would like a review, user Abductive tried before to remove the article, i left a response on the talkpage of the article and on his talkpage, ignoring this, he waited a little bit to get it on the delete list without communicating the arguments, in short, when listing this up for deletion, Abductive forgot to point to the talk page of the article, which i think should be enough bring the article back online. grtz Mion (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Installation permitting guidance for hydrogen and fuel cells stationary applications was quite clear. Cirt (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter
The September 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you take a look at my suggestion there for inclusion of a Sisterprojects sub-page?
I think all the templates (one?) I'd need to edit for this are not fully protected, but very, very, very widely used. If I screwed up trialling this on Formula One and starting to roll it out to, say, other sport portals I'm afraid it would kill the idea stone dead by attracting those opposed to it before people normally uninvolved in discussions saw it. --Brian McNeil /talk 22:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I made a change to the portal, and noted it at the talk page. Cirt (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, you'll probably get the idea of what I'm trying to do. I had a look for other portals where a similar change could be made - didn't have much luck. Is there any easy way to pick ones that have the bot-pretending-to-be-DPL section, and an upcoming event/race/fight/competition section? --Brian McNeil /talk 13:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
There's one more that was up for deletion there: Alexander Hecht. Thanks in advance for looking into this. - Biruitorul Talk 14:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Masscommdigitalclass
Looks like a class in mass communications in the digital era. Rather than indefing, did you consider welcoming with {{Welcometeacher}}? School projects usually do outstanding work. This may not be a school project, but it looks like one, and indef'ing them without checking seems... a bit hasty. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Cirt (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks. I could be wrong, but I prefer to err on the side of AGF. :-) Its easy to miss the hints that what looks like it might be a "group" or "corp" name might actually be a class, but IMO its worth giving that extra margin and if its indicated, assume "school" until proven otherwise. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Peer review request
I've finally finished a major expansion of the inner German border article - it's the 20th anniversary next month of the border being opened and the fall of the Berlin Wall. I'd be very grateful if you could have a look at the article and let me have any comments on how you think it could be improved. Your experience of getting articles to FA standard would be invaluable. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Moonie (Unification Church)
|
|
On October 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Moonie (Unification Church), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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. |
BorgQueen (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Sheffield FA
Could you update your "!vote"? Marskell is preparing to close it. DrKiernan (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Another review request
Cirt, whenever I have come across your path on WP, I have been impressed with you as both an editor and an admin. I have just drafted an article in my userspace that I would appreciate if you could give me some feedback on and copyedit. It is an article that you deleted last month [10], but that I feel easily passes WP:ORG and as such should not have been deleted. Rather than go to deletion review (I don't even know what the original article looked like), I re-wrote the article from scratch, but as I have never actually written an article before, it could use some eyes. It is currently sandboxed here. Thanks, DigitalC (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- I took a look. Unfortunately, I am not seeing much in the way of independent reliable secondary sources. Similar problem as I had already noted, above at User_talk:Cirt#FICS_-_Int.27l_Fed_of_Sports_Chiro. Cirt (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- The majority of the sources are independent of the association, and I even included a peer-reviewed scientific journal article as a source. DigitalC (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
US News rankings
Cirt, if you have time, could you please weigh in over here [[11]] about whether to include the US News rankings on a member of the Annapolis group? Thanks!Gunshippolitico (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Userfy request of deleted article Canola (software)
Hi Cirt, I just noticed that the article Canola (software) recently got AfD'd. I'd like to brush up whatever work was done on it, address the issues with lack of reliable references, and perhaps someday restore it onto Wikipedia or some other wiki. Could you restore the past history to User:Tuxcantfly/Canola (software)? Thanks for your help. Tuxcantfly (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Question
Why do you hate Scientology? 91.143.81.108 (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- A loaded question, perhaps? I have written many good articles and featured articles about Scientology. Some of them reflect mainly positive aspects and others the negative aspects: the balance depends upon what the sources have to say. Content reviewers are very scrupulous about that, and because this is a controversial topic my work has been subjected to particular scrutiny. Those high standards have made me a better editor and resulted in better articles. It takes a thick skin, though, and I wish the atmosphere within the topic were more collegial so more people would be improving this important topic. Cirt (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WillOakland listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WillOakland. Since you had some involvement with the Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WillOakland redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). VegaDark (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Unblock consideration
Any change of an AGF/anti-BITE unblock of User:MaggieNova, per Ticket:2009100510000786? Stifle (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Talk page link format
I responded with "Oh... in case someone wanted to use them later. By tacking on the start and end they are complete but I'll break it down since they look silly and might be confusing" and removed all of the template stuff but yours are so much prettier. I am going to remove the section I created. technically this is against the rules since you have a comment in there so let me know if you hate it.Cptnono (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you've probably misread something somewhere, or used a source which had a misprint. The book is a comprehensive study of VM, and deals with VM's major musical period (which occurred before 1984). You actually detail in the content section that the book covers the period of the 60s and 70s, and you only get to post 1984 in the final lines (as VM produced little of interest after the 70s!). The article is a decent article - you have produced a lot of material and have mostly used your sources well - but saying that it mainly covers from 1984 is a silly error. Even when I amended it to 1964 I did wonder if that was right, as the book (and your own information) does start with VM's musical career prior to 1964 - it seemed a bit odd to say, the book focuses on 1964, and then follow that with talk of The Sputniks, a group he formed in 1957 (the same year that Sputnik was launched). Probably best in the circumstances to rewrite the entire line and say that the book covers the entirely of VM's musical career. Regards SilkTork *YES! 10:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
I submitted this unprotect request at RFPP but it was suggested (and rightfully so, I should have known to do this) that I speak with you first. What do you think? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Have the issues been resolved on the talk page? Cirt (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- The two editors involved in the dispute came to an agreement on the user talk page of one of them, see here. Thirteen squared, the editor filing the ANI thread, also made this edit striking out his own comments on Chuthya's talk page and acknowledging in the edit summary the impropriety of his own comments. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Any thoughts on this? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Okay well if you put in a request at WP:RFPP, I will defer to the judgment of the reviewing admin there. Cirt (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Carter message
- Would you please be so kind as to pass on a word to John Carter?
- I've asked this person --at least twice-- to please refrain from posting on my talk page.
- I'd like to repeat this request through you. Thanks.
Calamitybrook (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, wondering if you have had any further thoughts yet? Keristrasza (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Beck v. Hall
- Heads up
Citing WP:Naming conventions, boldly moved the article about the anti-Beck spoof wesite to Glenn Beck – Isaac Eiland-Hall controversy, which I belive to be something less imprecise and ambiguous than the name it had before. But please feel free to move it to something else. The article has been barely worked on by anybody -- which, by a certain measure, shows its subject matter to be of less interest to WP editors, for whatever reason (and perhaps less notable?), than I had previously thought. (It is a pretty crass joke/parody.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Go ahead and write it!
(Also, it's possible that the RfD with regard to the existing stub could end up being "kept through no consensus to delete," too.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 01:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Van Morrison: Too Late to Stop Now
|
|
On October 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Van Morrison: Too Late to Stop Now, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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. |
Mifter (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Normal People Scare Me
|
|
On October 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Normal People Scare Me, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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. |
SoWhy 12:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
70.48.196.191
Could you re-enable Special:AbuseFilter/213? It is the edit filter that prevents this user's vandalism for the most part.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of Shop.Com
Dear Administrator Cirt,
I’m writing to request that you review the deletion of the entry for Shop.com. I’d like to respectfully point out some aspects of the organization that conform to your standards for notability.
The Shop.com entry was deleted for lack of sufficient notability, and for a promotional tone. We feel that the tone can be addressed, and, in fact, edits were made to render the entry more neutral. More substantively, however, the item contained due assertion of Shop.com’s notability by size, longevity and innovation. Here are the relevant facts:
- Shop.com was founded in 1997 with investment from Bill Gates, Yahoo!, Amazon.com and Oak Investment Partners. It survived many economic downturns and evolved into one of the largest and most comprehensive online shopping networks on the Web.
- It measures over 7M monthly unique visitors.
- Shop.com offers more than 25 million products from thousands of reputable and notable merchants, ranging from J.Crew and Target to Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom.
- It is led by an executive team from pioneering companies such as Disney Online, Apple, Sun, QVC, Citysearch, and Polo.
Unlike others in the comparison shopping engine category, Shop.com stands alone as a destination that addresses the needs of a key consumer demographic: women, ages 30-55, whose buying power and status as heads of households are widely noted among media and marketers. Shop.com’s positioning and commitment to its demographic also constitutes the reason why reputable companies (Lifetime, Sears and Country Music Television) use Shop.com to power comparison shopping offerings directly to their audiences.
Finally, Shop.com is responsible for a precedent-setting innovation, a patented technology and platform called OneCart, which provides online shoppers a universal shopping cart to find and compare products and prices from thousands of merchants.
We hope that in the democratic spirit of Wikipedia, and as a matter of fair play and consistency across the category, a page for Shop.com might be restored. I look forward to your response and guidance in this matter. Thank you for your time.
Bpops721 (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Page move help
Hey Cirt, could you possibly use you admin powers for a page/history merge type thing? Syntax Era and Micro Men refer to the same show (the first was the working title). Is there a way to merge the two pages into one Micro Men page? Gran2 19:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would suggest redirecting to the correct name, and then working from there. Neither is really sourced adequately (yet) anyways. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You closed this AfD as "delete", but during the course of the debate the article was renamed to Punching Out and that version is still lurking, complete with AfD template. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Mencius Georgism Reference
Cirt,
While the're other issues we'll engage with separately, note I did put a commentary including a reference when I put in the stuff on Mencius into the article on Georgism : "Mencius wrote about land-rent being preferable, see http://members.tripod.com/wckfc_library/mencius.htm ; I've included reference" - you may not like the reference, but I don't know the person concerned, have never met them, and have nothing to do with them. If you wanted to engage with nature of the reference, or have included it in the article, you could have done so. I'm puzzled.JohnAugust (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean it would be OK if I included it as an inline reference ? It is not clear whether you are talking about the -actual- reference, or the way I've edited it into the page.JohnAugust (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- This [12] should not be used as a reference. It is not WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- My original reference was p684, The Story of Civilisation, Volume 1, "Our Oriental Heritage", Will Durant, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1942 (Tenth Printing), which itself refers to an original Mencius text to which I do not have access, and the particular Durant book it is not an accessible reference (though there would probably be a reference in more recent printings), and I used one I knew to be on the internet and accessible, in good faith. You could have pointed out your concern rather than just deleting it, in which case I would have clarified the issue. In any case, would the Durant reference be suitable ?JohnAugust (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey
I just saw your msg on Johnbod's page. I suppose I was a bit strong there, but you were very good about it. No hard feelings I hope. I know you are a good guy, so onwards! Ceoil (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Number Ones (Janet Jackson album)
Hello, can you please unlock this page, as the following press release has been issued confirming its existence.[13] Thanks, 23:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- A press release is not a independent reliable secondary source. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Then how about articles from the Associated Press[14] or MTV[15]? Thankyoubaby (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Brief blurbs. Also, WP:CRYSTAL. Cirt (talk) 02:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Then what is needed for you to unlock it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thankyoubaby (talk • contribs)
- Well, I would defer to another administrator's judgment at WP:RFPP. But I would say we should wait until the album has actually come out, and it has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- WP:NALBUM says "if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia" and "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources." I think the album meets both of those criteria as there are over 100 independent articles I can source if need be. Just Google News it. Thankyoubaby (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- The flaw in your argument is that it has not been released. Cirt (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I see your side of that argument, however it too is flawed. For your reasoning to be valid you would need to go through and lock all of these articles. Thankyoubaby (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Cirt (talk) 05:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I see your side of that argument, however it too is flawed. For your reasoning to be valid you would need to go through and lock all of these articles. Thankyoubaby (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- The flaw in your argument is that it has not been released. Cirt (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- WP:NALBUM says "if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia" and "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources." I think the album meets both of those criteria as there are over 100 independent articles I can source if need be. Just Google News it. Thankyoubaby (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I would defer to another administrator's judgment at WP:RFPP. But I would say we should wait until the album has actually come out, and it has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Then what is needed for you to unlock it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thankyoubaby (talk • contribs)
- Brief blurbs. Also, WP:CRYSTAL. Cirt (talk) 02:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Then how about articles from the Associated Press[14] or MTV[15]? Thankyoubaby (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Template
Good work, thank you. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Re:GA Review of Harriet Frank, Jr.
Hello Cirt. You left a message saying that you would review the article, however that was three weeks ago. I'm certainly in no rush to have it reach GA, but I just want to remind you in case you've forgotten; you seem to be a very busy user! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I will get to it soon. Cirt (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. As I say, I don't want to rush you or the process, so please review when you have spare time; only I know some users who get annoyed at not being reminded of reviews and such, so I thought it only polite to mention it! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Did you see Talk:Harriet Frank, Jr./GA1? Cirt (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. As I say, I don't want to rush you or the process, so please review when you have spare time; only I know some users who get annoyed at not being reminded of reviews and such, so I thought it only polite to mention it! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Olive branch reciprocated
|
The Barnstar of Peace | |
| For taking the first step in de-escalating our silly tiff there, I award you The Barnstar of Peace. Cheers mate =) –xenotalk 20:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC) |
List of New Religious Movements
Hi Cirt. I am puzzled by your removing The Foundation for a Course in Miracles. In your note on the undo, you asked for secondary sources. How is the one that I used not a secondary source? It was a conference paper that claims that Course in Miracles was a new relious movement. How is that not secondary? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look. mav (talk)00:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Page "Sanzhar Sultanov" deleted?
Dear User:Cirt, an article titled Sanzhar Sultanov was deleted by you. The article was fully annotated with reliable sources. The most reliable of which was Time.Kz source, which is an internet copy of a national newspaper in Kazakhstan titled Время (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Время) (which, in English, means "time"). The article in the newspaper that was being referenced, was written by Galina Vibornova - she is a higly respected journalist, who had recently recieved the President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev's award for contributions to media. Other sources include: Reverson.Ca - website for Reverson Entertainment. TheStoryFilm.Com - website for 2010 film "The Story", that has stars Michael Clarke Duncan, Kelly Hu and Paul Calderon attached. And finally, IMDb is also a source proving all the above details.
Please explain, if the article is fully annotated with reliable sources, on what grounds can the article can be deleted? --173.33.217.192 (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with the concerns laid out by multiple editors at the AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanzhar Sultanov. Cirt (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Which concerns specifically? --173.33.217.192 (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The only concern that I see is the credibility of the sources. I proved that the major sources are reliable. Please have the respect to dignify this response with a full answer.--173.33.217.192 (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest you register an account and create a username, and then work on it in your userspace in a subpage. Cirt (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Once again, you have not dignified my comment with a response to what I said. You simply side-stepped my concern. So, the only concern that was in the AfD was the credibility of the sources. I proved their credibility. On what grounds was the article deleted?--173.33.217.192 (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to contest the AfD, you may bring the matter to WP:DRV. Cirt (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
In all due respect, sir, your treatment of this matter is highly unprofessional. You are the editor that deleted the article. Therefore, my query is with you. This is the fourth time that you have disregarded a concern about your deletion decision. Instead of bureaucratically forwarding me to another discussion, I ask you to accept the responsibility of your actions and defend them, when questioned.--173.33.217.192 (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I assessed consensus of the AfD. The consensus was to delete. I deleted the page. Further discussion can go to WP:DRV. Cirt (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. When you assessed the AfD, you would have seen that the issue was about the credibility of the source (www.time.kz). Some of the editors mentioned that they saw the source, but could not translate the cyrillic, and that they were not familiar with the source. I AM familiar with the source. It is a one of the major national Political, Financial and Entertainment newspaper, with 3,000,000 prints per issue. The wikipedia article referenced all the information off the newspaper article. (http://www.time.kz/index.php?newsid=11338) Furthermore, I researched the author of the newspaper article, and she is a highly respected journalist (as mentioned previously, this year's recipient of the President of Kazakhstan's award). Is it possible that the you may have misinterpreted or misjudged the AfD? My reason for suggesting this, is because the editors that participated in the AfD did not have an objective view of the matter.--173.33.217.192 (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- No. I agree with the AfD comments and the consensus was to delete. Please stop commenting at my talk page about this. If you wish to take the matter further, you can pursue WP:DRV. Cirt (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
But of course, w/regard to primary (self-published) sources
Per WP:PRIMARYWP:SELFPUB, information not very likely to be controversial can very well be cited to such a primary source, no?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 07:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Whereas uncontroversial stuff about the subject sourced to his own blog is OK, perhaps it would be best for us to tag the unsourced stuff in the article and/or bring the items to the attention of the other Wikicontributors who had posted them there (namely the several SPAs recently editing the BLP)?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 08:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- On a wiki, The Good from among all of what's been contributed can certainly be culled out, with the rest thrown into the compost bin, nevertheless I'd personally favor keeping references especially to the pdf files hosted on the subject's notable law blog -- since, when a subject is a legal researcher and commentator, it is useful to give encyclopedic coverage to that person's independently published writings, IMO.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 08:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe we could find notable scholarly websites that have reprinted things published on Randazza's website(?)
- We can use ZoomInfo to find 2ndary references to his legal scholarship and biography (such as here).
- Hey, come to think -- actually, when we add in the qualifications (whether these be actually academic or else from from the status of their actively working in their profession in law firms) of scholars who currently contribute to the site he edits (eg Sean O’Connor, Jason Fischer, Matthew C. Sanchez, Zac Papantoniou, Jessica Christensen, Christopher Harbin, Tatiana von Tauber, Tara Kirsten King, Lateigra Cahill) plus those many more who have in the past, I think we've reached the point where we aren't talking about a self-published vanity publication so much as we're talking about a new media source for commentary on his publications area of professional and theoretical expertise, IMO!↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 08:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- One last point: technically, Wikipedia is supposed to favor academic sources over merely journalistic ones, in our coverage given to technical subjects; and, in such cases, what Randazza's fellow scholars and lawyers say -- and what Randazza himself says, as a notabel legal commentator -- would trump what laymen reporters would say.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 09:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Cirt, per WP:SELFPUB, that it is a BLP is really besides the point in this particular case, due to the fact that the source is being quoted about himself; nevertheless, an article shouldn't be based too much from a single source -- so, yeah, recast it and throw out some stuff that can't be independly verified. (Did you see this link I put on your page just above? A lot of lawyers quote Randazza and/or articles in The Legal Satyricon.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Spill.com
Why did you delete the Spill.com page? 24.3.17.214 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I deleted it after discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spill.Com. However I was not the first admin to delete it. See the logs for both Spill.com and Spill.Com. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- The discussion still doesn't make much sense to me. And no actual reason is given for deletion. The argument seems to be that its not "notable" even though dozens of other less notable sites have their own pages. Seems hypocritical that similar sites get pages while another doesn't. It's like this page was singled out for no real reason. 24.3.17.214 (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument point. Cirt (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Dude, just put it back up. Spill users are some of the angriest people around. Just put it back up, and shut them up. I see no logical reason as to why it shouldn't even be there to begin with...--70.188.37.102 (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you feel strongly that it should be put back up, you make take the issue to WP:DRV. Cirt (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also states that the automatic dismissal of the argument isn't a valid response, and it seems to be the only response I ever get when I bring it up. The real issue with the Spill.com page seemed to be that it was too long and lacked external sources. If I can find some good external sources then I think that would give the page enough validity to stick around. Thanks for your help. 24.3.17.214 (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you feel strongly that it should be put back up, you make take the issue to WP:DRV. Cirt (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Dude, just put it back up. Spill users are some of the angriest people around. Just put it back up, and shut them up. I see no logical reason as to why it shouldn't even be there to begin with...--70.188.37.102 (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument point. Cirt (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- The discussion still doesn't make much sense to me. And no actual reason is given for deletion. The argument seems to be that its not "notable" even though dozens of other less notable sites have their own pages. Seems hypocritical that similar sites get pages while another doesn't. It's like this page was singled out for no real reason. 24.3.17.214 (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you register an account and create a username, and then work on it in your userspace in a subpage. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The NERIC-security RFC/UN
I said this elsewhere, but for the record, I think you were right to bring up your concerns with the account name. In general an account like that (organization name and an official sounding role name) would be a username policy problem. In that particular case there's consensus that the account is grandfathered in (older than the particular username policy) and that the account's been productive and a good community member.
It's an exception to the policy - which we do here - but exceptions which aren't written down, in a project like this, are something people can't be expected to automatically know about or agree with, so filing the RFC was entirely appropriate. That's the right mechanism for feedback on interpretations and exceptions, and worked reasonably well here. You did the right thing with your concern, took it to the right place, and responded well when the consensus explanation on the exception emerged.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Help
did you help make the simpson portal an FA. --Pedro J. the rookie 01:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Beck v. Eiland-Hall
My edit (that you reverted) did not remove any information. It just rearranged it in chronological order, as I found the original presentation confusing. Please have a look and reinsert as appropriate. thanks LK (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am in the middle of major cleanup work and expansion on the article, apologies if it takes some time. Cirt (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hamed Minhaj
Dear Cirt,
Please explain how did you reach delete decision? because as far as i can see no direct answer come out of it. everyone was discussing it. i provide you all the newspapers reference. i need your explain as how did you come to that decision? you can't simply delete without a valid reason, which is explainable and convinces every body with it.
waiting for your reason, i can assure i will not let this go so simple, as i have put a lot hard work in this.
thank you --Mike6565 (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamed Minhaj, where the consensus was quite clear. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Cirt,
whatever question they had i answered, and i provide proof of the newspapers too. what else do you guys need? in that discussion page only few people commented and then whatever question they had i answered. this is not a very good way to simply delete without facts.
i am protesting this and please advice what will be my next step. where or who do i go to. --Mike6565 (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Suggest you work on User:Mike6565/Hamed Minhaj further in your userspace, until it is a presentable version to perhaps satisfy WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Cirt
Please advice what you mean by presentable version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike6565 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well currently the piece fails WP:NOTE. I would suggest taking some time to familiarize yourself with some helpful pages on Wikipedia, including WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CITE, and Wikipedia:Article development. Cirt (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
WikiQuote
Hello Cirt! I have seen that you are an admin on the en.wikiquote, and thought to seek you assistance. Yesterday Rush Limbaugh threatened legal action on his radio program against organizations and people repeating a quote, which he claims is a statement he didn't make, from wikiquote. The quote sounds as though he has a favorable view of historical slavery, and a second quote voices sympathy for a dead slavery apologist. [16]
The source of the quotes is a book by Huberman, but the book does not provide the source of the quote. Limbaugh, and others, allege that the source of the quote was wikiquote in Huberman's book which he claims was placed by a certain blogger on wikiquote. After Huberman picked it up an put it in his book, the book source was added to wikiquote as a ciricular reference. Huberman has yet to identify his source. Anyway, Limbaugh specifically named wikipedia and wikiquote in his rant about bringing legal action to demand apologizes and retractions. I don't know if he intends to go after the Wikimedia Foundation, or just those who have repeated the quote. Yesterday I am some other editors located the quotes and a discussion was had and we removed them from the wikiquote article temporarily. I have searched wikiquote and cannot find any BLP type policy. I think that surely the board policy on BLP should apply here and we need to get rid of these quotes until we can verify them in an additional source. The details of the discussion on the article talk page along with some evidences, and as of yet no admin on the site has taken interest in the topic. No one has responded to the thread on the admin board there either. If you could offer some guidance, or point me to someone who could offer guidance it would be most appreciated. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 16:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like Kalki has already weighed in at [17] - and Kalki is a Wikiquote admin. Cirt (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! And thank you for looking into the situation. It is appreciated! Keep up the good work. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
complain
Pabitra 777 14:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC) bahu boges article lakhya chhe.delete kari nakh badha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabitra 777 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
About "Mechabonica"
Hi Cirt,
I have got some references for the page "Mechabonica" you deleted. Can I have a copy of this page? and how to reestablish it? Thanks. Rirunmot 00:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
- I would suggest adding it to Zoids#Mechabonica. Cirt (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your work on 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America, im convinced that your work will save the article. Tim1357 (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Beck v. Eiland-Hall
|
|
On October 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beck v. Eiland-Hall, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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. |
SoWhy 10:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Marc Randazza
|
|
On October 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marc Randazza, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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. |
SoWhy 10:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
& m ay I p ropose A T oast . . . to C irt!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Justmeherenow (talk • contribs)
University of Bridgeport
A while ago, a user that may have a COI deleted substantial parts of the article and moved them to the talk page [[18]]. I personally think that they deserve to be in the article, but I wanted your input because of the work you've been doing on it.Gunshippolitico (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Scientology headquarters
Hi! Does the Church of Scientology say that its headquarters are in Los Angeles or in Riverside County, California (the location of Golden Era Productions)? Is the location where its administrative offices are? I'm not entirely sure. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Best to go with what is stated in independent reliable secondary sources about this. Cirt (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- In that case the lead will state that the HQ is in Riverside County, as will the infobox. I found a source for it. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Cirt (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I added the refs, and I added the Gold Base photo to the main Scientology article. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Cirt (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- In that case the lead will state that the HQ is in Riverside County, as will the infobox. I found a source for it. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Copy edit
are you good at copy editing.--Pedro J. the rookie 00:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm okay, though there are many far better than I. Why do you ask? Cirt (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I now you work a lot in the simpsons, and as such you may not like family guy to much but can you copy edit it.--Pedro J. the rookie 00:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Can't right now, but I'd suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:How to copy-edit and WP:GOCE. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I now you work a lot in the simpsons, and as such you may not like family guy to much but can you copy edit it.--Pedro J. the rookie 00:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Can I get yout input?
About a year ago you said that Khaldoon Al Mubarak might make GA with a few improvements. I suspect you were being nice, but I am open to criticism and would appreciate you giving any comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Khaldoon Al Mubarak/archive1 about what kind of things needs doing. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Have you got any further comments. There is a lack of information available for the early life, will that be its stumbling block? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hiya. You previously protected the above page due to repeated insertion of 'Jewish owned' in the lead. Unfortunately as soon as the protection comes off the vandalism starts again. This has been going on for quite a few months now, and it's been semi-protected 3 times. Would it be possible to do a longer term protection, such as 3 or 6 months, and see if that helps? Thanks. Quantpole (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
If we delete Barry Kirkey, then we should also delete one more (has a history of deletion debate, as well)
Hello!
You recently marked for deletion a page on Barry Kirkey, a character in the book "The Game" by Neil Strauss who also runs a popular (relatively speaking) podcast on revolution31.com. If this page fails your guidelines, then perhaps the following should also be considered for deletion (judging by the page history, apparently I'm not alone):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Cook - the founder of RSD, the company for whom Barry Kirkey was the head instructor. Please note the references cited at the bottom are mostly self-produced by himself and his company, much the same as Barry Kirkey's references. If BK's fails, so does this. Please also note that the page for Real Social Dynamics (RSD) has been deleted on Wikipedia.
Thanks for your attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.37.203 (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- This had 2 discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Kirkey and then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Kirkey (2nd nomination). Cirt (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Template
I would leave a message at WP:OBAMA regarding proper inclusion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
OK
(...& thx for your work, BTW!) :^)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 12:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
FreeMarketHealthcare
Can we give them a bit more time? I very much disagree with their political point of view, but they're trying to work within the system here -- going over to WP:RFF to ask for help making their article neutral, for example. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'd agree to an unblock if the account can confirm by WP:OTRS that it is one individual, and then subsequently requests a name change to make that obvious, and then places a conflict of interest disclosure notice on their userpage. Cirt (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
DYK for 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America
|
|
On October 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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. |
BencherliteTalk 07:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Ill-advised block
User talk:Sanjosecalifornia seems like a particularly bad block; there seems little evidence this person needed to be stopped from doing anything. Their username does NOT seem to, in any way, be the type of username which mandates a block without discussion, I don't see where an RFCU or similar attempt was made to establish how the username was bad. Could you please help set my mind at ease and let me know what this person needed to be stopped from editing? --Jayron32 20:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Okay I just went to go unblock the user myself, but I see this was already done (with no objections). :) Cirt (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Jesse Lee (politician)
|
|
On October 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jesse Lee (politician), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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. |
Gatoclass (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC) 19:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Elixon WCMS Deletion
Hello Cirt,
could you, please, throw your eye at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Elixon WCMS/XUL? I was quite busy and I missed the opportunity to discuss the problem before the deletion took a place.
Thank you.
Elixon (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review for WorkTime
An editor has asked for a deletion review of WorkTime. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tim Song (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Review closure of Bobby Jack Wright
You closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bobby_Jack_Wright as keep. It appears that the article is about a living person of questionable notability. At 2d-4k, this falls in the range of no consensus, which may default to delete. Could you discuss why you chose to keep this article? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- The AfD consensus, plus appears to satisfy WP:NOTE, after some research. Could be a WP:GA article at some point with a little effort. :) Cirt (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
you undid my edit to "Keeping Scientology Working"
i added the following to the article:
Another passage that has been cited by critics of the organisation, especially in relation to cases of death where critics see connections to the organisation, reads: "The proper instruction attitude is, "You're here so you're a Scientologist. Now we're going to make you into an expert auditor no matter what happens. We'd rather have you dead than incapable.""
you undid my edit, claiming that it is unsourced. this is not true, as i am quoting directly from the sourced document that is called "Keeping Scientology Working". You may edit what i wrote, but the quote needs to stay in the article, because the quote is well-known and cited by critics all the time, especially the part about "We'd rather have you dead than incapable." A google search for this string reveals how often it has been cited.
I also think that it is rude for you to undo my edit without giving any valid reasons, because as i said, it is well sourced. On citizendium, behavior like this quickly leads to a lifetime ban. On wikipedia, its normal behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtilein (talk • contribs) 12:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem is, that you should not have reverted any one of my edits. You could have added one of those little notes that say that a citation is needed. I will give you another try to do the right thing. If you censor the information that i want to add to the article AGAIN, then i will consider this to be a clear sign that there will be no agreement here. I hate censorship on the internet, and i hate people that censor. And you would have other options than to censor this information. Kurtilein (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Michael Snow (attorney)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Michael Snow (attorney). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Snow (attorney). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
AFD
When closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitmixes, you deleted Hitmixes but you didn't delete the other listed article - The Cherrytree Sessions (Lady Gaga EP). Thanks, Dale 02:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Human Earth Animal Liberation Why Deleted?
Please help me understand on what grounds Human Earth Animal Liberation was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginzershop (talk • contribs) 05:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Earth Animal Liberation. Cirt (talk) 05:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Correction: Shop.Com deletion
Cirt, You seem to be referring to Shop.com, which is different than Shop.Com (note capital "C" in com). That entry says it was deleted by you on September 29 at 5:39. Could you please take a look at the Shop.Com entry again?
Bpops721 (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shop.Com was quite clear. Cirt (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Cirt, Thanks for your speedy response. Can you share any insight as to why Shop.Com does not meet your standards for notability? To be candid, with so many of its less notable competitors having entries - some of considerable length - the deletion seems arbitrary. And, it would help us understand your process for future entries. Bpops721 (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument here. Cirt (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you share any insight as to why Shop.Com does not meet your standards for notability? Do you see any valid points that we can possibly build on? Bpops721 (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would suggest working on a draft version in your userspace. Cirt (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cirt, Per your request, I've put a draft version of the SHOP.COM entry on my user page. Can you please review it at your convenience and provide feedback? Thank you. Bpops721 (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I've added nine sources to the SHOP.COM entry on my user page. Can you please review again? Thanks. Bpops721 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Cirt, to be clear, the references I added are not press releases. They are news articles from legitimate third party sources, including Time magazine, Real Simple, DM News, CNET and Internet Retailer. Bpops721 (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Anon edits from 65.29.104.210
Hi Cirt,
Thanks for leaving the messages with IP editor 65.29.104.210. Unfortunately, the IP continues to add controversial material and edit war, and so far hasn't engaged in discussions. I am going to reach out to him/her with some helpful tips, such as discussing issues and controversial edits on talk pages, using scholarly sources, and WP guidelines on what to include in lead paragraphs. Hopefully, it will be a productive engagement -- but if the editor continues to edit war then I may need admin assistance. Can you help or point me to an admin who can? Thanks in advance. Majoreditor (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Probably a report to WP:AIV or WP:ANI would be best in that case. Cirt (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind restoring this page? It appears to have been tacked onto Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitmixes and referred to as a non-notable EP, when it was released internationally through iTunes, Amazon MP3, and Borders, giving it some notability.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Has the album itself been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources? Cirt (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
67.70.155.140
It was last used by a long term vandal who has switched to another IP. 48 hours I don't think will cut it if he cycles back.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cirt, I notice you're were the responsible administrator in the deletion of Makedonsko Devojče and I would like to recreate this article. The AfD for it doesn't really look that conclusive to me. Only 4 people commented and out of those, only 2-3 said delete. I would guess that the article's content would indeed have generated plenty of edit warring between Bulgarian and Macedonian nationalists, but that isn't a reason to delete it. I have a strong hunch that it is a notable song from the Balkan peninsula and thus should have an article, even if encyclopaedic references are hard to find. Please don't just speedy delete this when I recreate it and give it a chance. Donama (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would suggest you create a version in a subpage of your userspace, perhaps at User:Donama/Sandbox. Cirt (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Question on when to report to UAA vs AIV
Cirt -- Hi. I am trying to get more involved and was looking at the Whoismarty Sockpuppet investigation and am trying to understand how things operate. I saw that you reported the user under Usernames for administrator attention. I would have reported them under Administrator intervention against vandalism due to the repeated addition of biased content. What made WP:UAA the place to report this user? Thanks for any insight you can offer. --Igoldste (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Either would have been appropriate, as the username was associated with the domain name of the website they were promoting, but you are probably right that AIV would have been better. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
National; Association of Government Communicators
Hi, what was your reason for deleting the NAGC article?
Thanks, --Joshuajfolk (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Nathan Eccleston
Hi - I originally nominated this entry AFD which was approved at the time. He made his professional debut last night in the match vs Arsenal. Any chance of the content of the deleted page please, so I can recreate and add a referenced section on his debut. This would then satisfy WP:ATH Steve-Ho (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Done, now at User:Zanoni/Nathan Eccleston. Cirt (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
apologies
i reverted it to edit in the proper cititation within the article when i got your message i am trying to put proper citation to confirm the statement, sorry for the misunderstainding Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Reply to issue of conflict of interest
I do not have a conflict of interest at all, last fall i was researching various countercultures within american society and found them quite an interesting group considering they got their start not five blocks from my dorm room. So no i am not a cult member trying to white wash criticism, in fact i have suggested adding criticism of the group in a complete restructuring of the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Twelve_Tribes_(New_religious_movement)#Proposing_outline_for_restructured_article Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to the party on the TT Article
Thank you for adding the header, we are currently working on sourcing stuff or deleting parts entirely but as our discussions on talk-page reveal its rather hard to find a neutral source on them Susan J Palmer is the only academic on them and the Media gets even more complicated. Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- ^ Urdang, Laurence (1986). -Ologies & -Isms. Gale Research Co. p. 502. ISBN 0810311968.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Wilson, Bryan R.; Jamie Cresswell (editors) (1999). New Religious Movements: Challenge and Response. Routledge. p. 18. ISBN 0415200504.
Being familiar with the phrase 'Once a Catholic, always a Catholic', we should not be surprised that the Church of Scientology considers all those who have ever done one of their courses to be a Scientologist, and counts them as such even if they have not been in touch with the movement for years - even, presumably, if they are among the movement's most virtiolic opponents. - Eileen Barker
{{cite book}}:|first=has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Ortega, Tony (June 24, 2008). "Scientology's Crushing Defeat: A previously unpublished saga of an $8 million check". The Village Voice. Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC. p. 8. Retrieved 2008-10-18.
Scientology often claims to have six million members worldwide, a number derided by critics, who put the membership much lower, usually less than 100,000. In a videotaped deposition, Scientology president Heber Jentszch admitted several years ago that the six million number does not represent current membership but the total amount of people who have ever, since the founding in 1954, taken even a single Scientology course.