User talk:Cirt

WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia.
Nominations: Infant school (talk | history | start review) • Murali Vijay (talk | history | start review) • Mafeje affair (talk | history | start review) • September 1983 Laws (talk | history | start review) • Rikishi (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Mary McLeod Bethune • Kowloon Walled City • Gettysburg Cyclorama • Joe Rice • John W. Campbell • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013)
Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

AFD/T • T-7 • AFDO • AIV • RFUB • UAA • RFPP • PER • CSD • AB • FAR • FAC urgents • TFAR • Google Search Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Other neat portal ideas for longer term

• Longer term ideas to think about from other portals:

1. Events section, like: "On this day" e.g., Biography, Religion, United States; "Selected anniversaries" e.g., War; "Calendar" at Holidays. Interesting idea of "Month selected anniversaries", at Oregon.
2. Model intro with some rotating images, after Portal:Oregon, Portal:Indiana, Portal:Iceland/Intro and Portal:Philosophy of science/Intro.
3. Revamp DYK sections w/ free-use images, model after Portal:Criminal justice and Portal:Oregon.
4. Portal palettes at User:RichardF/Palettes/Portals. Comparable color schemes can be developed from the various hue lists at User:RichardF/Palettes. Also see Portal:Box-header.
5. If there are a lot of categories, then categories section to 2 columns, like in Portal:Indiana.

   Also take some time to check out style/formatting at Portal:Indiana Cirt (talk)

Note to self

Citation model

The Simpsons (season 3)

Body text in-cite

<ref name="REFNAME">[[#LASTNAME|LASTNAME]], p. PAGENUMBER</ref>

References section

(reference template from WP:CIT)

*<cite id=LASTNAME>REFERENCE</cite>

Dispatch

Cirt, Awadewit suggested that you might be interested in writing a Signpost Dispatch article on Featured portals (the only area of featured content we haven't covered). Sample previous articles are at {{FCDW}}. We've covered:

• Featured content overview
• Peer review
• Did you know
• Featured lists
• Good articles
• Featured sounds
• Featured topics
• Images
• TFA
• And Featured articles many times: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-21/Dispatches, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-10-13/Dispatches

None of them start out looking like that: if an editor initially just chunks in some text, many others chip in to tweak it up to Signpost standards. For example, someone wrote this, which Karanacs, Royalbroil and I turned into this, so if you just chunk in some text as a start, others can help finish it off. Another example, I put in this outline, and Karanacs brought it up to this. Other editors have written almost complete and clean Dispatches without much need for other editing. If you're interested, please weigh in and coordinate at WT:FCDW In case you're interested, you could just begin sandboxing something at WP:FCDW/Portals and pop over to WT:FCDW to leave a note when you're ready for others to help out. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Will mull this over and most likely draft something up. Cirt (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2108 (UTC)

Razzies progress

• 15th Golden Raspberry Awards through 29th Golden Raspberry Awards = reformatting process done.
  • Note: Going to have to go back and model these after the modifications made subsequently to 29th Golden Raspberry Awards.
• 29th Golden Raspberry Awards - so far only one expanded with sourcing research. (WP:FL)
• Razzie Award for Worst New Star = reformatting process done, next to use Talk:Razzie Award for Worst Picture as model to reformat other pages in Category:Golden Raspberry Awards by category (with subsection breaks by decade)

Cirt (talk)

Nomination/closing dates on AFDs

Per this edit, the template there should be filled out with the nomination date, not the closing date... or if the closing date is more important then the template should be changed so it reads closed instead of nominated. Whichever. DreamGuy (talk)

Replied at user's talk. Cirt (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Bart Sells His Soul/GA1

Hi, Cirt. As the nominator of Bart Sells His Soul I think you should be aware of the exchanges at: my Talk page; Scorpion0422's; and mine - as far as I can see, Scorpion0422 is more or less asking me to fail the article. Do you feel the same way as he apparently does? --Philcha (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. --05:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

PS I suggest you work through the exercises at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a (of FAC - "engaging, even brilliant prose"), skipping the MOS-specific section. --Philcha (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In the commentary for the episode, the producers say they originally wanted to use Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven as the song at the beginning. I just realized that this isn't in the article, is there a reason, or was that just missed? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to hear about the edit-war, as it's a fun article and the content and referencing were already in decent shape at the start of the review. As you requested, I'll close as a "fail" on grounds of edit war. --Philcha (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC) On second thoughts, I'll wait a few days to see whether the situation improves - if someone continues edit-warring for that long, I guess you know what to do. It seems silly to let this invalidate the work we've both put in so far. --Philcha (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're happy with the way I handled the review, feel free to ask me to review it again when the situation has cleared up, as I'll have the advantage of knowing the territory. OTOH I'll quite understand if you think the article will benefit from another pair of eyes. --Philcha (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User LarsLionheartLeBeau

Hi I see you have warned this user multiple times for adding in trivia sections to the pages of South Park episodes. He has continued to do this, adding a bunch of trivia sections to multiple episodes. Not sure what should be done in terms of warning this user since he has already been warned by you.

Oh yeah his contribs list [1] Strongsauce (talk)

Van Heusen Music

Van Heusen Music (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has requested unblocking through unblock-en-l. I agreed to unblock him if he would agree to add no more spamming links to Van Heusen's website and review the guidelines regarding conflict of interest. I will monitor him in the future, at least occasionally. Fred Talk 21:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

All users who ask for an account on unblock-en-l have been blocked, usually due to a range block or schoolblock. Generally the assumption is made that they are not the principle vandal, but obviously they can be; so their activity needs to be monitored. This particular person claims to be Van Heusen's nephew, and he may be, or might simply be a fan. In my opinion, the question is whether he will use the account in an appropriate way, not whether he ought to have an account at all. Generally people who are the subject of articles, or employees charged with public relations for an organization, or even public relations companies hired to monitor pages, can have account, provided they edit appropriately. Please see User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Unblocked_users and User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Created_users for examples of typical behavior of unblocked and created users; only a small percentage engages in, or returns to the behavior that occasioned the original block. Fred Talk 01:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, continued monitoring of unblocked and created accounts is part of the work of those who monitor unblock-en-l. Feel free to block him yourself if he reverts to spamming or other grossly inappropriate behavior. Fred Talk 01:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I probably should have made more of an issue of his user name; I apologize for that oversight. Fred Talk 01:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would rather let it go at this point. If he becomes a regular editor, I think we might ask him to ask for a change of name. Most likely, he'll just make a few edits and they go inactive. Fred Talk 01:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Portal

I'm correct the cats, contents, wikipedia, portals, articles, on pt wikipedia. Thanks Jurema Oliveira (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

pt:Categoria:!Portais, please see my constributons. Jurema Oliveira (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am doing the pt:Categoria:Wikipedia administração. I'm translating to put in the right place. Jurema Oliveira (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Olá Cirt. Someone had made the page with another name, I want to do the page with the correct name so I created the second name, not to move in the article that was already done, so end to translate the page with correct name I propose the portal page. Did not want to change the name of the article that was done because someone could not agree, then did another page. Thank you for your attention. Jurema Oliveira (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

However you knew, thank you for stepping in and blocking Dalwadi6. That helps defuse a nasty situation. There are a few others who seem determined to follow in his footsteps, unfortunately; perhaps your action will serve as a warning to them. We'll see. Best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

France

You have made the decision to fully protect the France article indefinitely, therefore I can not make a change to that article. I have proposed a change to the France article on its talk page. (Talk:France#Energy_independence.) Would you please make that change for me, if you find it fit. Thank you. TheFreeloader (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

TV Guide's 100 Best Episodes of All Time

No prob. I'm actually adding it to several of the eps from that article (which I'm going through right now): Ones from Seinfeld, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Friends, Buffy, The Sopranos, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightscream (talk • contribs)

Ah, thanks. Cirt (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Jehochman suggested that I also talk to you about the Boothroyd article and invite you to work on it. I don't see a need to invite specific users to do so (it is a wiki after all), but I'd be very happy if you would help out with it. Also, thanks for the pointer about the new article. I'll take a look at the sources there. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the sources you mainly list are offline. Can you possibly email me scans of the relevant sections or pointers to where they can be located online? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Jet article (please protect)

Please protect the Jet article, as people appear to be removing cited genre sources, and adding 'alternative', while removing sourced genre styles like 'Hard rock, pop, american rock, aussie rock', if you could continue to protect it, that'd be ace. --Papermanjack (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A Favour

Hey, if you're still around would you mind looking at this article and its' talk page? Thanks, t'shael ^mindmeld 08:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

G'day Cirt

now you're a wise and clever chap, right? Fancy offering any advice here? :-) (see the talk page too...) Privatemusings (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)it's a liddle article at the centre of the paid editing broo ha ha thing....

Bart Sells His Soul

Both User:Scorpion0422 and I think the article is ready to be nominated for GA again. The edit war seems to have stopped now, as well. Do you want to submit it now or wait longer? TheLeftorium 20:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. By the way, I will get the production information for your season two articles next week. :) TheLeftorium 06:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection of Eurovision Song Contest

Hi Cirt. You semiprotected Eurovision Song Contest because of a request at WP:RFPP. You left the summary vandalism, but there does not seem to have bin any vandalism to the article after it last protection ran out. Could you take another look at this. Rettetast (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiple different IPs were adding blatantly unsourced information, and admittedly unconfirmed rumors. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is unsourced info, but it is not vandalism. This was good faith IPs. And for the record they have not even bin reverted. We don't use semi-protection to get rid of irritating anonymous users that does not know the inner working of wikipedia policies. Please reconsider. Rettetast (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's see if the article improves with the semi-protection during the time period protected. Cirt (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What will that prove? The protection goes against og protection policy and should be unprotected, and why are you being so defensive? Please respond here. Rettetast (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you raised any of these points with the individual that initially brought the WP:RFPP request? Cirt (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not looked at the RFPP report. I saw something i disagreed with and are trying to discuss it with the admin that took the decision to protect, and not just reverting the protection. Rettetast (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I would first like to hear what the individual has to say that did make the WP:RFPP report. Cirt (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am getting nowhere here. You have to be able to discuss your own actions yourself. I am just going to unprotect. Rettetast (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please wait, I will post a notice to the original editor that made the request. Cirt (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll wait. Rettetast (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[2] Notice posted to editor that made the request. Cirt (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi I'm the original editor who made the request to semi-protect the page. The reason I requested this, is firstly a few unknown IPs have been adding un-sourced context to the article. But the main worrying one is that one IP user emailed me personally with a hurl of abuse in regards to the "Big 4" section of the Eurovision article, of which I updated. (The information included details about Italy being given automatic finalist qualification if they were to return to the contest, as they are part of the "Big 5". The details were also backed-up with sourced information, which shown valid evidence of the ESC Executive Supervisor, Mr Svante Stockselius, confirming this fact about Italy and the Big 5.) The IP user who emailed me with abuse was arguing and saying I was talking bulls**t - even though the added info was sourced. The way this IP user behaved proves the facts that [A] An act of vandalism; and [B] Abusive IP user. So please could you look into semi-protection of the article. Kindest Regards; Gareth [aka (Pr3st0n (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC))]

Unsourced information should be reverted and dealt with by communicating with the users. There was only a few edits in the days after the protection was lifted. That can easily be dealt with. One abusive editor/IP can be blocked. That is no reason to semiprotect. Cirt, If you won't lift the protection, I'll ask for more opinions at WP:AN. Rettetast (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rettetast (talk · contribs), and I will unprotect. Thank you, Rettetast, for waiting for a response back from Pr3st0n (talk · contribs), I'm a bit more comfortable with it now. Cirt (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Rettetast (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. :) Cirt (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It might not be as easy as we think to block the IP user. Edits made are shown in the history section; and their IP address given also. However, the IP user who emailed didn't exactly say which IP user they were; all that was written in their email to me was the email heading BIG 5 on WIKIPEDIA and then a hurl of abuse about my addition to this subject about Italy. Is there a way of finding out which IP address the email sender is assigned to? I'd appreciate any advice as to how to deal with the email sender; and finding their IP so that we can look into blocking them. (Pr3st0n (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

Ignore it. Rettetast (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Chance of Undeletion?

A while ago, (18 December 2008) you deleted the article Hank green. The consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank green was that Hank Green could not be considered a "notable" person. Quickly, I'd like to refute this and have this matter resolved. Hank Green is easily considered notable, following the guidelines under WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC

WP:BIO

Satisfying Basic Criteria Hank Green has had over twenty articles written about him and several of his projects (Brotherhood 2.0, Project for Awesome, and Ecogeek). To name a few:
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
(A list of articles mentioning Hank Green has helpfully been provided by JoinTheMadVender, at User:JoinTheMadVender/Sandbox#References that you can easily peruse for further examples.) This easily satisfies the basic criteria (he has been "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject", Wikipedia:BIO#Basic_criteria).

Entertainers Hank Green can be considered to have "a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." Hank Green's channels on YouTube have both had thousands of views and subscribers ("theecogeek": subscribers, 3795; channel views, 11058. "vlogbrothers": subscribers, 84936). His and his brothers videos have collectively been watched over 20 million times. There are over 20, 000 members of the site Nerdfighters, which Hank Green started for fans. There are over 39, 500 members of his other fansite, My Pants.

Creative professionals Hank Green is both an editor and a journalist. He is the editor (as well as the sole creator) of the extremely popular environmentalist site "EcoGeek", which was heralded as "the leading blog on green science and technology" by The Nature Conservancy. He also writes environmentally-friendly articles on EcoGeek (along with the other long-term writers), which are among the most viewed on the site, that broadcast information about all things green. He also, often times, wrote articles for Mental floss.

WP:MUSIC

Hank Green can also be considered notable as a musician. He satisfies qualification #2 on Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles ("has had a charted single or album on any national music chart") by having his album "So Jokes" clock in at #22 in Top Revenue Sales on the Billboard. (Cited here: Billboard.com)

So, please consider undeleting Hank green. Below is my reasoning as stated in Talk:Hank_Green, reprinted for your convenience, for the return of the article.

Call for the Reopening for the Hank Green Page

I believe that there is sufficient notable information on Hank Green to warrant the reopening of his page. I still don't fully understand why, if the information was insufficient, Hank Green's page wasn't simply marked as "stub". The redirection to "John Green (author)" is invaluable to those looking to learn more about Hank Green, because the article only mentions Hank Green in swift passing.
It seems Hank Green's standalone "notability" has also been called into question. First, I will mention his incredibly large following on the video sharing website "YouTube" (which, by the way, is not as isolated a community as some believe). It is unfair to understate the value of his "Project for Awesome" (P4A), which encourages people to spread the word on worthy charities through the internet. This project has encouraged donations to hundreds of charities.
Hank Green is the sole founder of EcoGeek, which (along with its sister companies Carectomy, Envirovore, and Envirowonk) is a large information blog, filled with articles on all things environmentally-friendly. It is "the leading blog on green science and technology", even, according to The Nature Conservancy. EcoGeek has been nominated for a plethora of awards as well. Also, notably, he was a writer for Mental_floss. This is an accomplishment within itself.
These are all things that Hank Green had achieved as of 20 December 2008, and yet, it seems not to be accepted enough to warrant a Wikipedia page (not even a "stub"!), which is, I think, outrageous. Fortunately, he has achieved much more, as of 28 May 2009. So, in addition to the following list:

- Conceiver of the "Project for Awesome", a project dedicated to informing individuals of charities in need of financial support
- Founder, runner, and editor of EcoGeek.com, which has been heralded as the "leading blog on green science and technology"
- Writer for the popular magazine Mental floss
- Co-initiator of the Brotherhood 2.0 Project, which remain among of the most viewed videos of all time on YouTube
- One of several writers for EcoGeek.com

Hank Green has accomplished even more. He has now co-founded a record company, DFTBA Records, which has released his album "So Jokes". "So Jokes" entered the Billboard's Top 20 in February 2009 for Top Revenue Generating albums sold through paid downloads and paid streams. He has been on tour, the Tour de Nerdfighters, and has had several concerts. He was released music videos for his singles "It All Makes Sense At The End" and "DFTBA".
And let's go back to the whole "DFTBA Records" thing for a moment: the record company has signed more than fifteen artists to its label (including Chameleon Circuit, Dave Days, Julia Nunes, Alan Lastufka, Tom Milsom, and Charlie McDonnell). It has its own forum for discussion of its artists (which is more than I can say for many, much more prominent, record companies), a radio show, and a "street team".
So, he's a record producer, singer/songwriter, environmentalist, and vlogger? Well, that seems pretty "notable" to me.

Thank you for reading this, and I hope this can be resolved. (And sorry this is so lengthy! I'm a talker. :P)
-- Madi,Madithekilljoy (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As you would see if you clicked the link presented, that directed you to User:JoinTheMadVender/Sandbox#References, you would see that many, well-known, widely circulated publications, such as Publisher's Weekly, The New York Times, The National Geographic Green Guide, The Guardian, and The Scientific American have published articles regarding Hank Green, and he has been covered in national programs such as the CBS News. He has been covered extensively by the The Missoulian, one of the more widely circulated newspapers in Montana, which regarded him as the "most famous man in Missoula". How can he not be considered notable enough?

"A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content."

Hank Green satisfies criteria for three of the more "subject-specific" guidelines. I went into detail about the first two; the third is "Web Content". Many nationally and globally circulated publications have used Hank Green's website, Ecogeek, as a source. These include, and are by no means limited to: The New York Times, The Guardian, NPR, US News, The Huffington Post, and NewWest.net. Madithekilljoy (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Linking to YouTube video to be used as a source for something only Youtube could provide with any remote accuracy (such as the average number of views for a specific channel) does not change the viability of any other references. Madithekilljoy (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, just because some of the links don't meet your approval doesn't mean that the remaining links aren't substantial enough to warrant a WIkipedia article. Some of the sources are absolutely irrefutable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madithekilljoy (talk • contribs) 21:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It was suggested that a person who questions the deletion of an article try to discuss the deletion with the party who committed the deletion in the first place before going to the deletions review to solve the matter more rapidly, as I have done. Madithekilljoy (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I did draft an example Hank Green page with aid from other Wikipedia users, back in May: User:Madithekilljoy/Sandbox. Madithekilljoy (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I will do that. Thank you very much. Madithekilljoy (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Six Sigma Pricing

Hi, could you supply a copy of this article per WP:DEL? Thanks. 72.208.254.202 (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Beam Me Up

I see you have protected Beam Me Up. Could you redirect it to the disambiguation page Beam me up please? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"Faster than a speeding bullet ... ". Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Cirt (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hatnotes

Please read WP:HAT#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous as an example of improper use of hatnotes. Those "Pelham" articles are each disambiguated by (YEAR film) or by (novel). They are, therefore, not ambiguous and should *not* have hatnotes. Any ambiguous titles Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, for instance, should be redirecting to the disambiguation page anyway making these hatnotes unnecessary across the board. If you find any ambiguous titles redirecting to a disambiguated one, you should redirect them to the disambiguation page. 24.149.47.30 (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)