User talk:Cirt

WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia.
Nominations: September 1983 Laws (talk | history | start review) • Paul George (talk | history | start review) • John Sterling (American football) (talk | history | start review) • Frank Butler (American football) (talk | history | start review) • Jug Bennett (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Mary McLeod Bethune • Kowloon Walled City • 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 • T-2 • AFDO • AIV • RFUB • UAA/CAT • 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

• MakeRef

independent reliable secondary sources

• User:Citation bot/use

• {{findsources}}

Cite templates

<ref>{{cite book| last =  | first =  | authorlink =  | coauthors =  | title =  | publisher =  | year =  | location =  | page =  | url =  | doi =  | id =    | isbn = }}</ref>

<ref>{{cite news| last =  | first =  | coauthors =  | title =  | work =  | language =  | publisher =  | page =  | date =  | url =  | accessdate =  }}</ref>

<ref>{{cite journal|last =| first=| authorlink=| coauthors=|title=|journal=|volume=|issue=|page=|publisher=|location = | date = | url = | doi = | id = | accessdate = }}</ref>

<ref>{{cite web| last =  | first =  | authorlink =  | coauthors =  | title =  | work =  | publisher =  | date =  | url =  | format =  | doi =  | accessdate =  }}</ref>

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>

Different model

• Template:Citation
• Template:Harvnb
• Example: <ref name="REFNAME">{{Harvnb|LAST|YEAR|p=PAGENUMBER}}</ref>

See models at The General in His Labyrinth and Mario Vargas Llosa.

More info. Cirt (talk)

More at Wikipedia:Harvard citation template examples.

And Template talk:Harvard citation no brackets.

Cirt (talk)

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)

Talkback

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

• And another. Swarm^(Talk)

Deadstar Assembly

I would like to see about bringing up for debate the un-deletion of this group, as they were proven notable and valid in the past, and can only provide even more proof to support the fact upon request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Things that are in the article such as their referenced inclusion on soundtracks for both movies and video games, as well as various third party articles dedicated about the group alone should qualify them. But just in case it is not, please let me know what else can be included to ensure their re-addition.

Just an outline regarding their status:

They are listed as a national touring act in both Pollstar and Ticketmaster.

They were featured in the following BIG MEDIA - Broadcast, Film, Video Games, Radio, Satellite Radio, Online Radio

Project Gotham Racing 3

"Picture This" Movie

MTVs Punk'd episode #301

MTVs Making The Video - Goo Goo Dolls

MTVs NEXT

they've Had Significant Radio Play Internationally. I can provide the Title Codes as assigned by ASCAP

Britain Norway USA Canda

FMQB # 5 Most Added with 46 Adds (Friday Morning Quarterback - FMQB.COM)

CMJ Loud Rock # 6 Most Added with 59 Adds

"Killing Myself Again" added to AOL Radio

"Killing Myself Again" added in Video Rotation on Much Music Channel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadstar Assembly (2nd nomination). I would suggest working on a proposed draft version in a subpage of your userspace. Cirt (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to do that, is there any link you can point me in the direction of that would explain it to me? Also, it would seem the original debate was way off the mark with its claims on the criteria, as they successfully defended those points over a year ago as shown in the outline posted above (in fact they had to REMOVE some references as they were told they listed too many), and only have more coverage since then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 18:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You can work on it, at User:Elblots/Deadstar Assembly. Cirt (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I started, but would it be possible for you to copy over the old wiki page to this one so I can just work from that and add/reinstate the things that were on the article originally, as this would greatly expedite the process on both ends? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for merging the old article with the new one. As you can see, I have added a few more valid references to the article. If you will please let me know what else needs to be done to prove notability I will make sure it gets done immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 19:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of those sources fail WP:RS, are not actually secondary sources, and/or fail WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how extensive coverage specifically about the group in print magazines are not valid, especially when providing referenced links to the specific publications (even one with them on the COVER). And what of the inclusion of the band on soundtracks? (A Major video game title as referenced on its OFFICIAL web site, a motion picture that topped ratings with millions of viewers the night of its airing, MTV shows - as heard on the samples posted from their official sources). If i were to provide the ASCAP info of the groups radio play, would that assist? (I don't ever see those things posted on any other bands entry). The band have headlined their own national tours, as listed on ticketmaster and pollstar. They are also on multiple independent labels in various countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.176.186 (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also point out that although not all articles listed are available by direct reference, they should still fall under valid status via wikipedias own Verifiability policy as listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Access_to_sources#Access_to_sources . All articles are referenced in a way that anyone with access to the archive can EASILY find them, although not directly via online sites (however MOST are), but issue and page #s are listed where applicable.

Is there any update on this review? Info is being added every day that has been showing increased validity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 19:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of the cites used appear to not be from independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As discussed in our original deletion review, the publications listed ARE in fact viable sources, not run by or associated with the group at all in any way shape or form. Maybe not US based, but magazines such as Zillo (which incidentally has been in rotation since 1992), De-Evolution, and Orkus are in large rotation in EU and the band has been featured extensively in them, several times in some cases...as referenced by the requirements of Wikipedia. I can post scans of the articles if that would help, but I was told last time that image scans of an article do not qualify as a valid reference source. Blog sites such as Blabbermouth.net are run by a MAJOR music label (in that particular case, "Roadrunner Records"), and as linked in the article, the group have gotten coverage on there on numerous occasions. The coverage in R.A.G. magazine is also non-trivial, but some argue about the validity of it as a source (as it is sometimes considered regional depending on which moderator reviews it...I've seen it go both ways). Again, all of these articles (ALL media mentions listed in fact, are properly referenced so it can be reviewed).

I also would like to know how the groups inclusion on 2 Major soundtracks do not qualify them? One is for a video game (Project Gotham Racing 3) that even lists the band on its official site, and the other is for a Major motion picture (Picture This) which also lists the band as a contributor of the soundtrack.

The band does also get national radio airplay, and as stated earlier I can provide the ASCAP data if required (but again, seeing how I've seen no other band on Wikipedia require such measures...I don't see why you'd need it).

Them being listed as a Premium member on Vampire Freaks is a status set by the site and the site alone. It can not be bought, and it can not be self made. Basically, the site agrees that the group is notable enough to be listed as premium by their standards. If you are not familiar with the site, its a Social site, similar to Myspace, geared directly for the Genre that Deadstar Assembly are associated with. Review the site yourself if you'd like, and you will find a list of bands, but only those verified by the community itself to be premium are listed as such.

Although not a media source, there is also a long list of major equipment companies that endorse the group. (again, each one referenced)

Their music videos are on rotation on various internet outlets such as AOL Radio, and also have thousands of views (and more than 1000 non-band submitted videos) on youtube and other hosting sites. A simple search will validate that.

They are globally distributed via various outlets (again, a simple search will validate that), as well as on all major online music sources in the US (Amazon, FYE, iTunes). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 06:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but the majority of sources are just links to things like myspace, youtube, and even other wikipedia articles - all inappropriate and fail WP:RS. Those all need to be removed. Cirt (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I shall remove the Myspace and Wiki entries, but those are very little in the scope of things. Dockyard, Pure, Zillo, Project Gotham Racing 3, Rimfrost, Darlklands, Orkus etc etc etc...are all notable sources, as has been discussed in our PREVIOUS deletion review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 16:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

All "offending" links have been removed par your request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 23:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there any progress being made in this debate? If you would review the sources, I believe you will find them all notable (as was proven in the bands first review for deletion over a year ago). Not to mention their inclusion in soundtracks on top of it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 17:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Try formatting all of the citations, using citation templates listed here. That will make it easier to evaluate. Cirt (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of TripleA

I have a hard time understanding the decision to delete the TripleA (computer game) Wikipedia entry. Both as a decision by itself - games are part of popular culture - as well as in the context of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_video_games list. Putting it even more simple: If "TripleA" is googled, the projects page lists as first hit.

Maybe the reason for deletion can be specified a little more. Is there any doubt that the game exists? Or that it is part of popular culture by means of an active community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErnieBommel (talk • contribs) 15:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The statistics for the entry also indicate it was being accessed frequently. How do I know that? I have the statistics of how many people have been redirected from the Wikipedia entry to the pages link within it. That the game exists is easily verified using these links too. The time between deletion request and deletion was rather short too. If an open source game which has a constant fan community for more than 6 years now is not worth being listed, there is a need to explain why commercial games far younger than that are. A boardgame which is very similar to TripleA is listed at Wikipedia without a single "peer-reviewed" article cited either. Newspapers are not peer-reviewed.

If I put all this together, the decision seems somewhat fishy to me. I am not speculating about any influence having been used yet, but its hard not to.

It has been argued that due to the fact that the game is not listed at Moby games, its entry should be removed. I conclude that being listed there justifies an entry then, and will thus add the game there.

I took a copy of the deletion discussion and will make it available to the the TripleA community, in order to see if I am the only one having a bad feeling about it or not.

Ernie Bommel —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErnieBommel (talk • contribs) 15:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TripleA (computer game). Cirt (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A 2 vs 3 vote is called a consensus here, and justifies deletion within a weeks time? Interesting. Guess I am going to file a deletion request for the Axis and Allies article, just to see how that one is defended - since it does not stand up to any of the critics pointed at the TripleA entry. Also would have expected a little more respect within among people involved in open source projects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.99.175.22 (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I too am surprised that the Triple-A article was deleted. I think the deletions have NOT been in the spirit of wiki's policies. I do not think that the deletion and notability policies are there to justify deletions such as these. The Triple-A game engine IS notable by the simple fact that it has attracted a large and active community. The game engine itself includes many popular games, and the community has produced quite a large variety of mods. There are active lobbies where anytime of day there is no shortage of people looking to play 2-6 player live games. There is a ladder, there have been tournaments, there are alot of people interested in this open sourced game engine. Wiki's Notability Policy is somewhat subjective though. So I might understand the reasoning behind having a community consensus determine an articles worth to the international internet community (wiki isn't just for dedicated Wikipedians... anybody using a search engine constitutes the community served by wiki). The way the deletions were done here is a farce! It is a joke to say that a handful of people constitute a community consensus. I saw one article deleted with just 2 people involved in the deletion discussion. The discussion itself is over in a week and the decision is made willy nilly by those few who happen to know the article is up for deletion. Anyone can put an article up for deletion. I absolutely feel that these recent deletions are NOT in keeping with the spirit of wiki's policies. The worth of wiki is diminished by these hasty and unfounded deletions! AWhiteElk (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Another consideration as to the error of deleting Triple-A's article... The user who put the Triple-A article up for deletion clearly didn't understand what Triple-A is. That user states one justification for the deletion is that there already is a paragraph describing Triple-A in the Axis and Allies article. But Triple-A is NOT an Axis and Allies clone. Triple-A is an open source GAME ENGINE. Triple-A comes with a variety of playable games, but there are NO games released with it that are clone to Axis and Allies. The games that resemble Axis and Allies are created by the community and are just a few of many games that can be downloaded separately. A single paragraph tagged onto an Axis and Allies article is no justification towards deleting the Triple-A article based on duplicity. AWhiteElk (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest working on a draft page, within your userspace. Cirt (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Would this draft page be for the purpose of creating a 'corrected' version of the deleted article? Would you please restore that article to my userspace so I might better understand the reason for deletion? I'm having a hard time understanding the notability issue here. On further WP research it is still unclear to me. I suppose I'm an Inclusionist ;~p AWhiteElk (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Another question... Doesn't the fact that the Triple-A game engine comes up 4th in a Google search speak towards notability? Triple-A has clearly sparked some notable interest to be rated so highly. Triple-A Googled AWhiteElk (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

why the hell have you deleted the entry for the open source project "triplea"?

the game not simply a clone of axis and allies it is a framework for games with similar mechanics but it has a community and i would say its safe bet that more game of triplea are played every day then games of axis and allies. if you do not undo your action you are NOT contributing to wikipedia you are subverting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubernaut (talk • contribs) 04:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: Moved this comment to same subsection on a theme. Cirt (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, in response to userfication request - please see User:AWhiteElk/TripleA (computer game). Cirt (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Cirt. I see the reference section is light. Rather than a deletion action, perhaps a verifiability option would have been best? Water under the bridge but food for future admin thought? As to verifiability, would you think SourceForge would qualify notabilty? AWhiteElk (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring triplea although i still cant find it other by going directly to white elks page. i do have another random question i couldn't figure out how to get answered i guess i will try to put that on my talk page with that help me link you provided, but i thought i'd mention it here in case i dont do it correctly. thansk again.ubernaut (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That article is only there so we can work on it. Once we address the notability issue to the deleting admins satisfaction, we can request for it to be restored to the public view. AWhiteElk (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears the whole "Computer versions" paragraph within the Axis and Allies boardgame article has been deleted by you, Cirt. Since such a paragraph is standard for all comparable major boardgames (like Risk, Diplomacy, Monopoly), I am starting to wonder about your motivation. Can you explain how these actions are meant to be in the spirit and interest of the Wikipedia community? It is hard to interpret this as something else as some personal crusade against TripleA. But that would mean abuse of your status. TripleA is not Axis and Allies, but it definitely is of interest to people enjoying Axis and Allies. It also appears the TripleA Supply Depot has been locked as a link. Based on what? I am probably not diplomatic, but neither are your actions. And anyways, this is not about me after all. I should add that the deletion was partly justified by the fact that TripleA was already mentioned within the Computer Versions paragraph of the Axis and Allies boardgame article. The same paragraph that got deleted now. --ErnieBommel (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not remove any particular paragraph. You are mistaken. Please see the user draft version, that is linked to, above. Cirt (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe he was speaking of your Feb 15th edit (rm unsourced) to the Axis and Allies article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_%26_Allies&diff=prev&oldid=344268888 AWhiteElk (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes. That was wholly unsourced material. Should not be restored, unless properly sourced, per WP:BURDEN. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep I understand the need for ref's there. But question the deletion approach. From WP:BURDEN "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." That first paragraph you deleted contains a game that it is listed in the articles "See Also" section. Following that link I see that it has it's own fully referenced wiki article. Other options... , { {unreferencedsection} }, { {refimprove} }, { {unreferenced} }. I believe that hasty deletions harm WP's credibility and usefulness. I can expound on this as requested. Why take destructive routes which serve to alienate would-be editors and readers when there are perfectly appropriate constructive options available? 67.183.211.117 AWhiteElk (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to copy the removed (unsourced) text to the talk page, and work on it there if you like. :) Cirt (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

LoL thanks buddy. I pondered ref editing it, but I still struggle at whats credible, reliable, accepted. Got my hands full trying to learn how to get TripleA re-listed. No comments on the rest... again? AWhiteElk (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruna Ferraz

There were no comments of any kind on this when it was relisted. I don't think this should have been closed with only 2 days of actual discussion.Horrorshowj (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a clear consensus to delete, after being open for 10 days of discussion. Cirt (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Thank you

Feel free, something I'm not great at myself... J Milburn (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Massimo Introvigne reference

The source used[1] refers to Massimo as one of the "leading new religious movements scholars in the world". Massimo Introvigne appears regularly as a lecturer at NRM-related conferences in the United States and Europe, as well as in print. He is the head of CESNUR. His entry on the list had been deleted along with quite a few others, so I was just restoring it with a citation. • Astynax ^talk 21:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. :) Cirt (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

South Park Season 1 FT

I think the first season of South Park is ready for FT! As you were a participant, and will be listed as a co-nominator, I wanted to bring this discussion to your attention before I officially nominated it. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 00:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• I saw you took yourself off the list of contributors to the Season 1 FT. I know you didn't get to work on the individual articles very much, but you basically started the whole topic drive, so I had been planning on listing you as a co-nominator. Are you sure you don't want to be listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunter Kahn (talk • contribs)

Added self back, thanks! :) Cirt (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Glad to see it. We wouldn't be ready to nominate season one right now if not for your efforts! — Hunter Kahn 22:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Glass House Bistro

When you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The glass house bistro, you apparently deleted the page The glass house bistro, but failed to notice that the page had been moved during the discussion to a new page titled The Glass House, Scarborough. The new page has not been deleted, even though the result of the AFD discussion was delete. Can you please address this oversight? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

J-Ethinomics

Hi, you deleted the subject article per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J-Ethinomics. EthicsforMedia was bundled with the AfD after my initial nomination and was not deleted after you closed the AfD. Please revisit. Thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Highway (C.O.P.S.)

Please undelete so that we can merge and redirect as even the nominator suggested. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There was no reliably sourced content cited to independent reliable secondary sources, so nothing to merge. As for redirect, feel free to do so as an editorial decision, post AFD! :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The wording of the initial sentence would be useful for merging purposes to the main article. There is no need for the edit history to be hidden. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Should not be too hard to come up with alternate wording - cited to independent reliable secondary sources - as opposed to cited, to, um, no sources whatsoever. :P Cheers, Cirt (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be much easier, convenient to go with what was in the article. Because the article was not a hoax or libelous and because we have a redirect location, there is no need for the edit history to remain unavailable. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We cannot prove whether or not as to the factual accuracy of the article, as it was not sourced properly. Therefore we cannot say one way or the other. Cirt (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The opening line simply explaining the character can be accurately sourced from the show, which we can watch videos of and which counts as a reliable primary source. We can verify it was a toy as well, by looking at a picture of it (our eyes don't lie on this one). Generally speaking, when a redirect location exists, we just redirect with the edit history intact. We only delete the edit history when it is libelous, a copy vio, or a hoax. Please note that I am only requesting this on such ones as the above that are significant to the show and worthy of mention in the main article, i.e. only in the AfDs in which I personally commented. I avoided commenting in the ones that do not have multiple appearances or that do not appear in the show, comic, and toy line. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is all time you could spend actually researching the subject matter and the character itself, in order to avoid violating WP:OR and using primary sources, and instead relying upon independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

For citation of basic facts like the toy and show appearances, the primary source is most reliable. And again, there is no real need for the edit history to be deleted. Like I said, I am only requesting it on the notable ones, such as this. Per WP:PRESERVE we do delete that which could potentially be better sourced later or that which is worded well enough for a move elsewhere even if the reference template can be added after merging the description. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no. If it were sourced material to independent reliable secondary sources, it would be another matter entirely and I would be more than happy to do so. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet, there is no actual reason or purpose for it to be deleted. The show is reliable for its opening and closing credits for revealing who played as who and for brief plot summaries. The official list of Oscar winners (the primary source) is the most reliable source for a list of Oscar winners. For the purpose of a brief merge, the most reliable source is the show and toy themselves. Where the whole concept of original research and secondary sources comes into play is in balancing the article as a whole, i.e. in sourcing the development and reception sections, but for the plot summary, obviously the work of fiction is the most reliable source. And in the larger sense, admins only need to delete that which we must protect the public from or ourselves for legal reasons. If a redirect is valid and there is nothing legally damaging in the edit history, then a closing admin just needs to redirect without worrying about deleting anything. It saves time and if anything is beneficial to readers and editors alike who do not then subsequently have to requst undeletion as new sources become available. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to redirect it, I have no objections to that being done as an editorial decision post AFD. However, there is no pressing overwhelming need to restore content that is unsourced, and most certainly not sourced to independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:PRESERVE, it would be prudent to restore the edit history as we can use the wording for the merge and if a redirect is okay, then there is no reason not to keep the edit history available for future use. For example, we can take the line about "Highway's original codename was Speed Trap, but was changed to Highway at the last minute. In Brazilian version, he was named "Andarilho" (Walker)." and merge that information. Indeed, for many of these characters, they meet a common sense standard of notability: appearances in a show, as toys, and in a comic. We even have summaries of them provided in a published textual source that can be used to reference the brief sentence or two we would like to merge from the articles. Thanks for helping with this! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have a published textual source, then you should use that. Cirt (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I will gladly use it to verify what is already a well worded sentence from this article that we can use in fleshing in C.O.P.S.#Characters_in_the_series. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then feel free to write it yourself, research it, and reference it to that published textual source you just cited to me, above. Cirt (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It will be far more convenient to just copy over the text from the the Highway article and then add the citation from the published source. Thank you for doing so. I appreciate it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This all is so much effort expended that could be put into working to properly sourced the material yourself, and write it yourself. Cirt (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It is effort towards ensuring that we don't have to go through the same discussion with any similar articles here or in DRVs. When an editor requests in good faith that an article that is not libelous and for which even the deleting admin does not oppose a redirect and even the afd nominator was okay with a merge and when it was far from a unanimous delete be undeleted, it should just be a given that the request is granted. There is no reason not to here. Indeed, it would have been so much easier to just simply in such cases redirect without deleting the edit history in the first place, but then even if you did delete, when someone requests the article be undeleted, we can take what is there, copy it over, and add the citation found elsewhere. There is no need to force anyone to have to start over with the source that can be used to cite an already existent sentence. There is no need to have to debate it. Please in the interest of convenience, collegiality, and in improving an article concerning a franchise that included a show, toys, and a comic, undelete this article and for any similar ones, just redirect leaving the edit history available so we can work a merge as the nominator of these mass AfDs himself did not actually oppose. Doing so follows WP:PRESERVE and goes a long way in helping us make the most of improving the main article. Thank you for reconsidering. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be easy for you to take one minute of time and write the sentence you desire from the published textual source you presented above. Cirt (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As a show of good faith to a fellow editor, please undelete the edit history. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, I can think of no reason not to undelete the edit history and make a redirect. We wouldn't do it for a BLP violation, or for copyvio, or spam, or for various sorts of abuse and bad faith. but I can see no reason to refuse to do it here. You know very well that plot is permitted to be sourced from the work itself, so not even lack of WP:V applies here. Even if it did, that is still not reason to let it stand behind are direct. I don't want to try to evaluate A.N.'s claims that he could find sources for it--that's another issue. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A Nobody (talk · contribs) has admitted he has a published textual source he could use for this information, instead of copying material from an unsourced page. I see no other reason not to source the material to a published textual source, other than laziness. I would rather not undelete a page that is unsourced, and contravene site policy. Cirt (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This request seems a bit disingenuous as AN had already exported the article (with history) to the annex wikia several days earlier. And since the source he provided doesn't actually verify any of the wording he quoted, or anything else in the article, it would have to be rewritten anyway. Sarilox (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

JAMIE BAMBER'S NATIONALITY CHANGED

Wikipedia has seen fit to re-write history. Jamie Bamber, a British actor born and raised in the UK, is now listed as having an American father and "retaining his British citizenship". This is deeply offensive to those of us in Britain. Bamber is BRITISH. He was born here and lived here until he was 32. He has never denied being British. Americans on Wikipedia have for some bizarre reason decided to try to make him American. This is factually incorrect. He lists himself as British and is a member of BAFTA. Why the racism?

As for the News of the World quote, Bamber gave the interview to that newspaper. Why are you deleting it and how is it libelous? Bamber himself made the quote referenced and it is purely factual. Why remove it unless you want this to be a FANMAIL page?86.172.30.1 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, engage in discussion, at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Pixar References article

Hello - confused about your deletion of List of Pixar film references per the continuing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Pixar_film_references. It did not appear that there was clear consensus to delete, and even the original poster had expressed options that would lead to it remaining. Can you restore the article and the AFD discussion as it had not been clearly identified as "delete" please? SpikeJones (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was to delete. Cirt (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I ask that you review the commentary from the original poster and the other users that was included in addition to the formal keep or delete bullets. At the very least, the AFD was still being discussed -- it had just been relisted for more input from others, and items that the original poster was critical of had been addressed by editors in the subsequent discussion. Even reviewing the notes as a casual observer rather than an active participant in the discussion, I can't see that consensus was formally reached and am interested in how you came to that conclusion yourself. SpikeJones (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You clearly acted prematurely. The consensus prior to the "extension" was that more 3rd party sources needed to be added. Even the original poster regarding the AfD discussion HIMSELF agreed with this, negating his Delete comment. The vote was 4-4. Additionally, the discussion regarding your deletion clearly has a consensus of overturn. Please restore the page.Pejorative.majeure (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of Pixar film references

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Pixar film references. 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. SpikeJones (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking another look at the article and undeleting it. I am sorry for any attacks that were made on you as a result of your good faith closure of the AfD and hope that my comments were not interpreted in that fashion as that is certainly not what I intended. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed, thank you for restoring the AFD discussion and apologies for other editors' unfounded comments towards you. I tried to be fair with my Deletion Review nomination; I hope you agree that it presented the facts accurately (if not, let me know what I left out for future reference). SpikeJones (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian RFC closed, now at arbitration

Hello,

Thank you for participating in the recent RFC/U regarding Asgardian‎. The RFC has been closed, and the case is now at arbitration. You are neither required nor requested to participate, but you may view the initial statements for the case (please do not edit that page), and you may view the evidence presented and add more evidence if you wish, or simply follow the case. BOZ (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits

I made some edits to the “New Religions List” for Rissho Kosei-kai and I see that you deleted them because you said that they where not properly cited. Am I to assume that you cannot use the religious groups own website? I doubt they would lie about who their founder was! Plus I am a member! --Greenwood1012 (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyhow, I did add refs, from a book on Buddhismthat talks about RKK. So, I hope that helps! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenwood1012 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. Cirt (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Retard (2nd nomination)

Hi, Cirt. Because I merged content from Electric Retard into Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide#Electric Retard, would you undelete it for GFDL attribution purposes, and redirect it using the following code: #REDIRECT [[Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide#Electric Retard]] {{R to section}} {{R from merge}}? Though I did not say at the AfD, my consent to the merge proposal meant that I had withdrawn the AfD. Thank you for taking another look at this! Best, Cunard (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit made to PQ Systems

I edited the page PQ page with some rewrites and general edits. I am hoping you could take a look and let me know if you find anything that doesn't seem quite right. Thanks Bmxoffspring99 (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I still see lots of unsourced bits. Cirt (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Carrigan DRV

Hi Cirt, I'm not sure how you thought I wanted to go with Ash's version. I said restore Ash's version then apply you're updates so the revision history is retained. The end result would be your version. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please respond to this matter and the wikinews editor nom opposition. Also, the Carrigan revision history didn't get transferred.-Stillwaterising (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You advocated multiple times for restoration of the User:Ash/Paul Carrigan poorly sourced version of a WP:BLP, before I began work on a version of the page in my userspace. That is contrary to site policy, and just bad sourcing practice in general. Cirt (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I never denied it didn't need work. I had no interest in the subject and was supporting the project based on trust that sources were sufficient.

The pages Ive worked on most, Heather Harmon, Stephanie Swift, and Joseph Stack are all sourced extensively. - Stillwaterising (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Bonnie Bailey

Hi Cirt, I was able to find this link that support's her claim at this site: [[2]] searching LNM Prokjekt featuring Bonnie Bailey

Search Results -- Singles

Position Artist Title Date Details 38 LNM Prokjekt featuring Bonnie Bailey Everywhere Mar 2005 Notes

Copyright © 2000-2010 everyHit.com

I believe that meets the criteria for notability set forth in article 2 (Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart) and 11 (Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.) Is there anyway you could Undelete please?

--TravisMeck (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonnie Bailey. I would suggest first working on a draft version, in a subpage of your userspace. Cirt (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please

In this discussion it was suggested that you were the appropriate administrator from whom to request the userification of an earlier version of Abdul Majid Khan. If that is correct, would you please userify the article's full revision, and talk page, if any, to User:Geo Swan/review/Abdul Majid Khan?

I'll put a {{noindex}} on it while I work with it.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the history but I do not appear to have been involved before in an admin capacity. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Firstenberg

Please see the relevant WP:AN3 discussion. Thanks, Verbal chat

Thanks for the notice, Cirt (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please have another look at the edits of Bearguardian (talk · contribs). They're an SPA, not interested in building consensus, but instead on forcing their version of the article against multiple editors. They are making unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry and incorrectly claim BLP exemption to 3RR. We have tried talking to this editor but they are not interested, claiming a British trade magazine is not a RS because it is foreign. When your page block expires Bearguardian will doubtless continue with his editwarring unless an educational and preventative block is enacted when the consensus version of the article is restored. Verbal chat 09:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the AN3 discussion was mentioned at the request for page protection, and resolving the issue there would have been less disruptive to the project. Verbal chat 09:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, at least try to engage in some form of dispute resolution, at the article's talk page. I would suggest WP:RFC. Cirt (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The editor is an SPA who has ignored consensus and continued editwarring after a block, claiming a BLP exemption. It has been taken to BLPN following my suggestion and found no support, yet the editor continues. Further DR is just drama inducing and a waste of effort in such a clear case. I suppose we will see what happens when the material is restored (note this is not a threat to edit war, if the editor reverts I will not revert - simply renew the AN3 request). Protecting a page (at the wrong version, naturally  :)) is not a service to the project when only one editor has clearly broken our very clear rules and generally behaved in such a poor manner; it is better to give an educational and preventative block which does not prevent good faith editing by others. Verbal chat 14:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The page is currently protected. Please, do not simply wait for disruption to start all over again, but use this time to engage in talk page dispute resolution and WP:RFC. Cirt (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been to BLPN, I see no point in an RFC. Why do you want me to waste my time when 3RR is quite clear? You waste your time if you don't value it. Verbal chat 14:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I see only positive things that could come out of a WP:RFC - it enlists commentary from outside editors, who might also have other ideas to help to improve the article. If not that, then perhaps a peer review. Cirt (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you deny the uncivil behaviour and clear 3RR violations of what is so far a WP:SPA? Verbal chat 14:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what happens after some dispute resolution and WP:RFC, or peer review. And - if the user is disruptive after this protection has expired - especially if some form of dispute resolution has been attempted in the interim before protection expires - then contact me and it is likely I will block the user. Cirt (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles resurrected

Legislative district of Bacoor and Legislative district of Imus were already deleted after discussion of the community but they had just been resurrected by Reyrefran, in defiance of what the community had discussed.--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 07:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah okay, thanks. Cirt (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted three times, the last two by speedy deletion, but it's back again under Lone district of Bacoor and Lone district of Imus, it's basically the same old banana.--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 02:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

GAN Review

Hi Cirt, I am focussing all my efforst on the GA Sweeps atb the moment - we have only a few left to do. I will be back to GAN revieweing in a week or so. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no worries, Cirt (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Disasters

As a FPo Director, you may want to look at this long-standing redlink mess. Bencherlite^Talk 09:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will look into it soon. Cirt (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Speculative fiction help

Do you have a few moments to spare to look at the coding of a portal to see why it's not behaving as it should? The "Speculative fiction topics" section isn't displaying the white background like all the others sections. I've looked over the code and compared it to other portals using the same code, but I can't figure out why it isn't displaying properly. Any help is appreciated (and if you can let me know what I did incorrectly, that will be helpful, too). I'm watching this page, so please reply here. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

RichardF (talk · contribs) is better at that stuff, perhaps ask him? Cirt (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Advice?

Hi,

I noticed that you were interested enough in the Nuclear optimism article to keep the deletion discussion alive for a bit longer. My feeling is that the article is in limbo. My interest in the topic when I created was a passing interest though I'd like to enhance it a bit more. But the WP:synthesis concern still stands and it is clear that the editors who brought this up still have that same concern. I am not sure what I can do to address their issues and I don't want to leave that banner sitting there (and I don't want to get into a big fight over this which is the reason I proposed deletion in the first place).

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hrm, I would suggest a WP:RFC. Cirt (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I did an RfC a few months back. The feedback was uniformly that the premis of the article was junk. I doubt a new RfC would suddenly result in more helpful feedback. --Mcorazao (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a peer review, posting notices to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Bix7.jpg

Can you make sure I did everything ok on this? CTJF83 GoUSA 21:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest submitting through commons:commons:OTRS. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have to look that over after work. Is it not enough that the image isn't copyrighted? CTJF83 GoUSA 22:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Best to confirm this. Cirt (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you sign your posts?

I suggest that you sign when you write something on other talk/discussion pages (see Talk page guidelines). If you sign your post, it is much easier to know who the author of that post is. Below are three unsigned posts of yours:

• Articles_for_deletion/Getik_Baghdasarian
• Articles_for_deletion/Baghdasar_Arzoumanian
• Articles_for_deletion/Sebouh_Chouldjian

Also it perhaps would be better to add your notes separately from other people's notes, so that it is clear what part of the is written by you. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 07:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Those particular "posts" do not require a signature as they are merely notifications letting others know you have made few (if any) posts outside of those discussions. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing else to do except for trusting your expertise. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 18:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor review

Hi, as someone who has been a bit critical of my behaviour in the past, you may be interested in contributing to Wikipedia:Editor review/Ash. I promise to try and stay thick-skinned. Cheers, Ash (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ian Benardo

WHY DID YOU DELETE IAN BENARDO?! HE HAS HOSTED NUMEROUS TV SHOWS AND IS AN INFAMOUS AMERICAN IDOL/SO YOU THINK YOU CAN DANCE CONTESTANT! JUST GOOGLE HIM! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.128.218 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Already replied at talk page of this IP. More info at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Benardo. Cirt (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WINTER OLYMPICS - MEDAL(S) TABLE

I tried to write the right word in the medal(s)-table published in the page of Vancouver Winter Olympics 2010, but the access is restricted to only certain members of Wikipedia, and you are one of them. In the table it SHOULD BE WRITTEN "COUNTRY" and not "nation". Country and nation are to absolutely different concepts. Everybody can learn about them in Wikipedia. Nobody writes how many medals have obtained the athletes coming from the aboriginal NATIONS included in the Olympic team of Canada, if any, but how many medals the athletes representatives of Canada (as country or political state, which could be integrated by seveal nations) have obtained. As well there one nation could form different political states (countries), Korea and Kosovo/Albania, for instance. I suggest to do the same correction in the template "RankedMedalTable". --GabEuro (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest using the process outlined at Template:Editprotected. Cirt (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Of The Ciara bravo page

I really wanted to know why you delted my article on the actress Ciara Bravo. I provided a legitimate reason on why she deserved a page and placed facts about her and her acting career on the page so I demand to know why it was deleted and it you cant come up with a legitimate reason is there any way you could put the page back up because I spend 2hrs making this page from scratch and this is my first page so cut me some slack, and notice I have been very polite with my words —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7shaquan (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

More info at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ciara Bravo. Cirt (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I can find numerous references about ciara bravo from numerous places here are just a few

[3] [4] [5] Due to the fact that she is also a well known member of the big time rush cast I think that I have presented a reasonable case as to why she deserves her own article, do you know how many kids want info on her, one word plenty, and they usually look to wikipedia for that info, I mean if you cant find info on wiki you cant find it anywhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7shaquan (talk • contribs) 20:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest working on a draft version, in a subpage of your userspace. Cirt (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No No NO I demand that the article be reposted due to the fact in the wikipedia guildlines of notary is says that a page may be made for a celebrity who "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.", which Ciara Bravo has had, and they were listed on my article with some left out. Therefore I come to the conclusion that my article for Ciara Bravo clearly meet the wikipedia standards, and even though she may not be known by your standards, by the standards of wikipedia she is allowed to have an article made for her. Though she is not a Michael Jackson or Carrie Underwood, she still is significant enough for her page, therefore I believe you have made a mistake and by the rules of wikipedia my article should be reposted, or I will contact a higher authority. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7shaquan (talk • contribs) 21:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:AFD. The article was deleted by consensus of the community, after a deletion discussion. Cirt (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok first I would like to apologies fir my disruptive behavior. Secondly I would like to address the fact that the community was allowed less than an hour to comment on this topic which is not enough time for a factual and accurate statement. And I would also like to address the fact that the community doesnt make the rules Wikipedia does and by their standards im nowhere in the wrong. Plus I would like to add the fact that most of the people who addressed this topic were probably adults who dont even look at the teen perspective and so you cant base deletion off of their judgements but by the criteria that you have set up. Have the teens that will search this topic will never make a wikipedia account and will never understand why the page was deleted, and so its not fair. It gives adults who know nothing about her the oppurtunity to knock her popularity when they dont even watch the programs that she is on. Therefore I state once more that you can either re post the article because it falls under the criteria or we can talk to a higher official. ( and by the way you are the one who suggested deleting it, what do you have against her) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7shaquan (talk • contribs) 22:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You can appeal through the WP:DRV process. Cirt (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Why could you just do it, and will you please send me my article at shaquan_mcdowell123@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7shaquan (talk • contribs) 22:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Reviewed

I reviewed The BLT Cookbook, and it passed as a good article. --Hadger 22:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you ! ;) Cirt (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Herbert Hudson Taylor IV

Hi Cirt. I am new to Wiki. I created a deletion review for an article I made (Herbert Hudson Taylor IV). The article was not speedily deleted and was then under review for a long time. Ultimately, an admin deleted it (User:Spartaz); but new coverage of Taylor has hit major media outlets. I think this media coverage would significantly affect his notability for Wikipedia. I submitted questions to User:Spartaz, and it seems that he is not fit to judge the issue. He signs his posts 'humbug' and told me to contact an admin. Are you an admin? Perhaps, you can help me. I provided a list of 3rd party news coverage of Taylor on Spartaz's talkpage. Thanks Liawilde415 (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest working on a draft version in a subpage of your userspace. Cirt (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The BLT Cookbook

On March 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The BLT Cookbook, 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, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Requests for unblock page moving very slowly

Hello. The requests for unblock page has been moving very slowly today, and some users have been waiting quite a few hours. Just wondering if you could help. If you can't, please delete this message. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckcreator (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits made to PQ Systems, Inc

I made added more sources to most sections on this article and also reworded a few things for accuracy. Do you see anything else that might be changed before creating the page? Thanks Bmxoffspring99 (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)