Jump to content

User talk:Cirt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shutterbug (talk | contribs) at 05:06, 30 May 2009 (→‎A light! From the dark!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks
This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia.
AFD/TT-7AFDOAIVRFUBUAARFPPPERCSDABFARFAC urgentsTFARGoogle 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:

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)[reply]

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

Razzies progress

Cirt (talk)

Neil Tyson page

Puzzled why you put a tag about insufficient sources. There are about 35 refs & citations if you scroll down to bottom, more than most WP articles on bios. Can you specify which aspects that need more sources? Much obliged --EJohn59 (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)EJohn59[reply]

Hi, thanks for your response. I'm still dense. The two external links #3 & #4 give detailed bios of him, probably more so than most other bios in WP. See, e.g., this link on curriculum vitae. Since Tyson is such a famous person, I'm worried that your tag is giving WP a bad name.--EJohn59 (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)EJohn[reply]

Keith Henson

Please justify the reversion of all my edits to this page.217.28.0.43 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, please explain which bit of any edits covered by WP:BLP are contentious or poorly sourced.217.28.0.43 (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Only one of those edits added new information. Why were the others reverted? Further, the one edit adding new information contained some copy that was simply information from the rest of that page, and the rest was from the page Carolyn Meinel (although, I admit, I'm not sure what to do about intra-references); why was this reverted? 87.254.80.79 (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Homeless Heart

Could you unprotect Homeless Heart? I wouldn't say Jeneral28 and I came to a amicable resolution, but I have told him on the talk page that I will hold off editing the article for a while. Furthermore, I would like to give him a chance to improve the article as he sees fit. Would it be possible for you to unprotect the article so he can do so? 青い(Aoi) (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Jackson move

Can you please move Percy Jackson (character) to simply Percy Jackson? There is no need to redirect to a larger name from the more appropriate one. Pmlinediter  Talk 10:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are other titles that start with that name, might be best to start a disambig page, instead. Cirt (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks. Will work on the DAB page. Pmlinediter  Talk 10:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball merge proposal

A user has started a merge proposal to merge Snowball to Simpson Family. Your comments would be appreciated here. Thank you, CTJF83Talk 16:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cirt. Since you put full protection on this article, you might be interested by WP:AN3#LebaneseZp/72.10.109.105 reported by George (Result: ). It seems to me that there is not actually a multi-party edit war. Just one guy, with a registered account and two or more socks, who is doing his nationalistic thing against everyone else. (He opposes the view that Lebanon is an Arab country). Note the long list of diffs at the bottom of the 3RR report. Mayalid's opinion in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LebaneseZp/Archive is that LebaneseZp and 72.10.109.105 are the same editor. If you are willing to reduce protection to semi, we could keep an eye on LebaneseZp who would then no longer be assisted by his IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the sock case close? It appears none have been blocked, or tagged. Cirt (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mayalid closed the sock case without recommending action. He was concerned that, while 72.10.109.105 is probably the same editor as LebaneseZp, he does not want to penalize him for editing while logged out. He believes that AN3 is better positioned to closely study the matter. AN3 would (hypothetically) put LebaneseZp and the IP together and see if the combination of the two had violated. Perhaps Mayalid would have recommended a block if he had seen the new list of diffs that was recently added at the bottom of the AN3 report, which gives a better organized view of the matter. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, keep me posted if there is a result from that AN3 thread, or a definitive block by an admin and/or tagging these accounts as socks. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you will give permission for modifying your protection, someone might take a crack at closing the AN3. There is a mystic law that you can't do both blocks and protections, which may cause lightning to strike if violated. Since the case is growing stale, I was thinking of leaving a message for LebaneseZp to see if he will stop, or otherwise change his behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be much more comfortable if there had been a definitive closure result of that sock report, and/or that AN3 thread, first. Cirt (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SPI has been closed, deferring to the judgment of AN3. AN3 can't act decisively due to the protection. (All we could do is close with No Action and tell the submitter to come back when protection expires). Do you want to close the AN3 case? EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the AN3 thread is being handled by another administrator. It also looks like that thread is not yet closed. Cirt (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Time presses. I have to go now. Cheers. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[1] I usually double-check everything FA-related, but I haven't been full steam. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot!

For unprotecting the Matthew Sanders page. :D Signed, kotakkasut 07:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for protecting Indigenous people... I realized after you did it that I had accidentally selected FULL instead of SEMI, but I am glad you didn't ignore the request all together.    7   talk Δ |   09:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of Scientology

Hey there. I see you are active in editing Scientology articles. I have created a History of Scientology article and it is a real basic outline at present. I am off to bed so I left an {{underconstruction}} tag on it. Feel free to do som constructing it it of course. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Cirt. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Codiceanglais

I am going to create a new user name for Codiceanglais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and counsel him regarding conflict of interest. He has contacted us on unblock-en-l regarding his troubles. I will be watching his activities, as I do those of all accounts I create. Fred Talk 20:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MIllennium '73

Millennium '73, to which you made significant contributions, has now been promoted to WP:Featured article status. Thank you for your help.   Will Beback  talk  20:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naked Ali

... what about the new draft of the background section? The move/rename is a side-issue there.. Ling.Nut (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military career of L. Ron Hubbard good article nomination

I've nominated Military career of L. Ron Hubbard, which I've recently rewritten from scratch, as a possible good article. Seeing as you've piloted numerous articles through GA and FA reviews, would you be able to have a look at the article and advise me on any changes that need to be made? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retaliation

User_talk:YellowMonkey#Mumbai. I'm waiting for the bhajji-styled hatchet job retaliation. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was starting to edit the disputed text to provide some references and discovered it was protected. As an Admin I can of course edit it, but I wanted to discuss this with you first. I'm pretty sure that this is one editor using socks to push a pov, and a badly written one at that. I've got on of the best books on the subject on my desk right now. What do you think? Dougweller (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to sign. Also, the sockmaster, if that's the case, now has a 24 hour block. That's 2 remedies for the problem, and the block stops any resolution on the talk page, although I would be surprised if resolution with the blocked editor is possible. Dougweller (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No response, so I shall go ahead and work on it a bit this weekend with references. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cirt. If you have a moment, could you possibly take a look at this unblock request please? They appear to be sincere, but I wanted your opinion. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :

#Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.

Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.

All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A light! From the dark!

For your terrific work helping to identify and improve portals, as well as your diligent efforts at AfD, I award you this barnstar.
Quadell (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get the message

Please repeat. Shutterbug (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]