User talk:Cirt

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)

List of NRMs (Aesthetic Realism)

Would you consider any of these sources sufficient?

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

They are links or links to links of articles in mainstream newspapers and magazines which describe aesthetic realism as a cult/devotional philosophy. While the group itself fervently denies the cult label, they don't hesitate to describe it as a new way of looking at the world, mankind's greatest philosophy ever, taught by the kindest, most honest man to have ever lived, capable of curing all humans problem including racism, economic oppression, war, and marital strife (their words, I promise). 71.224.204.226 (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Do any WP:RS scholarly sources refer to the group as a "new religious movement" ? Cirt (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that I can find. But I'm wondering, since NRM is pretty much an academic neologism, whether this is kind of moving the goalposts when it comes to reliability. Granted, Aesthetic Realism isn't referred to as a "cult" in scholarly sources either, but why is the bar set higher here than for general article sourcing? Tangentially, if the issue is partly one of semantics, would you approve of a separate lists of groups commonly called 'cults', and if so, would non-scholarly sources then qualify?71.224.206.164 (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, do any WP:RS sources at all refer to the group as a "new religious movement"? Scholarly or other reliable sources? As for a group list of the one you describe, it was on Wikipedia for a while, but was deleted. It was called List of groups referred to as cults. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No. NRM is a term really only used in university religion and sociology departments. And by the current page description, Aesthetic Realism probably doesn't belong. But if you follow the discussion on the Talk:Cult page, it's clear that for many people the term, NRM was designed to replace the pejorative name of cult. By that reasoning, being called a cult in reliable sources should go some way towards inclusion in a list of NRMs. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I actually agree with most of what you are saying, except being called a "cult" is not the exact same thing as being called a "new religious movement", and vice versa. You may wish to read through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups referred to as cults (6th nomination). Cirt (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If there's not a policy for WP:MESS, there should be. Per the terminology, i thought all cults were nrms, but nrms were only cults if sufficiently exclusive, isolated, fanatical, or destructive. Or maybe some cults aren't religious if their dogma doesn't concern a diety. To me, "nrm" replaced the potential for offense with the certainty of ambiguity. "Cult" had a 'you know it when you see it quality' that made it stick even in conventional religious quarters, because it was about group dynamics rather than ideology. "NRM" just makes all groups co-equal--and given my general distrust of religion that may be a good thing--but it ignores the harmful individual effects that Religions don't usually have (at least not the ones that last). I'll pursue this elsewhere while sociology professors and exit counselors attempt to reach consensus. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, again I agree with you on all that you said, for the most part. I have even heard that "sociologists" of religion have remarked that they feel that "new religious movement" has begun to take on the negative connotations of the word "cult", and then they want to invent a new term to refer to these controversial groups and movements to avoid the stigma of "new religious movement"... Cirt (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, see euphemism treadmill, Blackwater on the losing battle. A p.o.s. by any other name... Not to say that i don't think new religions aren't interesting; i just don't see why there can't be two categories about it, or a few degrees within. Thanks... 71.224.206.164 (talk) 15:43, 18 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)

Outrageous Betrayal, "is" and "was"

You're welcome. Glad if I can help.

I once inadvertently got in a big kertuffle over a comma. I lost the battle, but my side eventually won the war. Good luck. Maurreen (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I have much to add here, given that you've already quoted me, but I'd suggest reframing the RFC to specifically mention E-Prime - Pedant17 has already filibustered in the previous thread by choosing to defend his "is" and "was" edits as relatively minor, while deliberately sidestepping the equally heavy "were" and "been" edits (which are also forbidden words in E-Prime). I imagine his defence in the RFC would be along the same lines, so you might as well pre-empt that. Good luck. --McGeddon (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a comment. I just thought it might be better if you rephrased the subject of the RfC, on the basis that Pedant17 may choose to slow the discussion down by pedantically ignoring the wider E-Prime issue and instead concentrating on the "is" and "was" (and probably giving us a percentage breakdown of how few of his edits actually involve those words), but we'll see how it goes. --McGeddon (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party protests, 2009

Welcome to my world.

I just noticed that you've fully protected Tea Party protests, 2009. My guess is that you protected it for other reasons (like edit wars) but you're invited to join the Merge Discussion happening here. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Cirt (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle

Do you think the vandalism history on René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle warrants a page protection? This article seems to have a vandalism problem as of late, but the problem is spread out between days. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Could go either way. Couldn't hurt to put in a request at WP:RFPP for further evaluation. Cirt (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

List of discontinued Ben & Jerry's flavors

Per my comments at AfD, would you kindly userfy this article to my space?--otherlleft 23:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, User:Otherlleft/List of discontinued Ben & Jerry's flavors. Cirt (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for BugUp Tracker

An editor has asked for a deletion review of BugUp Tracker. This page was deleted before anyone of Wikipedia's editors had answered my arguments and request for more information. i made the following request from Haakon:"Hi Haakon. I can understand why you must think BugUp Tracker is not notable, but since this is my first article regarding bug-tracking shareware/freeware software, that produce great results (from my own experience as a QA manager), i would like you to reconsider your nomination to delete my contribution. I have worked with numerous bug-tracking software systems and would like to contribute from my experience to start up companies (such as was my own company), and assist them to locate the best products to support their work. if you have doubts regarding the notability of the product, please review the latest page they added (http://www.informup.com/startupfree.aspx) which is testament to their success with start-ups. since this is my first page in a series of articles that are meant to benefit others, I'd appreciate your support. Let me know which evidence (if added) would convince you, or other Wikipedia editors, to show their support as well. thanks". My comment was placed at 09:25, 11 February 2010, to provoke a discussion regarding the subject of my article and its regarded notability. No one responded to my request and the page that was carefully created with a lot of effort was deleted. Please reinstate the article and allow me to continue with my review of specific bug tracking software and the companies which generate them. thanks Benblum1 (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus to delete, from the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BugUp Tracker. Cirt (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way for me to prove other wise? i wish to start a series of articles and if they will be deleted one by one, there is no point to it. have you been searching this bug tracking software in google? or do only wiki articles that mention BugUp Tracker apply? I have reviewed the comparison page for bug tracking system. the only real difference i seem to find is that they have references within Wikipedia whereas BugUp Tracker is a new comer. would Wikipedia editors prevent a review of a new software from reaching the general public? why?"Benblum1 (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You could file a WP:DRV. Cirt (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

==Deletion review for BugUp Tracker==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of BugUp Tracker. 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. Benblum1 (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not yet see this listed at WP:DRV? Cirt (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

it has been listed as of 19:11. I didn't want to forget posting the reminder in your talk :) so i did both postings in parallel. I am also requesting that as the administrator who closed the AfD debate and deleted the BugUp Tracker article, I am requesting that you either send the article to my user space, or for the source to be e-mailed to me (per the kind of actions available at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Temporary review). thanks Benblum1 (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Benblum1/BugUp Tracker. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

receiving the  Done from you is a good omen. i hope. thanks :) Benblum1 (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Weir

I saw that you protected the Johnny Weir page. I don't have a problem with it but since no admins are involved in the current talk-page discussion and since the Winter Olympics are in progress, I'd like to ask you to edit the article yourself when updates of the competition results are available. In particular, men's free skate takes place later on today in the Olympics and the final standings will be known; it will be necessary to quickly add the results to the article after that. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That can be done using {{editprotected}} Cirt (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but my previous experience with {{editprotected}} is that it often takes 1-2 days to have a requested edit added to the article. In this case it will be necessary to act faster since, for the moment, this is a high visibility article with a lot of incoming traffic. At least please keep a close eye on the talk page to see if any non-controversial edits are requested there, so that they can be added quickly. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If the conflict itself were resolved quickly, then the protection could be lifted. Cirt (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have put an {{editprotected}} request at the article's talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Eirtakon

As the administrator who closed the AfD debate and deleted the Eirtakon article, I am coming to you to request either userification of the article under my userspace, or for the source to be e-mailed to me (per the kind of actions at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Temporary review).

I don't agree with the main arguments for deletion based on sources, when the article did have several sources from anime-cons.com (or something along those lines) to at least back up the attendance figures and guests. I am requesting this so that myself, other attendees and possibly even con committee members can help to find other sources so that other editors won't so quickly pass it off as failing notability. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 19:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:TheChrisD/Eirtakon. Cirt (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. We'll get to work, hopefully soon. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 20:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

File:PcsRcsLogo.jpg

File:PcsRcsLogo.jpg needs to be deleted now that PCS Revenue Control Systems has been deleted, as was pointed out at the WP:AfD. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

MECWA (mecwacare)

I've set up a sub page and I've had not comments on it expect for the image being on it, which was something I didn't even know was a 'no no'. As you were the one that deleted the original page could you please run your eye over the proposed copy I've my subpage and advise of any changes you would reccomend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mecwacare_02/Subpage_user_space

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mecwacare 02 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to violate WP:NPOV = promo/spam, like a WP:Vanispamcruftisement. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Holding back on Hiram

There are two items I have held back on re Hiram Monserrate:

• He left the NYPD with a psychological disability
• Sources have gone to the media stating he has been non-compliant with court orders regarding his sentence of community service and probation.

The first, I think is a BLP problem since while it has been widely reported it has not been entered into the public record or otherwise acknowledged by HM. The second is transient. The relevant fact will be if he found to have violated his probation or if he is re-sentenced. patsw (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Inchon

Hi there. I've just had a read of the article about Inchon, the flop war film, and I couldn't help but notice the talk page, in which you argued with an absolute nobody about a trivial issue for two whole days, extending down to a dozen levels of indents. I'm not sure what your goal was; from an outsider's perspective, it didn't give me a positive impression of either of the participants. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you have a valid point and I accept that. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yii

While I agree with your close, I'm not sure that you are the best person to close this contested AfD. I am certain that you are unbiased; however, other users might view this in a different way since you closed both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yii Framework (in October 2008) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yii Framework (2nd nomination) (in September 2009) as "delete". Cunard (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Reopened and relisted. Put back at AFD. :) Cirt (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! =) Cunard (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's a nice article. Well done! I've left a note on the talk page about No wuckers. Best, Cunard (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Cirt (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for incorporating my suggestions into No worries. Cunard (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

But of course, as you backed it up with good sources. ;) Cirt (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Ref #3 (No worries#CITEREFAngeloButler1998) doesn't seem to work. Cunard (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, fixed it, thanks. Cirt (talk) 09:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I think Cirt is as unbiased as one can be when closing software AfDs. The previous AfD for Yii was 3-0 delete, the one before that was also hardly controversial... Pcap ping 10:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lietuvos Radijo Mėgėjų Draugija

Cirt, there is an issue with this deletion that is larger than the notability of the individual national organization. From WP:CLUB, individual national affiliates of a notable international organization may inherit notability from that organization, and the question then is whether or not national affiliates (we are not talking about local chapters) should be covered in:

• A list in the article on the international organization
• A "List of" article
• Stubs, in addition to one of the above.

The nominator of the above has now filed something like a dozen individual AfDs, all covering the same basic issue and claim, and the AfD above, which you closed as Delete (apparently based on lack of asserted individual sources, you did not say), did not attract participation from those with knowledge of the history of this, nor of the issue of project organization. Would you mind re-opening that AfD, as was done with another of these, to allow more comment, as well as to encourage an overall decision to be made that treats these national affiliates evenly? It would avoid Deletion Review, I believe. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, reopened and relisted, back at AFD. Cirt (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to Battlefield Earth (film). I hope you like the place and decide to stay ... Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome notice and information. Much appreciated! Thanks. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC))

This is funny

I hope this edit summary wasn't intentional :) –MuZemike 17:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Freudian slip. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 21 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)

Deletion Montevideo Motor Show

Hi. I´m new in Wiki. I use wiki in spanish. I´m not sure but I think it was you the one taht delete "Montevideo Motor Show" because is not a remarkable event. I understend than others consider Uruguay as not existent. We are a small country, with a small market. That´s the reason why MMS is not every year, and have not the relevance of others MS in the world. But for Uruguayan people like me it is a very important event, no questions about. I asume that to be small is a lack of merit to be relevant. I don´t want to discuss anything or ask you to undelete the file. I have no intentions to be rude or anything like that at all. I´m just trying to explain the lack of relevance. Thanks.--Andreateletrabajo (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hello Andrea, we recognised that you're new and might not understand how Wikipedia actually works. FWIW, different language version of Wikipedia operates differently from one another, but the basics are still the same. Per Wikipedia's editing guidelines and policies, whenever you want to showcase the importance of the article even though it might be a very well-known event in the Spanish speaking world (please remember that this here is the English language Wikipedia, not everyone understands Spanish), you will have to provide one or preferably more reliable sources (the reference can be a news article(s) from any country) for verification purposes. Amongst many of Cirt's duty, as one of WP:Administrators, is to remove article without any significant substance or content. It has nothing to do with the country being small or in another language, hope this clear things up for you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 04:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I undertand. Bu t you mention that it was describe in an "El Pais article", wich is the most important in our country. Is not that a reliable source or newspapers are not good? Please tell me to clear my point. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreateletrabajo (talk • contribs) 09:51, 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[10] 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)

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)

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)