User talk:Cirt

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

AFD/T • T-7 • T-2 • AFDO • AIV • RFUB • UAA/CAT • RFPP • PER • CSD • AB • FAR • FAC urgents • TFAR • RSN • BLPN • FTN • 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
• Reflinks
• Citation tool for Google Books
• Citation tool for DOIs

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)

Klosterbergen

I'm distressed you relisted the AfD; I totally rewrote the article, moved it to a correct title, and have it up for DYK consideration. Is there anything can be done about this or is it just one of those things? After another week it will be too stale for DYK, but obviously I am biased on the issue of whether it should be kept (in its new form) or not.Yngvadottir (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It can still be eligible for DYK, the whole being-on-AFD thing pushes that back a bit. -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Afraid not: [1] Guess that's that :-( Yngvadottir (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You can start a thread to discuss that, at Wikipedia talk:Did you know, there should be allowances made, for those exact situations. -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: [2] -- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's still no one else participating. I figured the AfD would be closed (keep or no consensus) in time for the article to be considered - that's why I was frustrated when you relisted it, because the extra week meant the nomination would go stale. In retrospect I should have done my article saving on the seventh day of the AfD, but I've known them to be closed early while I'm screaming "Hang on! I have sources in Icelandic!" . . . so I now drop everything for a rescue rewrite. Yngvadottir (talk)

The AFD has to be closed, first. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agni Air Flight 101

Can you please expand on your one word closure of this Afd, because I simply cannot see how, on strength of arguments made, how this is a keep outcome. The keep arguments were either provably false - '14 deaths is auto-notable, scheduled aircrashes are auto-notable, hull losses are auto-notable, investigated aircrashes are auto-notable', or simply vague missives about tragedy or significance or cultural bias. No keep voter adequately demonstrated that this was not a NOT#NEWS case, for which simple international coverage is not enough to prove lasting notability or historical significance. MickMacNee (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There was indeed strong consensus to keep. Perhaps you can engage those editors and attempt to improve the article with them, through discussion at the article's talk page. If, after a period of time of say a few months, you are still not satisfied with the state of the article, feel free to nominate it for another AFD. -- Cirt (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 2. MickMacNee (talk)

Thank you for the notification. -- Cirt (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for assistance with SPA religious warrior

The article Ebionites is currently dramatically unbalanced because of the insistent edits of two editors, one of whom has already been placed on an edit restriction related to the article for a year. The other is an SPA who, based on the current structure of the article, has given me the clear impression that he is a neo-Ebionite who is trying to ensure that the article is structured to be consistent with and promote neo-Ebionite beliefs. His mainspace article edit history as is visible here, shows that he has edited articles directly related to the Ebionites 454 times to 101 of all other articles. And I count articles that he edited to remove content related to a source now counted as being fringe after the ArbCom from peripherally related articles in the second grouping. The facts of the matter, as are at least indicated by the extensive quotes from recent literature at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites, is that the term seems to have been used for several hundred years, both before and after the time of Jesus, as a self-designation by any number of groups. Maybe the phrase "the victim" as it was used in the 1990s is the closest comparison I can come up with. The SPA's recent conduct, in both copying the behavior of the editor who had already been banned for a year and now promoting the inclusion of material which the SPA had previously opposed, Eisenman and Tabor, makes it very difficult to think that there may not have been some sort of agreement to the effect that they will support each other's material, in the conduct guidelines violation way they have been.

I am full well aware that I will have to quote in full the comments from the encyclopedias on the page linked to above as well as other sources, so as to be able to present that material in defense of what is the consensus academic viewpoint, and that will probably take a few weeks. However, at that point, I would welcome the input of another neutral party to help ensure that the article finally, eventually, is a reasonable one. The subject, unfortunately, obscure as it is, is also one of the most important articles relevant to early Christianity, and even has significant influence beyond that in terms of the monarchianism christology that is attributed to them.

I would be willing to forward e-mails from you regarding some of the statements I referenced above, which I think you might find amusing. John Carter (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Before you waste your time with this, talk to Jayjg. He is currently mediating the content dispute on the article. The above editor is taking this to a personal level and trying to make it into something it is not. Feel free to contact me directly on my talk page if you have any questions. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Read the comments of the above editor elsewhere. It will be clear that he is deliberately engaging in conduct which, according to a quote which can be found at SlimVirgin's talk page, is taken by people who have no intention to respond to the matters of substance they are facing. The fact that the above editor has been leaving little notes virtually everywhere rather than face a simple matter of editing the article in question to conform to WP:SS regarding Gospel of the Ebionites, and his own outlandish "I hate you's" which he not only added to pages, but then restored after they are deleted per WP:TPG, indicate that he takes it very personally, which can be understood about an editor whose history is 80% explicitly on a single topic. The real content dispute, which he has ignored as per the article talk page, is about whether the article should reflect that Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and others are describing the same group or not. And, like I said, I think the e-mails I could forward would be immensely revelaing. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will try to get a chance to look at this a bit. -- Cirt (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

AN/I: False accusations of vandalism

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovadyah (talk • contribs)

Okay, thanks for the notice. -- Cirt (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

While on the subject, a portion of my 4 September edit of the Oksana Grigorieva entry was reverted with the comment "fix prev vandalism." I don't have a problem with the reversion, but I don't feel the "vandalism" label was warranted. Cmholm (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That was not meant to refer to you, sorry. -- Cirt (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gareth McConnell

Not sure, but this is the first time I've seen an AFD with no votes and closed as delete and aside for the nominator no comments were made (safe a second relist rationale). Usually in this situation it (often Ron Ritzman was doing this) was closed as no-consensus with no objections for another discussion - also to avoid a Deletion review as well. Just an observation here. JForget 00:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It had already been relisted, twice, in fact. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I know, I meant to say that no one participated after 3 weeks, they usually close it as no consensus or no participation (or whatever), and it was the first instance like that ended with a deletion - so I was a bit surprised with that outcome - not there is any obligation though for any admin to keep the article. I was just curious about that outcome JForget 01:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I normally close these "no consensus" if I get to them first. However, for BLPs I first check to see if there are sources and instead recommend incubation if there aren't any. I'm currently looking at the google cache for this article and most of the sources are dead links. If someone is interested in this article then I recommend incubation. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If requested, would not be opposed to that. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln County Sheriff's Office (Nebraska)

Just so that you know: I re-used some of the deleted content, so I undeleted it to preserve the author attribution. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You probably should have deferred to another admin, to do that. -- Cirt (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Sydney Roosters

Hi. Can you look at this article that you protected last week. There is a clear consensus in the discussion that the list of famous fans violated undue weight and Talk:Sydney_Roosters#Supporters. However, Jeff79 continues to revert on analogous articles [3] [4]. There was no movement on these unlocked GA/GAN articles during the period that the Roosters page was analogously locked, but Jeff is unwilling to accept consensus under any reason. He claims that in the discussion there are some caveats that justify his ignoring of the vote/consensus but there are none. If you click on the list of supporters in his edit in S Sydney, none mention any notable activism, sponsorship of the club, only that they are "fans" YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. -- Cirt (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, another of his mates, User:Mattlore is at it again; he also was in the minority on the Roosters poll YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. -- Cirt (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jeff is back and at it. The part in question, apart from consensus claims that the listed people were notable activists in thte dispute. The refs attached no such thing but he is simply pretending to be deaf YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

See [5], followed by [6]. -- Cirt (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh I hadn't noticed the two piled on top of each other YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

General observation

I've noticed over the years that many editors have been tolerant and understanding of some of your ... um ... lesser fortunate moments on Wiki. Do you 'spose you could consider returning the favor? If you can't avoid observing ignoring ArbCom directives, perhaps you'd rather stand for the next ArbCom elections? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the CU check of  Confirmed resulted for new sock activity after the de-sysop of the Marskell (talk · contribs) account, and after the block on the Timothymarskell (talk · contribs) account. -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The committee made it abundantly clear that aspects of this situation make it unsuitable to be handled on-wiki. Why you chose to make several dozen edits on-wiki pursuing the matter is beyond me. Please direct future concerns to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org –xeno^talk 17:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Please note, however, that the ongoing socking was disrupting an open AFD. -- Cirt (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Cirt-- good for you at missing my not so obtuse point, now back off please. I suspect the Wiki won't break if you leave this area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I see you just can't resist yourself; that is a concern that I intend to think about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Have thought about it, and listed the AFD at Deletion sorting in multiple subsections, in order to generate a wider array of input. :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see you are still missing the broader point. You don't really want to provoke the Mother Bear in me, do you ? I am asking you to please find a new area of focus; it is abundantly clear that this article will take care of itself with or without you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be more constructive communication to discuss this in a more polite tone. Perhaps it would be beneficial for both of us to take a break from engaging in back and forth discussion over this issue. Thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly would, since you've really pushed my buttons. Over and out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're looking for something different to do...

... then there's always WP:FPOC and the discussion at WT:FPOC! Bencherlite^Talk 18:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Update:  Doing... :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

and  Done by the look of it. Thanks; I know you're busy. Bencherlite^Talk 19:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome! And thank you for acknowledging this, and for thanking me! That is most appreciated! Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Films' negative reception

Hello, Cirt! I wanted to ask you about something. I noticed that at Knight and Day, the film's poor box office performance is hammered home awfully strong. I do not disagree that the film performed poorly, but there is overwrought inclusion of various statements saying this. To an outsider, the presentation of these statements does not seem to be a neutral characterization. For example, the entire third paragraph of the "Box office" section is fundamentally repetitious and could be distilled to one or two statements. I noticed this approach of a film's negative reception with Inchon (film) as well where the "Reviews" section mostly sounds like a lineup of critics saying "this film is bad" over and over. Please reconsider your approach with this kind of reception. At Knight and Day, we can report the film's poor performance in fewer words. The "Critical response" section of that article appears alright in tone, but the section samples over twenty reviews! The first paragraph makes the general consensus of the film evident, there is nothing to prove with a large number of samples. A smaller number of them that adequately identify the film's positive and negative traits should be chosen and used. Could that section be trimmed to 5-10 reviews, which is still the range of "a lot"? The policy is to ensure that the article is reasonably sized, and I think that can be done here. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Erik, I hope you are doing well. Thank you for reaching out to me in such a polite and congenial manner, it is most appreciated. :) Generally I like to include a wide sampling of secondary sources in these types of articles. If we could work on perhaps trimming some text down, whilst keeping the actual cited sources themselves, perhaps that would be an agreeable compromise. :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

Hello Cirt,

Please desist from pursuing the matter further on-wiki. As we have already made abundantly clear, the matter involves matters of privacy. If you have concerns, address them by email to the Committee. — Coren ^(talk) 19:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and I have. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cirt. You have new messages at DeltaQuad's talk page.
Message added 00:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Okay, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

150th featured portal

Hi, thanks for the suggestion at the SP page. We've included this at the F and A draft. Please take a look and give us your feedback. Tony (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good so far. Thank you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Betamax VOIP

Can someone please explain to me why this page was deleted? It had a ready reference to all the various products available from Betamax. This was not as someone has said marketing because its actually not in Betamax's interest to have this page published...a little basic economics will tell you this. Each of the products competes with the others...in different markets. Its like having a DVD available in 15 different countries. This page told you which countries it was available in so that you could check the prices in each country and then buy it from the cheapest! There was no hint of marketing in the article it was purely informational and very useful too! If listing out all the products a company sells is marketing then I can think of a lot of pages on large Multinational Companies that will also have to be deleted.

Hope someone will see the light.

Cheers, Mahtab —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.221.74 (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest first you register for an account on Wikipedia. Then, you could work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userpage space. -- Cirt (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not proposing to work on a new draft I am proposing that the old article be reinstated. I have not written the previous article nor am I connected with Betamax in anyway. I am a user who found that article extremely useful and was quite disappointed to find the article deleted and also the reasons for the deletion. I don't have either the technical expertise or the time to learn how to discuss these things on Wikipedia however I don't see that as a reason to stay muted. I apologise if I haven't followed any protocl etc that is required here but I think I've made my point. Can you please review the previously deleted article and view it in the new light as I have suggested and I am sure that you will find that it is a neutral article written purely for the purposes of keeping the public informed and helping them make informed choices.

Cheers, Mahtab —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.221.74 (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You might find it worthwhile to at the very least attempt to try the recommended suggestion, above. -- Cirt (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wheelie (Transformers) Closing debate

I got to admit I am a little dissapointed that that debate for that was closed already. I was planning to find sources for that article but I was on a trip for a while before I had a chance. Oh well I probably wouldn't have find any anyways because I am not good at that. But it's the thought that counts. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You could work on a draft version within a subpage of your userspace if you like. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I might could do that. I've done stuff like that before. But I knew very little about the character then and I was hoping to retrieve some of the sources to help prove from what was already said in the article. I'll see what I can do though. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Userfication of Neon Sarcastic

Thanks for userfying this article; I've managed to clean up the draft considerably, now comes the most difficult process, referencing it. Please watch out for subtle differences like this in future though ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your userpage design makes it hard to see that. -- Cirt (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you mean? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Usually I look for the "User:NAME", in black, at the top left of the page. Yours had some kind of funky design, so I copy/pasted the black text a little further down on the same page. Just to let you know, might cause others confusion in the future, is all. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. In retrospect I probably should have created my account as Giftiger Wunsch instead of Giftiger wunsch (since it's the proper grammar and thus the preferred way of referring to the name), but it's a bit too late to comfortably do that now. Thanks for pointing out the potential cause of confusion there. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper

My edits were factual. I will revert your edits and provide sources. Thank you. 192.77.143.150 (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request from Mattlore

There is an unblock request at User talk:Mattlore, and, since you placed the block, I thought I would consult you before taking any action. You said "You have been blocked temporarily from editing for Disruption, at South Sydney Rabbitohs, reverting against talk page consensus." I agree that the edits were questionable, but as far as I can see there were only three of them over a period of 13 days (two of them on one day), the user was not warned, and the last edit was made the day before the issue came to be discussed on the talk page. Please correct me if I have missed anything, but that is how it looks to me, and on that basis my inclination would be to unblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your reply on my talk page. I have posted another comment there. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Quidco article

Hi again, I've made some additions to the proposed Quidco article on my Talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stuartcoggins#Proposed_Quidco_article and was wondering if you could take another look? Many thanks, Stuart

Stuartcoggins (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Try working on it on a separate page, at User:Stuartcoggins/Sandbox. -- Cirt (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I've now moved the article to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stuartcoggins/Sandbox and developed it a little more. Stuartcoggins (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If the article requires more development, please let me know. Alternatively, if the article that was in place just prior to deletion could be restored, I think that was a well-written and neutral piece, so if that were possible, that would be great. Stuartcoggins (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Needs to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, per WP:NOTE. Please also read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CITE and WP:CIT. -- Cirt (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will work on that and get back to you. Stuartcoggins (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Rlevse, much appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The signature lies. Again, good work on that article. And now, a bribe. If you write a guide to Featured portals, I'll renovate another portal and send it to Featured portal nominations :) ResMar 03:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I will try to get to it, but got some other things going on at the moment. I have seen your multiple requests, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I just think it's very important. No more. ResMar 02:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

No problem for the stub. Someone will probably take over the rest of the article (I usually do only the drafts, unless I know the subject well). This surreal event was indeed unknown to me. Glad to have discover a new thing ans good job for the FA : all the credit goes to you. Cheers. Like tears in rain (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Rick Ross (consultant)

Thanks for your help. I wasn't sure how to do the disambig thing at the top of the page.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review of Final Blackout

I started the review of Final Blackout at Talk:Final Blackout/GA1. I will be leaving lots of feedback there so be ready! Sadads (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Living Control

You deleted a page for Living Control. This is an important page as the company has gone in administration. Therfore several groups are being setup with links to support and advice over this matter and products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.140.29 (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you first create an account. Then, you could work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

AFD closure

While Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanna Carreño was closed correctly based on the circumstances that existed at the time (unreferenced BLP, nothing turned up in the AFD), there's actually a lot of coverage of this girl in the Spanish-language press [7] [8] [9]. Restoring the article might be more efficient than starting over. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be most willing to provide it, in your userspace as a subpage, so you could work on a proposed draft version. :) -- Cirt (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Peter Karlsen/Johanna Carreño. -- Cirt (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)