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 • Relisted • AFDO • WP:DRV • WP:MFD • AIV • RFUB • UAA/CAT • RFPP • PER • CSD • AB • FAR • FAC urgents • TFAR • RSN • BLPN • FTN • GAN Topic lists • 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
• Tools, part 1: References, external links, categories and size

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)

Re: Deletion / Updated Alex Nackman article

September 28, 2010

Cirt,

As you have allowed me to do, I have updated the article entry for singer/songwriter/producer, Alex Nackman, which you voted for deletion a couple weeks ago. As I mentioned before, I have worked with Alex for 6 years now and I used to manage him. I can attest for his legitimacy and we have never tried to puff up his Wiki profile since we first wrote it back in 2005. We have only been factual and upfront about his albums, recorded work, and the television songwriting he has done.

I truly hope you will reconsider the deletion and re-instate the article on Wkipedia, now with many significant changes.

The link to the article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Musicman5/Alex_Nackman

Best Regards, Musicman5 (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Mark

That proposed page has zero citations. Please read WP:CITE, WP:CIT, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:Article development. -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

September 28, 2010

Sorry Cirt. I've updated the references and removed anything that I couldn't find a reliable online source for. Please let me know if this is ok. Thank you for the reconsideration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Musicman5/Alex_Nackman

Musicman5 (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Mark

There is only one citation now. Please check out some Featured Articles as examples, and also, some articles currently being debated at Featured Article Candidate discussions, for the level of referencing they have. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

September 29, 2010

Cirt-

I've updated the references adding a number of sources. I hope we can re-instate this wiki article. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Musicman5/Alex_Nackman

Musicman5 (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Mark

September 30, 2010 Hi Cirt,

I hope the references update I made is ok and that we can re-instate the Alex Nackman wiki page. Thanks very much.

Musicman5 (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Mark

Pulaski Skyway

Your choice to place a ban on editing is unclear as there is not edit war taking place on the article (article improvements w/ superior references or the preponderance of references which support the changes is not edit warring]]. Nonetheless, as there is a discussion regarding how to define the Pulaski Skyway in light of contradictory information and opinions your input would be appreciated in a survey. Djflem (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to keep me posted if WP:Dispute resolution processes lead to an amicable resolution among the involved parties, at the article's talk page. And/or request unprotection, at WP:RFPP, for another admin to review the conflict. -- Cirt (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Please remove protection at above as a conclusion has been reached as to handling disputed content regarding length. ThanksDjflem (talk) 09:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

West Midlands bus routes 1, 2 & 5 former page

Dear Cirt

Is there anychance you could reinsert the text on the page temporarily so i can Userfy the page to make improvements to it.

If you could do that so i can place to go to User:Dudleybus/Route Articles for improving/WM 1,2,5,former 351

User:Dudleybus User talk:Dudleybus 08:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

AFD: The Bridge (2006 drama) related question

Why do we not have a list of Media (Films, Books,Tv episodes Music, Video, Plays, Web Videos Etc) involving Scientology? Such a list would assist in Films like "The Bridge" and Web videos (Like the erie Project Chranology Video) that can't merit there own article but are definitely do merit mentioning but do not fit neatly in any other article. It seem logical collection to me? It seems if we have a RS specifically about them then it would merit inclusion it would be a manageable. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an article, not a list, called Scientology in popular culture, but I have not had a chance to improve its sourcing, yet. -- Cirt (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Quidco article

Hi again Cirt, I have made some changes to the proposed Quidco article and have included notable secondary sources as per your recommendations about WP:NOTE, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:CIT. I hope the improvements are sufficient.

Stuartcoggins (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Link to the draft proposed page, please? -- Cirt (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, the link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stuartcoggins/Sandbox

Stuartcoggins (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The Secrets of Scientology

Hi, thanks for expanding the article. It's starting to really take shape now. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Busch Gardens Williamsburg

It looks like an editor you blocked for WP:COI is apparently still editing as the supposedly-blocked screen name. Apparently didn't understand the concept of COI, as evidenced here. --McDoobAU93 19:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Requesting second look

Hi, I'm here to request a second look at the MfD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Access Denied/vandalbox. The vote ended up as a borderline no consensus (4 keep, 5 delete) and because there is an ongoing RfC regarding vandalspaces, I'd appreciate it if you could restore the vandalbox for now. Thanks in advance, Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nah, but please do keep me posted on the outcome of the RFC - where is the RFC linked at please? -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The RfC is at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Userspace Vandalism Sandboxes. Cunard (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but if consensus turns out to be that vandalspaces are acceptable, would you restore it? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's first actually see what the RFC says. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Mau Piailug

Hi, Cirt, I thought I would leave a friendly reminder about Mau Piailug which is on hold. Do you have recommendations for the next steps?  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 05:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Will take another look soon. -- Cirt (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Assassination#RFC

I have refactored your refactoring of my initiation of talk:Assassination#RFC: Should there be a separate article called Targeted killing. I do not think that comments should be placed in separate sections. I also think that your replacement of the initial statement was too terse so I have put back my initial statement. Further having bothered to edit the section you do not seem to have expressed an opinion and the whole point of an RFC is to request comments! -- PBS (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This undo of RFC formatting was more disruption, directly after these edits at Targeted killing:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

and these edits at Talk:Targeted killing:

• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

Please do not engage in such disruption in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: Disturbing comments regarding willingess to engage in disruption immediately after page protection expires = [7] -- Cirt (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

To redactor an editors comments and then when they are reverted to call that disruptive is an interesting interpretation of disruption when WP:REFACTOR says "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." (I should know I wrote it several years ago) Before you started to refactor the talk page why did you not ask the involved partialities if they would object to refactoring it? Please do not reply here but on my talk page as I do not watch you talk page.

You made two edits to Trapped in the Closet (South Park) you changed 12th to twelfth and when it was reverted you reverted the revert. Was that disruptive editing? I suspect that you will answer no. But how many reverts is disruptive? Let us suppose that 88.117.86.175 had reverted again what would you have done. Perhaps you would have done the same as me and discussed it on 88.117.86.175 talk page and if you still could not agree have opened up an RFC?

BTW I am disappointed that you are not willing to engage in the RFC and express an opinion on the issue that is being debated as it is getting lots of people to engage in discussion that usually brings about the best results. -- PBS (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Further disruptive behavior as continuing from the pattern of the diffs, above, may result in a block in the future. I have taken admin related actions on those pages (full protection) and so I am staying out of the content issues and remaining uninvolved from a content capacity. -- Cirt (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for filling in

Thanks for the adding the ANI notifications to the involved editors talk pages. I missed that step. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 06:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Kadish

I am Kevin Kadish, a songwriter and producer who has sold over 11 million records as certified by the RIAA and has contributed many recognizable songs to pop culture. I have written or produced records for the likes of Miley Cyrus, Jason Mraz, Willie Nelson, Sheryl Crow, Rob Thomas, Nikki Sixx, Meatloaf, Taylor Hicks, Gloriana, Stacie Orrico, Joe Jonas, Coldwater Jane, Bif Naked, Skillet, etc...

I wrote, produced, and engineered, Jason Mraz "Wordplay" and "Geek In The Pink" for which i was nominated for a grammy for Best Engineered record. My two songs were the ONLY radio singles on Mr. A-Z. I received an ASCAP Award for Stacie Orrico "(There's Gotta Be) More To Life" (it was one of the most played songs on radio in 2005). In 2006, I also received an #1 award from SoCan (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) for writing the #1 song "Flawed Design" by Stabilo.

Please verify my notability with www.allmusic.com and reconsider "undeleting" my profile on wikipedia.

thanks again...

---

Kevin Kadish —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowguy (talk • contribs) 06:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggest working on a draft proposed version, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:BGWeditKF

You are right, I should have let you know as a courtesy that I was considering unblocking. I tend to think that with a {{Uw-ublock}} notice saying "Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username", a request for unblocking to change username should be accepted unless there are strong reasons not to, even if I have doubts, unlike in the case of a {{spamusernameblock}}, where I am much more willing to say "no". I suppose what it amounts to is that if the blocking admin has said that the user name is the only reason for the block, I accept that judgement. However, that does not alter the fact that I could have let you know, and in similar situations in future I shall try to make sure I do. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Erich Albrecht - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erich Albrecht

Dear Cirt,

could I have a copy of Erich Albrecht "userfied" please as I would like to do the article again when and if I get the referenece to the "German" biography of him by Prof Winder McConnell. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC))

 Done, now at User:Msrasnw/Erich Albrecht. -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. I will let you know before and if I relaunch the article. This is I think only likely if Prof McConnell provides a ref for his bibliography of him. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC))

You are welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Cirt,

Hi I now have the McConnel biography which was published in the Internationales Germanistenlexikon. This seems to be a big book of biographical details of noted scholars of the German Language! Is this enough? It is quite long and detailed but doesn't deal with his war record - Enough anyway to relaunch the article and see if it would be acceptable. I have just added the one line in here User:Msrasnw/Erich_Albrecht but there is more could be added if I can improve my German sufficiently. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

Does not yet seem enough improvements to counter the delete arguments from the AFD, or to satisfy WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So quick - I was just going to add - this ref is a main - sole source used in Oskar Schade,Adolf Jellinek and J. P. Stern . Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

Would adding any/all of these help:

* 1956 Keys to the City of New Orleans

* 1946 special advisory to the Secretary of War

* 1960 Member of the Board of Directors of the Family Service Society

* 1965-1978 the J. Anthony Burzle Professor of German Language and Literature (Univ of Kansas) - does this alone pass our WP:Prof test - a named chair?

* 1957 Colonel on the staff of Gov. Earl K Long

Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

Feel free to improve and work on the draft version further, but please do not use my user talk page as a forum to rehash the AFD again. -- Cirt (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry for having bothered you here. I had thought I had to somehow address the deleting administrator about such things and feel I was adding new information not rehashing the Afd. I will add these things to the article and restore the article to the main space given that it is now clear, to me, that he passes WP:Prof.. Sorry again to have bothered you. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

Please do not move it to main article space. -- Cirt (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought that since there was now clear evidence that he passes WP:prof 5 named chair then putting it back would be OK with you. I will await your suggestions before any action. Msrasnw (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

Feel free to improve and work on the draft version further. -- Cirt (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you want adding or where I should ask about this as it already seems to me pass! (Msrasnw (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

Not really significant improvements, does not really address or satisfy significant coverage from multiple independent secondary reliable sources. -- Cirt (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Cirt, my understanding is that there is sufficient evidence of multiple independent relaiable sources in the article and that he passes WP:Prof 5 via his named chair and U of Kansas being major institution of higher education and research and that WP:prof asserts that if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant. I feel we have sufficent sources and am not sure of the problem. Clearly we are in disagreement about interpetations of policy. What is the procedure in such cases of a disagreement? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

You are refusing to attempt to further improve the quality of the page on this person, while it is in your userspace subpage? -- Cirt (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to have annoyed you about this but I think you have not been not fair and have been rude. I added the reference to the new source and asked about which information could/should be added and added the details about the named chair and had asked you as the deleting administor for help. I am sorry to have annoyed you about this. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

Please see my response, below. -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done, back in main article space. Back at AFD for fresh input from community, now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erich Albrecht (2nd nomination). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Body memory

• Body memory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After some discussion it has become clear that my request for protection was a bit premature and basted on a mistaken assumption. I apologize. I am requesting that it be removed.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You can request unprot at WP:RFPP. -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

tyop

Hello. As I appear to have inserted an error in the article targeted killing, which you have page protected, I wonder if I might ask you to correct it for me (as I am unable? I've left word describing it here. Thank you. Epeefleche.

Looks like this has been done. -- Cirt (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Play Fighting

I noticed you deleted the play fighting page, when this is a naturally healthy human emotional response to stress. This is why men are depressed now a days, because they cannot feel any good feelings of eustress. Women are dying to find a man, so please re upload this page and respect its credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impact41 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you can create a subpage within your userspace, to work on a proposed draft version. -- Cirt (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Business and economics

Can you close the review now? Its October and there's still no movement. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably will do it within a week or so. -- Cirt (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Gene Price

I have added to and referenced the page, and now hope that it will be subject to improvement by others. I have left the refimprove tag, but removed the unsourced tag, which I hope seems reasonable. I am hopeful that someone who has completely read the 2010 Buck Owens biography will be able to add more about his relationship to Gene Price. I took what I found from an internet book extract.

Dreadarthur (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks a little bit better. -- Cirt (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Sima Yari Page

Dear Cirt:

I Contributed a biography type of page on Ms. Sima Yari, a prominent Iranian poem about two years ago. I have updated and maintained the page since its creation. I recently learned that she has nominated by a few organizations and scholars for 2010 Nobel prize in Literature and went to edit the page with this new information and noticed that the page was deleted. I respectfully request the page to be restored. Thank you. Nematg (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)nematg

Confirmation of this claim? -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is one the e-mails sent to nomination committee:

Dear members of the Award Committee, This letter is to endorse the nomination of Ms Sima Yari, the distinguished Iranian poet, for 2010-2011 Nobel Prize in literature. Ms Yari is an accomplished Iranian poet with many publications. Her poetry is a testimony to the perseverance of human spirit under the most unfavorable circumstances. It is the voice of a courageous poet who, despite the male dominated nature of the society in which she lives, refuses to be silenced. Ms Yari belongs to the rich tradition of Iranian feminine poetry whose other prominent participants are Parvin Etessami and Forough Farokhzad. Even though, her poems are connected to and reflect the life-world of the contemporary Iranian society, they convey a kind of universal femininity to which anyone can relate, regardless of cultural and gender differences. It is my pleasure to endorse her nomination for 2010-2011 Nobel Prize in literature.

Shahrokh Haghighi. Ph. D Philosophy Department Cal. State University Long Beach Email: shaghig2@csulb.edu

Thank you. Nematg (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)nematg

That is a violation of WP:NOR. Please read WP:RS. -- Cirt (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I can not comply with this until the names released and published by the nomination committee. However, this is rather to challenge the idea of deleting the page and supporting my request to restoring the page. Thank you gain. Nematg (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Nematg

Sorry but that is not the best way to satisfy WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Cirt:

I sincerely appreciate the time you are spending on this subject. However please note the Poet in question (Sima Yari) is living in Iran and mainly writes in Farsi and for this mere fact there are not many sources in English to provide as reference for her. On the other hand she is among very very few feminine poets who still dares to write against all obstacles in her way. This by itself worth mentioning and allow the world hear about her and enjoy her poems. My strongest reference to add here is Britannica book of year 2006 providing the following: "Kilid (“The Key”) by Sima Yari was the most successful example of a poetry book by a woman. Like many other recent publications, this slim volume was accompanied by a compact disc with the author reading the text." This is my final appeal to request restoring the page against all shortcomings of the text. I close this topic hoping you consider this appeal favorably and restoring the page. Allow me to commend all of you and wish you success on the job well done. I remain as a strong supporter of Wikipedia the only free source of information. I wish to thank you again. Nematg (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you could work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. I could make such a version available for you, if you wish it. -- Cirt (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I truly appreciate that. How can access and proceed? Thank you. Nematg (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Nematg/Sima Yari. -- Cirt (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Page protection: Monty Hall problem

You recently temporarily protected the Monty Hall problem article. As you likely know, the article is under mediation right now. Based on this statement, there does not seem to be adequate consensus to avoid revert-waring right now. Would you be willing to make the block indefinite for now? If a consensus emerges on editing we can remove the pp. Thanks. Sunray (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Let us revisit it after the protection expires. -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I may not be back online before the protection expires. Further background: I am mediating an ongoing dispute with the article.[8] The mediation is progressing slowly. However, as the above diff makes clear, at least one participant has resolved to make changes to the article as soon as the pp has been removed. Other participants have made it clear that they will revert any changes. We are not yet at a point where collaborative editing is likely to ensue. Continuing protection would be a good idea, IMO. Sunray (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well hopefully things will get better between the parties, if not, can always reprotect for longer after that. -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Lilias Rider Haggard article - revisited

I have recently added more information and references to User:Jcspurrell/Lilias Rider Haggard. Please tell me if I can go ahead and recreate the article or whether I need an administrator's permission first. Thank you. Jcspurrell (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of the claims appear uncited. Please format the cites using WP:CIT, and the page WP:CITE will help with that. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have now provided references for the previously uncited sentences. Jcspurrell (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see prior response, above, about formatting cites. -- Cirt (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I've formatted the references correctly now. Jcspurrell (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Does not appear so. -- Cirt (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see what you mean. Would you be able to correct it for me or explain exactly what I need to do? The instructions for formatting references are quite confusing. Thank you very much. Jcspurrell (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Copy the appropriate template from WP:CIT.
2. Fill in as many of the fields as possible, especially: author, date, work, publisher, page number.
3. Follow WP:CITE for in-line cites, for referencing use with <ref></ref>

-- Cirt (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we may be talking about different things. On page WP:CIT I have been following the instruction under "Using the same footnote multiple times" but I end up with an error message all the time. The reference in question is a website and therefore does not have a page number, publisher, etc. Do you have any advice? Jcspurrell (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The publisher is the website. There should still be a date to input, an accessdate, and an author. -- Cirt (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I searched the website more thoroughly to find the book from which the information was taken. I think everything should be in order now. Thanks for all your help. Jcspurrell (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Three cites are still not formatted properly. "Idem" is inappropriate, please use "refname" formatting, see WP:REFNAME. -- Cirt (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried to do that several times yesterday, but I always got an error message. I followed the instructions as best I could, but they are quite confusing. Would it be possible for you to make the correction when you have a spare few minutes? Thank you very much. Jcspurrell (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have done that. -- Cirt (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! May I go ahead and recreate the article now or should an administrator do that? Jcspurrell (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No. One source is okay, the other is not properly formatted, as I have stated repeatedly. And you have failed to demonstrate significant coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject, per WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, the second source is now formatted correctly (sorry, I didn't realise there was a problem with this one - I thought the problem was how to repeat the first source). As for "significant coverage", it is true that not many internet sources mention Lilias Rider Haggard, but this is precisely why I think a Wikipedia article is important, so that those who are curious about her (as I was several weeks ago, when I decided to write my article) can learn a little about her life. She was not a first-rate author, but her biography of her father is helpful for anyone interested in H. Rider Haggard, and her works on life in the countryside are important for understanding how things were back then. The fact that some people have posted photographs of her grave on the internet shows notability, and I know from correspondence with the Rider Haggard Society that a biography of Lilias Rider Haggard is currently being written. When this book is published, I am sure that many potential readers will turn to Wikipedia to see if they can learn anything about the lady before buying her biography. This is why I feel that my short article is required. Furthermore, as time goes by, people will surely add to the article. Thank you for your understanding. Jcspurrell (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the AFD consensus was clear, and you have failed to show secondary source coverage that demonstrates otherwise. -- Cirt (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll let you know if I find any other sources that I think may help satisfy Wikipedia's requirements. Jcspurrell (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Cybercrime

This new article on Wikipedia is a fake. The named reference "The Telegraph" used by the author is a faked site , a (1:1) mirrow of the original The Telegraph UK( Britain Newspaper). It make it look like the Britain Newspaper has published this and it is missused by stalkers to give evidence of the content. For the faked mirrow they registered in September the domain thetelegraph.us. Also they registered a new domain 9stardubai.com. Before they used 9starsdubai.com and dubai9stars.blogspot.com. On both domains ( dubai9stars.blogspot.com and 9starsdubai.com) they already mirowed dubai7stars.com and 7starsdubai.com. The new false stalking message is also posted by them now since the last 10 days on doxtop.com and by opening severyl faked account on Twitter, Facebook and other platforms.

The same person(s) started already in July August 2010 on Wikipedia a campaign by establish the Wikipedia Site Al Fajer Group. You already identifyed in August that the user Dubaiguy1)who started this page used several usernames ( sock puppet), after Articles on this site and other sites about Shahram Zadeh has been deleted by Wikipedia.

Please take a very deep look ( especcially on the faked reference The Telegraph ( www.thetelegraph.us), the faked website of the original of the The Telegraph UK.

Dont let Wikipedia to be misused for such a cybercrime! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Equinox555 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not at Wikipedia, it is located at Wikinews. -- Cirt (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Update, see: [9]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Breakaway (Transformers)

Can you please recreate the article Breakaway (Transformers) to my user space for me to work on? Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Mathewignash/Breakaway (Transformers). -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Mathewignash (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

unprotect targeted killing

I have requested unprotection on the article's talk page. I believe the redirect issue has been resolved in favor of 2 separate articles, and there are other issues we need to get on with. Thundermaker (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Will respond there. -- Cirt (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Quidco article

Hi Cirt, in case you missed my last update, the updated version of the proposed Quidco article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stuartcoggins/Sandbox with improvements to the secondary references. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartcoggins (talk • contribs) .

Okay, will take a look. -- Cirt (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, format the cites with WP:CIT templates. -- Cirt (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that is now complete. Stuartcoggins (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

One cite is still not formatted. -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that; the last one has now been formatted. Stuartcoggins (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

80% rise in the number of portals...

Just in case you suddenly wonder how {{Number of portals}} went from 588 portals to 1051, see User:Zetawoof/PortalList and User:Bencherlite/Portals check 2010/count. I thought that previous figure was far too low! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 12:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

AN?

Why is the proposal suddenly being moved to AN? I didn't see anything wrong with WTDYK; this just makes a mess by spreading it across more pages.

If it must be at AN (although I still don't see why) can you at least copy over the !votes and discussion that were already made at WTDYK? rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not copy over discussion, as most of that discussion was about whether to have it at AN. Now that it is at AN, discussion about whether to have it at AN is repetitive to discussion already taking place on the AN page. You see, it will make things much simpler. -- Cirt (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No, there was a big discussion under DS's !vote about the proposal itself, not about AN, and there was another editor who !voted (two, if you count mine that editconflicted). And I didn't see anyone other than Courcelles asking for the discussion to be moved anyway. I'm not asking for the whole discussion to be posted over, but can you at least copy over the relevant part (everything other than the discussion under Courcelles' vote is not about AN). rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 Doing.... -- Cirt (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, from a read of that discussion, I am certain editors that commented there are aware of the shift to WP:AN, and are intelligent enough to figure things out, and comment there. I would rather a fresh thread take place at AN, and oppose cut/pasting comments from one to the other (the only case where I did that, was for my own prior comments.) So I thought that was okay. :) -- Cirt (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Pay attention.

"Nothing seems to be wrong with that hook" ?

Please consult 'the discussion which I posted. The hook is phrased such that it is factually inaccurate. I have opened a discussion on the topic, and posted a request to the talkpage of the user who created the article.

I will accept that you did not realize the error, and as such that you did not intend this as a violation of WP:POINT. I profoundly and sincerely apologize for my earlier statement on that matter.

So as to avoid a wheel war, I politely request that you remove that hook yourself. DS (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect assessment. I read the article. Your analysis was faulty. -- Cirt (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Gatoclass (talk · contribs), [10]. -- Cirt (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I ask that you make a null edit to that queue addressing the error, so as to more clearly indicate that a valid concern (factual accuracy) has been addressed and ruled unnecessary. Simply saying "nothing is in error" can (and in my case, did) give the misleading impression that you had failed to notice the issue being addressed. I hope you realize that this whole mess is the result of multiple types of problems (is it all right to remove a hook if it's 'inappropriate' (note scare-quotes), vs is it all right to remove a hook if there's questions over its accuracy, vs is it all right to reword a hook for elegance and flow) being conflated. And as always, note that people may not choose their words optimally if they are in a hurry to respond to seemingly-aggressive questions while they are to avoid edit conflicts. DS (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. Unnecessary. That seems overly much and parsing into edit summaries. -- Cirt (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

DS, there is only one type of problem: whether or not you exercise good judgment in deciding what hooks are ok to remove. The consensus from the most recent discussion appears to be that you do not, regardless of what your reason for removing it is. If other users in the project think that you can't decide what hooks are ok (regardless of whether you make your decision based on (in)appropriateness, (in)accuracy, or any other criterion), then you shouldn't be doing it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sabbatic Witchcraft

Sabbatic Witchcraft is unanimously non-notable and the "article" is less than a stub. There's no reason to relist it. I've been waiting all week to change it into a redirect to Contemporary witchcraft#Sabbatic Current, but I've gone ahead and created a Sabbatic witchcraft redirect for the duration.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to notify me of developments post the relist, and then I may close it. :) -- Cirt (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought relisting meant it needed to go for another full week. Unfortunately, no one new chimed in and it was abused: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sabbatic dis-information. Par for the course, as I feared. But even if it can't be removed/stricken, at least I tried.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No objections to the closure of the AFD. :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Errors

When there are edit conflicts ongoing in a fervent debate, I would think it is obvious that editors may accidentally remove each other's comments. That said, I would feel much obliged if you would restore the comment of mine which you just removed on the grounds that I accidentally removed Gatoclass's comment. DS (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, feel free to add back your comment. -- Cirt (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mergers and acquisitions by Condé Nast (3rd nomination)

Your action of relisting this was improper as you were the nominator and so are involved. I would have simply reverted but am not sure how to unpick the relisting process. The whole thing is a big waste of time as there is not the slightest consensus for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It was a procedural nom, I had no opinion expressed in the AFD itself. -- Cirt (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Your action still seems disruptive and improper. I further note that you relisted another AFD when further discussion seems unnecessary. You actioned 10 other discussions during the same minute so you're only giving them about 5 seconds each. This does not seem sufficient time to properly digest what has been said. In this case it seems clear that there is no consensus to delete and, given the peculiar nature of this AFD, it would have been better to have closed it. Please clarify how you are handling such cases as it does not seem right that you should be handling AFDs with a bot or some simple algorithm/script. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I go over them in the days prior to closing them. -- Cirt (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• But then what of any amendments made after your review. And how do you record your findings? I'm just not understanding the process. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mergers and acquisitions by Condé Nast (3rd nomination) has been closed. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Cirt, I have an issue with you relisting the House Episode pages for AFD again, this would mark the 3rd consecutive time they are going through AFD, relisted twice. Its not as if they did not get any response, the community consensus from the page is overwhelmingly in support of keeping them hence AFD process should be closed already. Please don't drag this out, are you expecting some different outcome? Theo10011 (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for closing it.Theo10011 (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Closed the AFD. And you are most welcome. Thank you for thanking me. That is really appreciated. A lot. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

NYC Transparency Site is Running Again...

Hi Cirt. It seems that the NYC Transparency site has been released again at www.nyc.gov/transparency. Perhaps the article should be reverted from deletion? October 5 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.152.166.182 (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you could register an account on Wikipedia. Then, you could work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Mama grizzly

I'm a little puzzled about the conclusion of Mama grizzly deletion. At best, I could see a no consensus. I think the arguments made that the article fails WP:N and WP:NEO are easily refuted by the fact that the term is covered by the dozen or so secondary references which were listed in the article. The nominating editor claimed that the article read like a List of candidates endorsed by Sarah Palin but the fact is there was much more to the article than just that. There was the history of how the term was introduced by Sarah Palin, there was a section on how her opponents used the term against her, and also a section on how others used the term in a tongue and cheek for other purposes.
I am the main editor of the article (responsible for all by 2-3 minor edits), and missed the discussion because I did not pay attention to that article in the last week. Would you consider re-opening the discussion to allow me to add my voice to the discussion? Victor Victoria (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Restored. Relisted. Back at AFD. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what? An article creator or primary contributor doesn't have some sort of special status in regards to AfDs; if they miss it, tough cookies, go to DRV if they really need to. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The first step before going to DVR is to make a request with the closing admin, which is what I've done. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL, they argue with me if it is closed, they argue with me if it is relisted, (see above), seems like Catch 22. This one is staying open and relisted. Worst case, the community of Wikipedia has a little additional time to voice their comments and view points in an open discussion. Tough cookies indeed. -- Cirt (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't trying to harp on ya, though it probably come across that way. I was just struck by the seeming "I didn't get a chance to save my article" nature of the request. Guess we'll see how it winds up in 7 days. :) Tarc (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated. Thank you. We will indeed. -- Cirt (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Publication Studio’s

Good Day to you Cirt. You recently closed an AFD, Publication Studio’s, as delete. Could you place a copy of the article on my subpage? I would like to take the essential information from the article and merge it into Matthew Stadler piece. Thanks for your help. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Shoessss/Publication Studio. -- Cirt (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responce. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Thank you for taking the time to come here to my user talk page and thank me for doing that. It is most appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Doria Pamphilj

Fine if you want to endorse the deletion, but it would only be fair if you argued the case. As it is you've just closed the discussion. I don't think anyone has responded to my arguments. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was determined to be in favor of endorse. -- Cirt (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review request: Sarah Louise Young

Hello Cirt,

I'm new to Wikipedia so please forgive any mistakes. I first directed this query to another user who it turned out was not able to review a deletion, and advised I should find an administrator. As far as I can work out you're the administrator who effected the deletion I'm interested in, so I'm writing to you.

A couple of days ago I did a search for a pornographic movie performer called Sarah Louise Young. I'm not a particular fan, but Ms Young's performances played a significant part in my youth and I wondered if she was in Wikipedia. I had a vague memory that I'd checked a few years ago and found she was, but I wasn't certain.

Anyway, what I found was a page indicating that she used to be in Wikipedia but the entry had been deleted. When I read closely and followed various links I found the reason was that she failed the 'notability criteria'. I was surprised because, my own memories aside, I knew she'd been a big deal in European pornography for several years. I checked the criteria and found that a pornographic actor or model is notable only if he or she:

1. Has won a well-known award such as an AVN Award. (See Category:Pornographic film awards or Category:Film awards for other awards which may apply.)

There were other numbered criteria, but this is the one I'm addressing.

I was pretty sure Sarah Louise Young had won several awards. I did a Google search of her name with the word 'award' and one of the early hits was the French Wikipedia entry for her name, which included the following awards:

• 1993: Best Actress – Festival International de Cine Erotico de Barcelona (FICEB), 1993, 1994, 1995.

• 1994: Best European Actress – Premio de Turia (Spanish Cultural Prize) sponsored by Turia and Generalitat de Valencia, 1994.

• 1995: Premio Alla Carriera – Il Festival Internazionale Dell 'Hard (Impulse D'Oro Awards), Bologna, 1995.

• 1996: Best Actress (German) – for the film Hamlet – The Brussels International Festival of Eroticism, 1996.

• 1997: Best European Actress – Venus Awards, Berlin, 1997.

These are from http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Louise_Young

At least a few of these are listed among the recognised awards as per the criteria, so could you please review the deletion?

Fergus Velour (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. I could make such a version available to you, if you so desire. -- Cirt (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As above, I'm new here - and unfamiliar with the processes. Can a deletion not be reversed in light of new information? No matter, although I don't know how a subpage of my userspace would work or how I initiate such. I would appreciate it if you provide a draft version and any further instructions, or instructions on where I can find instructions :) Fergus Velour (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done, it was already userfied to a draft version for another user, perhaps you can assist them with their draft improvements, at User:Testales/Sarah Louise Young. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Russia portal

Hi

I was going to post this on the Russia portal but then noticed that there doesnt seem to be much activity there ?

Can you have a loook if you get time please ? [11] - it is a series of edits by Joodoe whose english is not very good. I do not have enough knowledge of the goings on either so am asking you to help by either taking a look at it yourself or, if you can, pass it on to someone who may have more specific knowledge of these matters. There are some pretty big deletions of text etc (as well as some dubious looking additions)

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The portal is for discussion of the portal itself. Suggest you post to WT:RUSSIA. -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Why deletion of Voluntary Content Rating

You deleted the article Voluntary_Content_Rating based on one vote (which incorrectly stated spam, because spam is only valid when there is no relevant content) and the request as non-notable.

The Article was very useful, though, because it lists the only simple alternative to the ICRA labels (Internet_Content_Rating_Association). ICRA labels impose restrictions on the content which are incompatible with free content¹, and PIC is quite complicated, so VCR is the only useful alternative for small website owners. And ICRA is dead… → http://icra.org

¹: http://draketo.de/licht/ich/meine-seite-ist-ab-18#fn:VCR (german)

So it was not non-notable and spam was assessed incorrectly (at least for the version I read a few years ago). And there was just one vote to kill an article which had useful content and had been around for at least one and a half years².

²: 1,5 years, because that was when I linked to it on http://draketo.de/schatten

Please undo the deletion. The content is very useful to webmasters, especially in germany where we now have to mark all pages.Draketo (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you can work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. If you like, I could make such a version available to you. :) -- Cirt (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)