User talk:Cirt: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Cirt (talk | contribs)
Line 373: Line 373:
As you closed a previous DRV for Bitcoin, this is to let you know that I have started a third at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 12]], with a recommendation that the Incubator version at [[Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Bitcoin]] has now been improved enough to go back to the main space. Regards, [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 10:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
As you closed a previous DRV for Bitcoin, this is to let you know that I have started a third at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 12]], with a recommendation that the Incubator version at [[Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Bitcoin]] has now been improved enough to go back to the main space. Regards, [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 10:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
:Okay, thank you. -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 12:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
:Okay, thank you. -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 12:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

== Third Opinion Award ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="top" | [[Image:3O_Barnstar.png|The Third Opinion Award|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''[[WP:3O|The Third Opinion Award]]'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" |{{#if: For diligent and faithful service to the Wikipedia community through your work at WP:3O.|For diligent and faithful service to the Wikipedia community through your work at WP:3O.}} — [[User:TransporterMan|'''<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2" color="blue">T<font size="1">RANSPORTER</font>M<font size="1">AN</font></font>''']] ([[User talk:TransporterMan#top|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 21:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
|}
:I ordinarily give this 3O service award to any 3O Wikipedian who has more than fifty edits at 3O with at least one edit within the last 6 months, so this comes with my apologies for being so late on this. I didn't realize until just a few minutes ago that you had previously had 72 edits at 3O under a prior username. Best regards, [[User:TransporterMan|'''<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2" color="blue">T<font size="1">RANSPORTER</font>M<font size="1">AN</font></font>''']] ([[User talk:TransporterMan#top|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 21:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:16, 13 December 2010

WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks
This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia.
AFD/TT-7T-8T-2RelistedAFDOAFD tool linksWP:DRVWP:MFDAIVRFUBUAA/CATRFPPPERCSDABFARFAC urgentsTFARRSNBLPNFTNGAN Topic listsGoogle 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

independent reliable secondary sources

Refs inside scroll box
<div class="reflist4" style="height: 200px; overflow: auto; padding: 3px; border: 1px solid #ababab">{{reflist|2}}</div>
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

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:

None of them start out looking like that: if an editor initially just chunks in some text, many others chip in to tweak it up to Signpost standards. For example, someone wrote this, which Karanacs, Royalbroil and I turned into this, so if you just chunk in some text as a start, others can help finish it off. Another example, I put in this outline, and Karanacs brought it up to this. Other editors have written almost complete and clean Dispatches without much need for other editing. If you're interested, please weigh in and coordinate at WT:FCDW In case you're interested, you could just begin sandboxing something at WP:FCDW/Portals and pop over to WT:FCDW to leave a note when you're ready for others to help out. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Razzies progress

Cirt (talk)

BSPlayer article deletion

84.255.194.237 (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Hi, article about BSPlayer has been deleted, in our opinion unjustly, because many other multimedia players have none citations, and they are not deleted (ie. Totem (media player), Media Go ... the list is almost endless). Also claim about being "not-notable" is not true, please check http://bsplayer.en.softonic.com/ (6.9 mil downloads) or http://download.cnet.com/BS-Player/3000-13632_4-10722361.html (1,4 mil downloads). How could we restore BSPlayer article and keep it active? Thank you in advance, Ico[reply]

Suggest you register an account. Then, you could work on it, as a proposed draft version article, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can i petition for reinstatement of the entry or at least can I get a copy of the old (historical) version for my edits, so i can redo them according to Wikipedia rules? Thank you. Ico-Man (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

now at User:Ico-Man/BS.Player. -- Cirt (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article is online http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ico-Man#BSPlayer. It is as clean as possible. Ico-Man (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Now what? Ico-Man (talk) 09:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are zero sources cited there. -- Cirt (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me, where are the sources here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomplayer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-Multimedia_Player , amongst others? I don't see any multimeda players having any other sources that official pages and review pages. Ico-Man (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. -- Cirt (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a valid argument. It shows that there are severe inconcistencies between articles, which are not good for the reputation of online encyclopedia. What kind of sources would be appropriate for a media player who's on the market for 10 years now? Reviews by independent sources (cnet download.com and softonic.com... and we can add more) are the only online sources for software program, and there are plenty in proposed draft article. Ico-Man (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"We can add more ..." -- who is "we" ??? -- Cirt (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Nackman / Article Deletion

DECEMBER 3, 2010

Cirt,

I have make changes and added references to the best of my ability for Alex Nackman's wiki article. Can we please finally re-instate this officially? It's been 4 months and I've done all the edits I know how to do to make this article unbias, informative, relevant, and useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Musicman5/Alex_Nackman

Thanks, Musicman5 (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Mark[reply]

Your efforts are appreciated. However, unfortunately, it is deficient in many ways. It references other sources that fail WP:RS, like Wikipedia itself. The references could be formatted, using WP:CIT cite templates. -- Cirt (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DECEMBER 4, 2010 Cirt- I've amended the references and updated the sources with non-wiki pages. Hopefully this will work for you. In terms of the format, I've followed the instructions that Wikipedia states for listing references. All sources I've used work and are reliable.

Musicman5 (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Mark[reply]

DECEMBER 6, 2010 Cirt...did you see my above note? Thanks. Mark

Can you please try formatting the references using WP:CIT templates? -- Cirt (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We've been working on Flower Drum Song, and it is at FAC. There aren't many GAs or FAs in the whole musicals project, so I think this FAC is important to that corner of Wikipedia. Would you kindly take a look and either comment or vote? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will try to take a look at it. -- Cirt (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleidica Light Instrument

Hi Cirt,

On June 2, 2009 you deleted an entry for The KALEIDICA Light Instrument. I would like to petition for reinstatement of the entry. Can I get a copy of the old (historical) version for my edits?

Thanks, CEHenderson (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, now at User:CEHenderson/Kaleidica. -- Cirt (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your advice please

You closed the {{afd}} on Ali Sher Hamidullah as delete.

As a closing administrator can I ask if you see it as part of your responsibility to go on record as to what changes would be required to turn an article that did not survive an {{afd}} to one that could be restored to article space?

If so, would you please offer that advice now?

FWIW many of the recent {{afd}} nominations have dismissed, or failed to mention the OARDEC "Summary of Evidence" memos, as if they were not WP:RS. IMO they do however fulfill all the criteria for WP:RS. Geo Swan (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was to delete. Would rather not re-argue the AFD here. -- Cirt (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced category changes

From what I can tell, the films listed originate in the US, for the most part. And allmovie lists his affiliations as "USA" and "UK" - the former seems a safe bet given the evidence.

If that's not good enough I don't see why it can't be changed. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory search provided nothing beyond what I've already found. I haven't the time to search further - let's just chalk it up to an honest mistake and leave it at that. Sorry for the trouble. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Link. Simple criteria...

Sir: The article on Landmark Education needs work, and for the most part, it has received a lot of biased editing over the years. There is a link both to the company website ( biased ), and to the skeptics dictionary ( biased ), I added a link to another place ( what's the deal about landmark education ) and since it was written by 3 people with more experience in professional psychology, than landmark has existed in what ever form, I would think it would be unbiased.

There are factual errors in the article, classifying it has rubbish. ( really, just like the aerodynamics of fruit ). I have pointed out multiple errors in the discussion page, with no comments, only to have my comments reverted by ITS A CULT ITS A CULT ITS A CULT, hardly a unbiased way of doing things, or having literally NO support from admins at Wikipedia.

So I request that you remove the link to the skeptics dictionary, ( biased ), based upon an more compelling excuse/policy of

"WP:ELPOV

On articles with multiple points of view, avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight."

Please elucidate why you think professional psychologists have bias, and the skeptics dictionary does not?

Yours, ~~---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.198.233 (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is yet more spam links, the EL sect does not need them. Likely associated with promotional material spammed out by the company itself. -- Cirt (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed. As it stands, I'd have to say that's a clear delete. No reliable significant sources in the article, none of the keeps show any reason for doing so, and they're probably all the same editor anyway (note the two Keeps with "Keep*"). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undid close. Relisted. Back at AFD. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Cirt, i am here to thank you for keeping the page. I would like to say that all the sources are reliable, because they are important Iranian cinema sites (ex: Iranact.com, sourehcinema.com). There is also references about series that he has played in (they have pages on Wikipedia). And he has a profile on us.imdb.com too. As you know this actor is Iranian therefore his references are all in Persian. I appreciate what you did and i thank you.

--Alikhezrayi (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, you decided that it is a keep, but now you say you relisted it again. I don't know if you are Iranian or not, if you are then i think that you probably know him and you know that all the references are good enough. Even if you are not Iranian, by looking at each of the links, you can see that he is a real person and he deserves to be on Wikipedia. But that is your choice and your opinion, although i have to say that some people in discussion are only giving subjective point of views. I only like to say that if they are not Iranian or they have no knowledge of Iranian cinema, how can they judge an article about an Iranian? Anyhow, i appreciate what you did before by keeping the article. Now we all have to wait and see.

-@ Black_kite: Just because two people put keep*, it means that they are the same? -@ Michael: Why can’t he be sure? Because you feel that this article must be erased? Because you have a subjective point of view about this person? Is this how AFD works? If it is like this, then I think half of articles on Wikipedia must be gone if they are decided by personal opinions. --Alikhezrayi (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss at the AFD, not here. -- Cirt (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be appropriate to strike the keeps and comments of the master too at the AFD? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not the master, no. The one user should be left up there. -- Cirt (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Glad that we got this nest rooted out. Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request from Salut0

Hi Cirt. Salut0 (talk · contribs) has been caught in a hard range block. The account in older than the vandal, TRATTOOO (talk · contribs), which caused the block, so I guess they deserve to be exempt from the block. The only puzzling aspect is that they haven't edited for four years, and now suddenly discover the need. Favonian (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated

Cirt, thank you kindly for dealing with those BLP issues so quickly.Griswaldo (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Thank you for recognizing my efforts to deal with this issue in a responsive manner. -- Cirt (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Scientology content and references

Hello. On the Lee Purcell page you removed content that mentioned her affiliation with Scientology. This included six references. The reason given was that it was "poorly sourced info." Could you elaborate a bit more on this decision? What would you consider good sources that detail a person's affiliation with Scientology? Calm Seas101 (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good sources would be secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. -- Cirt (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am stumped. I thought the references I cited earlier were crystal clear, reliable and quite explicit regarding the subject's affiliation with Scientology. Calm Seas101 (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. They are poor sources, and some were primary sources. In particular those primary sources are notoriously unreliable and will say whatever they wish to manufacture, in order to promote the parent organization. Get it? -- Cirt (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fram

I had asked him to walk away from his actions with Geo Swan on his user page. He is too vested in that conflict to be impartal. He rebuffed me there, preferring to raise another AN/I thread. The actions he is taking are not defensible, he does not understand what half the WP acronyms he cites mean... <sigh> Personally I asked him by email to disengage from his activities wrt my edits, there are plenty of checks and balances without him getting involved, he has refused to even acknowledge that request. Rich Farmbrough, 09:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Good morning! You closed this AfD as a Delete and did for the main article, but this was a multiple nomination, and the associated Red Handed (Gillian Glover album) was not deleted. Just thought I'd bring that to your attention.  RGTraynor  10:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to now be  Done. -- Cirt (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Worst Picture Golden Raspberry Award winners

Category:Worst Picture Golden Raspberry Award winners, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Courcelles 04:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Worst Screenplay Golden Raspberry Award winners

Category:Worst Screenplay Golden Raspberry Award winners, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Courcelles 04:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel Golden Raspberry Award winners

Category:Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel Golden Raspberry Award winners, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Courcelles 04:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Worst "Original" Song Golden Raspberry Award-winning songs

Category:Worst "Original" Song Golden Raspberry Award-winning songs, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Courcelles 04:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, sorry. You didn't actually need four of these things! Courcelles 04:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article: N-Sider

Hi Cert, just wanted call your attention to a recent delete request for N-Sider.

The website originally passed a notability review resoundingly, with roughly the same evidence that could still be provided. This most recent nomination only received a Weak Delete, which was actually factually incorrect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/N-Sider). The site's content was never re-written. The discussion in the weak delete proves as much, which put the site up for more discussion to reach a consensus, though the consensus did not actually disprove any notability, but just offered a suggestion for a redirect.

Here's one article that clearly shows the articles were not "rewritten" by IGN, the content was distributed: http://www.n-sider.com/contentview.php?contentid=247 http://cube.ign.com/articles/536/536510p1.html

Again, the site already passed this notability check the first time it was up for deletion (this was the second, though that page seems to have been overwritten by a move of TenPoundHammer). The site passed then, it still passes now, it fulfills all notability requirements and the discussion on deletion did not reach a factual consensus regarding any notability requirements or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#Criteria this point in specific. The original page was based on slightly different spelling in the case of the letter S, so I can see why this discussion would have been missed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/N-sider

Would just ask that you take a look at that information (and ideally reverse the decision for being inconclusive and originally ending in a keep based on the same criteria discussed most recently).

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.131.138.180 (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you register an account. Then, you can work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done! tipmang (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, now at User:Tipmang/N-Sider. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

careless deletion

You delete things rashly and without care.

A simple search for "Musharaf Bangash" on Google: http://www.google.com.hk/search?q=%22musharaf+bangash%22&hl=en-US&safe=strict&prmd=ivo&ei=dwwCTabSA4_SrQfI642RDw&start=0&sa=N shows that he is quite prominent.

Someone just happened to create his Wikipedia article for the first time not long after he was kidnapped. So you decided, that despite his dozens of released songs and filmclips, countless references on Pashto music websites, tthat the only significant thing about him is that he was kidapped. This again despite the fact the the BBC News says he is a well known Pashto singer.

So someone decides only a couple of weeks ago that this article should be deleted, because it is small and they personally don't know much about this singer. A discussion about it is underway. Extra information and references have been added. A number of people have agreed that it should not be deleted.

Then you come along and hit the OFF button. Am I mistaken, or were you not at all involved in the conversation about it? Considering that the BBC and Radio Free Europe were not good enough sources for you, I was under the process of checking for more references, but you couldn't wait.

You decided that this fledgling article about a person who is VERY prominent in Google and Youtube searches .. (g on , look at the link again http://www.google.com.hk/search?q=%22musharaf+bangash%22&hl=en-US&safe=strict&prmd=ivo&ei=dwwCTabSA4_SrQfI642RDw&start=0&sa=N) should nevertheless be deleted without delay, as its lack of depth and lack of references were not good enough for you.

I don't think this article's presence was hurting Wikipedia. I think your rashness and self-appointment as an executioner of articles that have just been started is hurting Wikipedia.

Re-instate the article please, and give us some more time to add references.

Aurora boringalis (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the closing administrator, Cirt is supposed not to be involved in the prior discussion. Go and read our Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. The people who were evaluating the sources, that you had eight days to change the minds of, were Vejvančický, Farhikht, and Peridon. Uncle G (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed amendment to the U.S. constitution

I came across this from some unrelated lexicography. (See wikt:User talk:SemperBlotto#bibiographer if you are curious.) I notice that Est: Playing the Game cites Vile2003, but doesn't discuss what Vile in fact discusses at length in the actual source, which is the proposed constitutional amendement in the other book. Neither anything in Special:Whatlinkshere/Est: Playing the Game nor List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution seem to cover it, either. There's scope for expansion here — although I'm not sure where, since The Oakland Statement as a whole doesn't appear to have much other coverage — if you're interested. Uncle G (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will try to do some additional research. -- Cirt (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Inside Landmark Forum 5 of 6.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Inside Landmark Forum 5 of 6.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Inside Scientology German edition.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Inside Scientology German edition.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I buggered up the "admin's heads-up" I was trying to send, my apologies.

Saw the note on the AN:I discussion, and I've posted some clarifications on my concerns--very long story short, I saw what looked like possible evidence (based on contrib logs and talk pages and some previous AN:I discussions) of ongoing abuse from a user that had somehow not resulted in a block, and was trying to get some administrator eyes on what could be an LTA situation. It wasn't my intent to cause confusion or a mess, and I do apologise if I have (and would like to know as someone who primarily lurks here on WP the best way to report an issue like this in future--I could see means to report ongoing copyvios, I could see a means to report sockpuppetry, I could see a means to report LTA situations with blocks in place, but nothing much besides AN:I to report what looked to me to be a possible abuse situation involving at least copyvios and edit-warring occuring over a longterm basis).

(And yeah, I do feel particularly bad on this--I edit on other wikis (TVTropes primarily), and have worked as an anti-net-abuse volunteer for something like 16 years on non-Wikimedia projects so I'd rather be doing this the right way.)

Thanks, Dogemperor (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A favor perhaps?

If you have the time... and as my own skills with wikitables are lacking... might you perform your magic at Eric Lloyd#Awards and nominations? And then maybe point me to the place where I might teach myself? Thanks in advance. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will take a look. -- Cirt (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin

As you closed a previous DRV for Bitcoin, this is to let you know that I have started a third at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 12, with a recommendation that the Incubator version at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Bitcoin has now been improved enough to go back to the main space. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion Award

The Third Opinion Award The Third Opinion Award
For diligent and faithful service to the Wikipedia community through your work at WP:3O. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I ordinarily give this 3O service award to any 3O Wikipedian who has more than fifty edits at 3O with at least one edit within the last 6 months, so this comes with my apologies for being so late on this. I didn't realize until just a few minutes ago that you had previously had 72 edits at 3O under a prior username. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]