User talk:Cirt

WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia.
Nominations: Gedling Town F.C. (talk | history | start review) • Reggie Barnes (skateboarder) (talk | history | start review) • Exile (American band) (talk | history | start review) • Jude Law (talk | history | start review) • Blackpink (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Sanctioned Suicide • Mezhyhirya Monastery • Fallout 3 • Muhammad in Islam • Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion • Northallerton • 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-8 • T-2 • Relisted • AFDO • AFD tool links • 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
• User:Edward/Find link

independent reliable secondary sources

• User:Citation bot/use

• {{findsources}}

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

• 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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

We are the users who would like to contribute. Could you , please, answer my previous questions. Ico-Man (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the account called Ico-Man (talk · contribs) operated by more than one individual? Does the account Ico-Man (talk · contribs) represent a company or organization? -- Cirt (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No. No. No. Anything else? Ico-Man (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Can you tell us, which sources would be appropriate here, except for software reviews, which we have? Ico-Man (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gillian Glover

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)

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

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)

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)

Done! tipmang (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

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

careless deletion

• Musharaf Bangash (AfD discussion)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

Thank you. :) -- Cirt (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Note to self - page to work on for quality improvement - book article - Slaves of Sleep by L. Ron Hubbard

• Slaves of Sleep

Notes on research ideas towards quality improvement

1. Posted to User talk:Rtrace about request for in-line citation conversion for refs already used in the article.
2. Check book searches, for reception coverage.
3. Do some database research for a bit more fleshed out publication history, literature databases, etc.
4. Poke Mike Christie (talk · contribs), excellent Featured Article writer, with focus on subject of science fiction - specifically with regard to possible sources for sects in the article like Themes, Genre, Style, etc.
5. Find info on promotional and/or marketing materials for book.

-- Cirt (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

First 3O

Hi, Cirt.

I wanted to ask you:

In terms of disputes, if it's about a where to place comma, or the order in which to list three items, or whether to include a link to another article, is it ok to fight over such things?

I think I'm having my first WP:3O. Have been reading the guideline, and will probably discuss with the editor with whom I'm having the dispute in his userpage first, then move it to the article's talk page, where he'll expect me, and then have a WP:3O since we're only two editors and there's no consensus in sight.

Wanted to ask for your help if you want and pay attention to the procedure, please. It's my first time and I want do it properly. --John KB (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hrm, suggest you post this query to WT:3O. -- Cirt (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess you deserve it

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I give you this for apologizing to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, and for realizing that your original thought, may not have been the correct one, and in the end realizing that Chase me Ladies, I'm the Cavalry was acting in good faith. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 00:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :) -- Cirt (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Cirt, please note that I have raised a concern about what seems like a potential WP:CANVASSING violation by you here. Thank you. --JN466 00:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. -- Cirt (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Bacon WikiProject and Portal

Nice job of the creation of WP:BACON. Also, an great job creating the Bacon portal. Regards, JJ98 (Talk) 08:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Move

Can you move Hayley Fischer back to Hayley Smith (American Dad!) per UNDUE and COMMONNAME, I don't recall her ever being called Fisher, if she did, it was maybe once in the wedding episode. CTJF83 chat 13:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps try WP:REQMOVE? -- Cirt (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Afd - Adaptability (computer science)

Thanks for closing the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adaptability_(computer_science).

There were two pages that were part of that nomination. I noticed you deleted Adaptability (computer science) but not Adaptivity (computer science). Would you remove that one, too? --Pnm (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --Pnm (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking for Online Ambassadors for the Spring!

Hey Cirt. The Public Policy Initiative is looking to recruit Online Ambassadors to help mentor students who will be editing Wikipedia in the Spring. I thought of you because of your relative activeness and the generally good interaction I have had with you in the past as well as your experience with quality content development. I hope you are interested, I think we will soon be able to expand the ambassador program to many fields outside of Public policy including literature, so I hope you will help! Take a look at Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors and sign up and apply if you would like to help! Sadads (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will ruminate on this. -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good! Sadads (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If you get the chance...

• Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Law of England and Wales
• Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Portugal
• Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Biology - note that MisterDub (talk · contribs) hasn't edited at all since suggesting he could update this portal perhaps monthly.

I won't be able to edit much, if at all, after Friday of this week (what with the holidays) and it would be nice to tidy up these loose ends before shutting up for the holidays. Regards, and sorry to be a pain about WP:FP once again! Bencherlite^Talk 23:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will take a look. -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

IdeaConnection

Hi,

You recently deleted an article that I created, IdeaConnection. Because it seemed that several people were unhappy with the content, I revised it and wanted to ask that you to review it before I post it. It is currently on my personal user page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sigma0_1/IdeaConnection

I am relatively new Wikipedia editor and it takes time to learn what to include and exclude, I apologize for any mistakes.

Sigma0 1 (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like too much over-emphasis on primary sources, and not enough significant discussion from secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This was recreated, but from what I remember it is significantly similar to the previous version so I've tagged it as WP:CSD#G4. SmartSE (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Frankie Martinez from List of Notable Puerto Ricans

Dear Cirt,

I was informed by Tony the Marine, that you were the one who elected to remove Frankie Martinez's name from the list of notable Puerto Ricans.

I just wanted to inquire why that was the case. I provided a reference to an El Diario article accessible online to the public that highlights Mr. Martinez and his company.

Is there something I'm missing because I can gladly provide what you need.

Please let me know as Frankie Martinez is truly deserving to be on this list.

Best, Gary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenergizerx (talk • contribs) 01:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest working on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. I could make such a version available to you, if you like. -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD requires closing

Cirt,

Please close the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven. This is a very old AfD that was forgotten due to a techical bug and is now a moot point anyway (the content was merged by a user who didn't even know about it).

Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will take a look. -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Battle of Karánsebes

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Battle of Karánsebes. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I've posted a deletion review request of the article Battle_of_Karánsebes. While the details of the defeat, the date, the story about the gypsies and the liquor are clearly debatable; the battle itself, and the defeat is fairly well documented, if not in the well known A.J.Gross-Hoffinger (Leipzig, Nachdruuck, 1847) Die Geschichte des Joseph II (a scanned version can be seen at Josephs des Zweiten, but it is rather difficult to read because of the gotic alfabet), while this report may not be of confidence, there is a letter of Joseph II himself to his first minister Kaunitz (Austrian Archives, Lettres d'empereur Josph II à prince Kaunitz). In that original form the article needs rewriting, but the battle itself is well documented by primary sources. Please read my translation of the Joseph II letter excerpt in The deletion review page. While the original letter may be difficult to obtain (because Austrian Archives are not digital and the books with the transcriptions you can buy costs 800 euros) there are a few transcriptions of the letter. I've posted a few links with references, including a magazine report of the same year, and a book of 1928. While we hardly can call the event of the panic a battle, and we cannot believe it was because of liquor, some panic happened and result in deaths and call this event "Battle of Karansebes" seem to me logic, as long as the article takes distance from the legend. In fact keeping the article seems to me a very good way the separate fact (the deaths of soldiers by some sort of panic) from the fiction (the story about the gypsies and the liquor). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agranero (talk • contribs) 07:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Agranero User talk:Agranero

Okay, thank you for the notice. -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tracie Laymon

Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Note to self - today's GA candidacy nominations

1. Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet
2. Leavenworth Nutcracker Museum
3. Behind the Exclusive Brethren

-- Cirt (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Note to self - GA candidates to review

1. A Short History of Progress
2. Cardcaptor Sakura
3. Carlos Celdran
4. Illegals Program
5. Deshastha Brahmin
6. Hermes o Logios
7. Homosexuality

-- Cirt (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete the "James With" page

Could you explain why you have deleted the following page with information about the actor James With?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_With

A formal request to reinstate this to what it was before you deleted is made here.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Withepedia (talk • contribs) 06:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted after WP:AFD process, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James With. -- Cirt (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for FedEx Express Flight 647

An editor has asked for a deletion review of FedEx Express Flight 647. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MickMacNee (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:DGP

Hi Cirt. I noticed you blocked User:Democratic Green Party in Somalia for obvious self-promotion on the List of political parties in Somalia. I was wondering, though, if it would be alright to add the party to the article, as it is after all a political party in the country. In one of his/her edits, the blocked user left a URL for the party's website, which does appear to belong to a real political organization. Somalia is scheduled to shift to a representative system of government starting August 11, so many new political parties are starting to form; I think that this is perhaps one of the latest ones. Please let me know how best to proceed. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

My action was only with regards to the account itself. Please feel free to make your own independent edits of your own personal judgment to the article, and discuss them at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavy Snowfall of Late 2010 in the United Kingdom

Hi Cirt - I closed this discussion four minutes after you relisted it. I didn't see this (I obviously had the page open for a lot longer than four minutes as I waded through the arguments!). Was there any particular reason you relisted it? WP:RELIST says that relists are only generally used when there are few participants in the AfD, or the arguments are bereft of policy-based reasoning. It also says that relisting is not a substitute for a "no consensus" close. If you had re-listed it for a particular reason, I'd be happy to revert my close as you got there first. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I default to your judgment on that one. No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request filed

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cirt. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP violating use of rollback

I am very close to taking you to arbitration and demanding you be restricted, for POV-pushing on BLPs and abusing your administrative privileges, as well as breaches of the Scientology related arbcom restrictions. This edit is beyond unacceptable. You used administrative rollback, and called "vandalism", an edit which served to remove a clear BLP violation. (And the subject was marked as living at that time.) You re-inserted unsourced controversial material (one part was utterly unsourced and marked as such, the other linked to a dead link) in an area where you are evidently have some form of personal interest. This is not acceptable for an administrator, and merits further investigation. I am interested in your response before I decide whether to take the matter further.--Scott Mac 15:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That was not "rollback", it was Twinkle. But you are correct, I should have taken a much closer look at the edits in question. Some of them were page-blanking, but others did indeed remove questionable info. I am very thankful to FT2 (talk · contribs) for helping to source and cleanup that particular page. -- Cirt (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)But you need rollback privileges to use Twinkle in that way, you were still rolling back edits. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I was unaware one needed "rollback" in order to use Twinkle in that fashion. My apologies. -- Cirt (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually you don't, but that's not really the point here... T. Canens (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

In any event, I reiterate I should have gone over the edits in depth instead of reverting all of them. I am glad the page has been improved thanks to research from FT2 (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Scott and FT2 have been making some of the same changes to Meade Emory [1][2][3] that Ajpropst (talk · contribs) made, to fix the coatrack state of the article. While you say you are glad about FT2's actions, you reported Ajpropst as a vandal and had them blocked. I feel sorry for that user. --JN466 10:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Stuart Riordan

Saw that you restored my page on Stuart so I could edit it. Thanks. I will be getting to it shortly. Lu Vickers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.182.73 (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Changes ok?

You left me a message on 07 December leaving me an option to contact you with any questions. So here I am. I'm kinda curious if the change I made to Stokes' theorem is 'ok'. My primary rationale is the letter d used in the derivatives were formatted as if the letter was a variable. My change makes that distinction clear. Your thoughts? MathematicsNerd (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest posting to the talk page of the article, and posting matter-of-fact notices to relevant talk pages of associated WikiProjects. -- Cirt (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh? No offense but you have me lost. MathematicsNerd (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I just mean those people would be more familiar with that particular subject matter than myself. -- Cirt (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Discretionary topic ban contemplated

You are hereby notified that in accordance with the provisions of Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Discretionary_topic_ban that a discretionary topic ban is contemplated in your case. The behaviours for which this ban is contemplated are outlined in this WP:AE section: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cirt (history link: [4] ). If you fail to heed this warning, you may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. ++Lar: t/c 01:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I will consider all of the points raised in the AE report. -- Cirt (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added a brief statement in your support. My best wishes to you and yours over the Holidays! Jusdafax 16:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: I agree with admin Doc James (diff) about his concerns when he questioned whether or not Lar (talk · contribs) should be considered as an "uninvolved admin" in this matter, and should therefore not be acting as one - in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I believe Lar has been involved in another ArbCom case where there were issues brought up of his trying to act as an "uninvolved admin" when this was disputed by others [5]. -- Cirt (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

In what way am I involved? Please elaborate. ++Lar: t/c 00:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Already discussed by admin Doc James. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, not satisfactory. No specific allegation of involvement was made, in fact, when pressed previously, DJ specifically demurred from saying I was involved, claiming only to want to raise awareness of my commenting at WR, and agreeing that it did not imply involvement. Please be specific with your allegation or withdraw it. ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This entire thing is clearly being fomented from the attacks at Wikipedia Review, and you have never even acknowledged that. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been concerned about various aspects of your behavior for a long time, has nothing to do with WR. That doesn't make me involved. Try again or withdraw your assertion. You do not get to pick and choose who is involved and who is not. ++Lar: t/c 00:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You failed to self disclose your involvement at Wikipedia Review. Someone else had to do it for you. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Not material. Withdraw your assertion please. ++Lar: t/c 00:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have refactored. [6]. Stop using the command form of grammar with me, please. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have posted to (one) third-party admin about this, at User_talk:Jehochman#Lar_and_Wikipedia_Review. I will defer to that admin's judgment about this. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's examine the post DJ mentions: [7] ... In it I say "Of course harassing people on Commons via allegations of copyvio isn't something you'd know anything about, is it?" which is addressed to Pieter Kuiper. It, and other posts in the thread, have nothing whatever to do with you. To claim that somehow makes me involved is very far fetched. Something DJ already acknowledged. You should too, and withdraw your allegation completely. (the refactor helps a little but is far from sufficient) The warning you were given by me is legitimate. You should heed it, and you ruleslawyer at your peril. You do not get to knock out admins on whim. ++Lar: t/c 00:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Lar, you read the attack thread about me at Wikipedia Review. You participated in it. You did not criticize anyone for their attacks, including efforts by others to criticize me, and guess at my identity in order to harass me in real life. I am shocked at your behavior. And after all that, you neglected to self disclose your prior involvement in that thread. And yes, I did refactor, above. -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, I believe the WP:AE thread can be closed if you will acknowledge that you have been properly warned of the possibility of a discretionary topic ban. The above back-and-forth leaves that unclear in my mind. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston, if you are re-affirming this warning, then I agree with you. -- Cirt (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to accept the warning from me, as properly given or prove that I am not uninvolved. You don't get to say "well since Ed reaffirms it, then OK" as that's an incorrect precedent. Taking it to JEHochman isn't acceptable either, as he's more involved than I am, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 01:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I will await comment from admin Jehochman, and defer to his judgment. -- Cirt (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If Lar wasn't involved before he certainly is now. I'm not sure how folks think they can hang around off-Wiki making disparaging comments about users and then act as if they neutral admins.   Will Beback  talk  01:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this comment by Will Beback. -- Cirt (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Rebutting an unfounded charge of involvement does not make one involved. Nice try though. You are not going to be able to disqualify me by repeating yourselves more stridently. You need to actually provide something substantive. ++Lar: t/c 01:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It is substantive that you failed to self-disclose. And that someone else had to do it for you. -- Cirt (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Uninvolved_administrators: 2) For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict and is not mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee decision in this case. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any disputes about whether an administrator is involved or not are to be referred to the Arbitration Committee. I have not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in this area and I am not mentioned by name in the case. Therefore I'm uninvolved. QED. Further, I see no mention of WR there. Take it to ArbCom if you disagree. That should work out well for you. This matter is terminated. You wikilawyer further at your peril. ++Lar: t/c 01:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I will await comment from Jehochman about this matter, and defer to his judgment. -- Cirt (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

His opinion, while likely to be interesting, is irrelevant. If he says I am "involved" you will need to take it to ArbCom to get them to concur. You wikilawyer at your peril. ++Lar: t/c 01:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If Lar is uninvolved then so is Jehochman.   Will Beback  talk  01:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You are correct and I will refactor to that effect. ++Lar: t/c 01:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Golden Horseshoe articles by quality log

Ok, the bot recreated the log file. The categories are up at CfD, so we may need to wait until the CfD is closed to delete the log file, or else the bot may keep recreating it. Imzadi 1979 → 07:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:76.203.75.184

It has been established that the user does not pay attention to talk page messages. I identified the IP as belonging to the long term abuser described here after the first edit, and the slow response by AIV as well as a removal by a user who knows nothing about the policies on this site. If this individual IP is not blocked, he will perform the same disruptive edits tomorrow.

Warning is useless. Just block it now and then he doesn't edit for 10 days.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Mark Boerebach

Could you userfy this for me? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Norman Thaddeus Vane

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Need your help in an AfD discussion

Dear Cirt, I have recently nominated Maryam Namazie for deletion because the article's references are either not reliable or not independent coverages. I also couldn't find any reasonable coverage elsewhere. However, in the current discussion some editors just say "clearly notable" without any proof. I tried to explain that in my opinion if one can prove notability, then I received some (trivial) comments. Because of your experience, I would like to ask you to review this case and to give me a feedback on this issue. Thanks DrPhosphorus (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest posting matter-of-fact and neutrally-worded notices to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects about the presence of the AFD itself. -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Enuch at work on Jennifer Lerner is probably the same Humbert1 you banned for editwarring.

Jennifer Lerner is an academic whose bio came under attack by Humbert1, who introduced BLP violations. I just noticed that since Nov. 14 the article has all that stuff in it anyway and more thanks to a one-day editor Enuch. Enuch seems to have retired. I am going to take out the garbage, but could you keep an eye on the bio too? betsythedevine (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you try filing a report at WP:SPI. -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

New request for arbitration enforcement

As suggested when the previous request was collapsed, I have started a new request. Please see here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Note about Scientology related editing

I am the single largest contributor of quality-rated content to Wikipedia on the subject of Scientology, including the highest amount of GA quality material and the highest amount of FA quality material. I am also the highest contributor of quality-rated material which reflects positively on the organization, including multiple GA rated articles about works by the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard.

I accept that there has been significant criticism relating to my editing of certain pages relating to Scientology. I will do my best to take this criticism on-board, and adjust my future actions accordingly. To begin towards that process, I have gone ahead and removed 66 Scientology-related BLP pages from my watchlist. I am going to shift my focus away from this topic of Scientology in general, and of BLPs within this topic in particular.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That's wise, and fairly gracious. Alternatively, if you want to write a bio on someone who happens to be a Scientologist, why not declare the possible COI and seek a review from someone who's previously expressed concerns?--Scott Mac 01:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you be willing to supervise me in that capacity if I were to seek a review from you, as you are someone that has previously expressed concerns? -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: I have removed an additional 55 pages from my watchlist relating to the topic of Scientology. These were any remaining pages not related to prior quality improvement and WP:GA/WP:FA projects. -- Cirt (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: As stated here diff, I am going to avoid editing within the topic of Scientology, unless directly related to prior GA and FA projects. -- Cirt (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)