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)

Pair Options

I am the editor of a large part of Pair Options. Please see above - I would ask for re listing so more people would be able to express their views. I did considerable editing and reference adding after the submission for deletion, that I strongly believe those who submitted for deletion did not even bother to read. --WillliamG (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A bit too late for that. But I would be more than happy to userfy it for you! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much , Cirt! I would appreciate your doing that. --WillliamG (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

How a debate can be close so quickly? - Triple accounting

I don't understand how you reach the conclusion that the deletion had to be done... Just because Smerdis of Tlön asked a caustic question? Of course not it isn't possible that you get a loan just on your emotional balance... But certainly a depressed person has less chance than a charismatic one... Anyway. The point is not about is Triple Accounting relevant but if Triple Accounting is notable... And from my small perspective of Belgian living in Brussels and working with social entreprenors... This concept is being noted more and more. Olivier C (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I asked how to support the article... You main respond was just to shoot it down... How constructive is it?

I would be most willing to userfy it for you, so that you can work on improving the sourcing and quality of the article so as to make an argument for its notability, if you wish to do so. -- Cirt (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, I am not sure to have the time now but at least it would a space for me to work on the draft having the possibility to make connection and use all the wiki code, instead of working on a word page. I accept your offer. What should I do to facilitate that userfication?

Olivier C (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Done, now at User:Olivier C/Triple Accounting. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

GingerBread Lane wiki piece

Can the recently deleted GingerBread Lane wiki piece be reinstated so that the edited version that looks like a wiki piece can be posted please. If then you choose to delete the piece, so be it. It looks to me like a couple of the delete votes were for those not understanding the scope of how big the exhibit actually is, how many visits it has, and further a couple of the delete votes were frustrated with how long the edits took. I only contracted a third party to do the wiki page because I was advised by Verno Whitney of wiki in an email that I should have a third party do the piece. I initially found out that someone did the wiki piece for GBL, without my blessing, knowledge, or request, and it looked like hell. So seeing it was up for deletion, I emailed wiki asking how to stop it. The number one reccomendation was to have a neutral third party write the piece. I evidently mistakenly contracted a web designer who is good with wiki to do the piece. I did ask wiki support was this a violation of the COI, and was told no being that the person doing the wiki entry had no stake in the company and their only stake is to improve the wiki entry. The exhibit gets seen annually by over 150,000, it is a rather impressive display. If at all possible, can you please see your way clear to open it back up so that the now finished changes can be displayed, then make the decision? thank you so much, Jon ( kcdcchef )

Oh, the new page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A-E-I-Owned-You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcdcchef (talk • contribs) 05:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be most willing to userfy it for you, so that you can work on improving the sourcing and quality of the article so as to make an argument for its notability, if you wish to do so. -- Cirt (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the new page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A-E-I-Owned-You, please have a look and tell me if this is now more up to standards regarding sourcing and you know, looking like a wiki page. It is 150% better. Please advise me where to go from here. I personally feel it looks like a wiki page now and has some more legit sourcing. I left out the two online newsletters that mention GBL, and focused on the news stories from national level periodicals. Thanks Cirt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.97.1 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:Article development, WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:V. -- Cirt (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think I got this now Cirt. And thank you for your time, your patience, your candor, and your not getting mad at a computer idiot like me. Seriously.

I have good sources on this, pieces that have been published in national media and further recognized newspapers, post, trib, times, gazette. So what I am getting here is that I need to go through and link the parts of the wiki piece to where you can find them in reliable news sources. Got it. On it. Should have it back to you tomorrow. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcdcchef (talk • contribs) 06:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, it still needs lots of formatting work. -- Cirt (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Working on that right now. When it is done, it will have 10 citations that take you to the various news arcticles that cite the facts. In regards to it needing a lot of formatting work, I am assuming you are referring to how it presently reads also? If so, we are on same page. I am having the text changed up a little, it still reads like hell, if that is what you are talking about. Doesnt make a lot of sense still. But it does look better though, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcdcchef (talk • contribs) 06:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of page Rooma Mehra

Hi Cirt!

I have great respect for you and you come closest to being my role model in my ambitions as a novice to become a Wikipedian! This being said, I realise that a Wikipedian of your calibre would delete a page with sufficient reason to justify it. However, I take the liberty of addressing (not challenging) the rather fast deletion of the page Rooma Mehra. Since it was awaiting citations, perhaps the process of research should have been given some time.

Just a thought and a request for reinstating the article till all the citations have been obtained.

Warm regards, and have a nice day

Anthonio2010 (talk) 07:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be most willing to userfy it for you, so that you can work on improving the sourcing and quality of the article so as to make an argument for its notability, if you wish to do so. -- Cirt (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed, Cirt! I would really appreciate your doing that. Warm regards, and have a nice day!

Anthonio2010 (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Anthonio2010/Rooma Mehra. -- Cirt (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned at ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Revision_deletion_questions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Curious as to why the individual that started the ANI thread, neglected to post a notification. -- Cirt (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The ANI discussion was about the revision deletion of an edit summary and only mentions you in passing. If you were also involved in the revision deletion or the request for suppression, I would welcome your comments at ANI. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology, Delicious carbuncle. I appreciate it. -- Cirt (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

New article creation project - Game for Vultures

Game for Vultures, novel by Michael Hartmann, 1976.

• Made into a film, A Game for Vultures.

1. Fix both redirects, Game for Vultures and Game for vultures.
2. Create a hatnote, from one to the other. (Slightly confusing with the only different being the "A" in the beginning).
3. Begin research for WP:RS secondary sources, book reviews, news articles, etc.
4. Think about sect on Film adaptation or just Adaptations within the book article.
5. Draft up sourced brief article for author, currently empty with disambig at Michael Hartmann.
6. Notes regarding relevant WikiProjects, post regarding interested parties to work on the article.
7. IMDB page for author, not much there, link
8. Other books by same author: The Hunted (1982), Days of Thunder (1980), Leap for the Sun (1976), Web of Dragons (1988)
9. Research on the reception from secondary sources, of these other books.
10. Credited also as co-author on the screenplay, OCLC 6567974
11. Book, OCLC 2425654, and OCLC 16481951

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

-- Cirt (talk)

Deletion of the page Amitabh Mitra

I would like to request you to extend the discussion period on the deletion of the page on Amitabh Mitra as it was noticed after some time. Please consider this request so that discussion on notability and information from South African Wikipedian Poets may be provided in support

Amitabhmitra (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC))

I would also request you to if possible to userfy the article so that further development can be tried

Amitabhmitra (talk) 08:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Amitabhmitra/Amitabh Mitra. -- Cirt (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion: 2011 Asian Indoor Games

Hi Cirt, I noticed that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Asian Indoor Games is marked as unclosed but does not seem to have been relisted. Is there any way to be sure, and if possible could you relist or close it? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(Talk-page stalker) Now closed. Bencherlite^Talk 10:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks *tosses WikiSteak to Bencherlite*. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks *burp* Bencherlite^Talk 13:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sacred Paths Center Deletion

I am the president of the board of directors for the Sacred Paths Center. The Sacred Paths Center is the first pagan community center in the nation. With us being the first and only two years old, it is nearly impossible to be in outside credible resources. We held off on making an entry this long waiting for Dr. Murphy Pizza (no, that is not a made up name, it really is her name) to have her dissertation published hoping it may be enough.

We are registered with the state of Minnesota as a not for profit organization and are in the process of filing for our 501c3 status.

I am asking that you please restore our article. If it helps, the Sacred Paths Center is used by the Wiccan Church of Minnesota, a federally recognized church. State = 1D-166 Federal = 36-3616607 In addition, we were just recognized in the Women's Press as the best in the area for women's spirituality.

I hope you are willing to restore this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinOfMinnesota (talk • contribs) 12:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be most willing to userfy it for you, so that you can work on improving the sourcing and quality of the article so as to make an argument for its notability, if you wish to do so. -- Cirt (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

We are most certainly interested in your assistance. Also the SPC is mentioned in a PhD's Dissertation. The anthropologist did her work in the Twin Cities' pagan community. A PhD dissertation is highly reviewed by peers who are fully credentialed, so I am wondering why it is not considered a credible source. Dr. Pizza is also the editor of Handbook of Contemporary Paganism which is published by Brill Academic Publishers and sold by Amazon.com. I would hope that gives her some credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinOfMinnesota (talk • contribs) 03:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:KevinOfMinnesota/Sacred Paths Center. -- Cirt (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Vokle.com Deletion

Hi Cirt,

About eight months ago you deleted VOKLE's page (Vokle.com) and cited a lack of sources (which at the time I think was a very fair assessment). Now we've gained a lot more press exposure through sources such Forbes and TechCrunch and I would love the chance to access the article and add references to satisfy the WikiGNG. Is the best procedure from here to userfy the article so that I can edit it? Thanks for your time,

--Rsnoopyb (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Rsnoopyb/Vokle. -- Cirt (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

St. Matthew's

Before locking the page will you please check that it is factually correct? Currently it is not. The GMC does not disapprove the school. δ_ij^i.broke.it. 23:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Please use {{Edit protected}}, in a new subsection on the article's talk page, for that. -- Cirt (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would I need to do that? I had it factually correct and then it was reverted before you locked it. Simply revert it back to my edit and that'll be the end of it. δ_ij^i.broke.it. 03:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Wrong Version. -- Cirt (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Dude, just look at the stinking cite that even the guy that keeps reverting me is posting. It takes 30 seconds. Cut the crap and get this factually correct or I will take action against you and the other editor. There is no debate, this ends now. δ_ij^i.broke.it. 04:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI as the article states, St. Matts is in the Caymans, not Belize. δ_ij^i.broke.it. 04:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, engage in discussion, at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It got nuked. Is there a conspiracy against the truth here? δ_ij^i.broke.it. 05:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Request undeletion of BugNET article

I've made important additions to the article Comparison of issue-tracking systems but my contributions were removed because the original BugNET article that was referenced was also removed. BugNET is an open source product that is gaining more and more popularity and plays an important role in the landscape of different issue tracking software available. When compared to many of the other products listed in the article Comparison of issue-tracking systems, it is not clear at all why BugNET would be rejected whereas other lesser known and unremarkable products remain. I think the most sensible approach is to allow inclusion of any product as long as as it appears to have or to have had a legitimate following for a significant amount of time. For these reasons I would like to request undeletion of both the BugNET article as well as my contributions to the Comparison of issue-tracking systems article and I was told to talk with you in order to have this done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyhartpierson (talk • contribs) 04:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be most willing to userfy it for you, so that you can work on improving the sourcing and quality of the article so as to make an argument for its notability, if you wish to do so. -- Cirt (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ma'ale HaShalom (2nd nomination)

I'm wondering if you could expand slightly on your closing rationale. While more users argued to keep, their arguments are extremely weak and I provided detailed, specific arguments with a solid base in Wikipedia policies and I am not the only one who saw it that way. As I mentioned, it is not even verified that there is a street by this name, the one and only reliable source anyone has found about this subject only mentions a gate. The rest of the content of the article is original research coupled with some "facts" sourced to a spy novel. I think a bit more than a one-word explanation of why those arguments are invalid is in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hrm, perhaps you are correct in some respects. The consensus was a weak keep at best. However, perhaps we can allow for some time for the individuals who commented to attempt to improve upon the quality of the article. I would certainly have no objections if you wished to renominate the article for consideration of another discussion, at a later point in time, after allowing for some quality improvement efforts to be made. Perhaps you could notify those editors, and give them a heads up, that this might be your intention going forwards. -- Cirt (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've already taken that approach. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ma'ale HaShalom was nine months ago, and ran for three weeks. Mostly the same users participated, and this one crappy source is all they could find. I even went looking for speakers of Hebrew to help find sources. This article has already had it's chance, and it has failed to live up to our most basic content policies both times. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest notifying those users of this proposal, and then renominating in two weeks if there are no significant improvements. Then, you can cite this conversation. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I'm disappointed. Do logic and reason count for nothing here anymore? Why, after two AFDs over the course of nine months that ran for a total of four weeks, should I have to wait a further two weeks for the promised sources to appear? Look at the first AFD. I tried to find them myself. So have several other users. Yet nobody has found them and again the article is kept merely because of the assertion that sources must exist. I can insist that sources exist that prove my cat is the president of the moon, but that doesn't make it so. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way, but I think that my offer is reasonable. ;) Perhaps renominate in one more week, if no one attempts to improve the quality of the article after you have made a good faith attempt to try to notify them. -- Cirt (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

You probably have the GA nomination watchlisted, but just in case, I've dropped a talkback.

Hello, Cirt. You have new messages at Talk:Moonrise (Warriors)/GA4.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Cirt. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion.
Message added 00:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It wasn't "userfication" I had in mind but restoring the article and reopening the AFD. While the requester may have a COI he also might have a point. The nominator was hinting that the term was being used for marketing purposes at pivotmylife but I don't see that company mentioned in the article. A little more discussion would be helpful if only to show to the refund requester that our consensus based deletion process works. (er more or less) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

QuuxPlayer

Hi there, I am contacting you because you were involved in the deletion of the article on QuuxPlayer. I was surprised to find that Wikipedia contains no article on QuuxPlayer so I wrote one and was about to submit it only to discover that the previous article was deleted for lack of notability. I found Quuxplayer about six months ago after Googling for alternatives to foobar2000 and browsing various forums and download sites (e.g. [1][2][3][4]) where it was well recommended. Unfortunately I can't recall all the sources now but Quuxplayer is liked for its simplicity, sound quality and built-in support for internet radio, has been available on numerous download sites for at least three years, and received strong editors' reviews on CNET and PC World, even before it became freeware. Could this article be considered for resurrection, and if so, how can I kick off the process? Rubywine (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Rubywine/QuuxPlayer. Be sure to check the edit history for older versions. -- Cirt (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That was very efficient. :) Rubywine (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 13

Hi Cirt. I think you mean "Deletion endorsed", instead of "Delete". Cunard (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Cunard (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Ralph Sirianni article

Hello,

I would like to obtain a userfy copy of the deleted article: Ralph Sirianni. The article was deleted on May 16, 2011, under the belief that "The subject appears to be notable only through local sources and is not nationally recognized." This is not true, and I take responsibility for not providing more substance to the article to demonstrate national recognition, as well as other WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST relevant material.

Thanks. Exchange26 (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Early closure of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 16#techophilia

Cirt, you closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 16#techophilia 17 hours and 36 minutes early. Od Mishehu has brought up early XfD closures a week earlier. This prevents other admins from closing DRVs or MfDs and may lead to admins' closing earlier and earlier than the set seven days. I ask that you do not close DRVs or MfDs early. Your early closures of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rmxriver and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WillManning and snow closures of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Franavar and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Smebranding/SME Branding may have contributed to Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs)'s closing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nandiyanto and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sonoran Mamma/The Masque over 12 hours early.

I raised the same issue with The ed17 at User:The ed17/Archives/37#Early DRV closures. I wrote:

Although I do not disagree with any of your DRV closures, I ask that you let them run for the full seven days unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as the discussions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 14 (where WP:SNOW was applicable), or uncontroversial requests, such as the restoration of a contested prod. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 10#Extravagance should have run for the full seven days and been closed no earlier than 19:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC) since it was initiated on 19:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC). DRV is the final court of appeal, so to prevent potential controversy, it is best to let the DRV discussions run the full seven days. This also allows more admins to close DRVs and guards against admins' closing earlier and earlier than the set 7 days (see DGG's comment at User talk:Spartaz/Archive9#closing in September 2009). Cunard (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I ask you not to invoke WP:SNOW in the last 24 or 48 hours of a discussion to justify closing a debate half a day early. This will lead to admins' closing earlier and earlier. Cunard (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, you raise a good point. In that particular DRV, one could have seen how there was unanimous debate consensus from respondents after the initial nomination. However, even so, you are perhaps correct in that it was a tad bit too early, even with regard to WP:SNOW. I will certainly keep that in mind in the future. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The main problem is that admins who have followed the full seven day rule will be unable to close the XfDs or DRVs. In order to close the discussions, they will have to close earlier than you. This isn't good because as DGG said, "Even a few hours early tend to drift, as other people go to 6, 12, etc." To prevent admins "racing" each other to close discussions, it is best to let the full seven days elapse before closing the debates—even in cases where WP:SNOW could arguably apply. Cunard (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly a reasonable idea, especially for the less obvious cases. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, especially for the less obvious ones such as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/RIP (2nd nomination). I pity whoever has the guts to close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 16#User:Colonel Warden/RIP. Any close will be disagreed with by at least half the participants. Not a good position for a closing admin to be in. ;) Cunard (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

User affected by range block

Hi - could you have a look at the unblock request on User talk:LobtsterJ please, as they seem to be caught up in a range block you've implemented. As I don't know the background to the range block (other than being related to sock puppetry), I'm reluctant to allow this user IP block exemption without getting input from you first. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 12:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

File:John Sweeney with Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:John Sweeney with Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 12:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Santorum Most Outrageous Word of the Year 2004.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Santorum Most Outrageous Word of the Year 2004.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 12:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: AIV report

Hi - about the AIV report I left concerning the page Paulo Henrique Chagas de Lima, the issue is still on going and I'm struggling to keep up with the reverts - can the page be protected? Mato (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Phew. Thanks. Mato (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Paulo Henrique Chagas de Lima

If I didn't know bwtter, I'd almost say that was a chan bomb. Any idea what they were saying? Was that cheering or obscenities? HalfShadow 23:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hrm, no idea. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

71.192.44.129

I seemed to have gotten them to understand what they've done wrong, and the post to user pages appear to be accidental: they don't understand where their message is supposed to go. I've seen other new users make the same mistake. Unless they've done something else and I just can't see it because it's been deleted, I request an unblock. HalfShadow 02:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

An editor has expressed concern that this IP address has been used by Gsandler. The unblock request should be made at User talk:Gsandler, and preferably handled by a Checkuser. -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

GingerBread Lane - Have a look Cirt

Cirt, I think this looks like a wiki piece, reads like a wiki piece, has very strong sourcing ( Pittsburgh Trib Review,Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Wash Post, Martha Stewart Living, ) and some other sourcing too. It has been formatted much better, done in an appropriate wiki way, with the small numbers leading to sources. I think it ready to be on wikipedia. I am hoping you agree. Here is the new one, make sure you are reading the new one, here it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A-E-I-Owned-You

Thanks Cirt. Kcdcchef (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks a bit better, could use some additional secondary source references from other more varied publications. -- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Cirt, I have many press pieces like this that are scanned in to my webpage, but no longer online. Can they be used? There are many on my website.

http://www.gingerbread-lane.org/press3large.html

I can literally add 5-6 new sources right away to the wiki piece if you let me use these. Washgington Afro America, additional Wash Post pieces, a Washingtonian piece. Is it okay to use these? They are legit news sources. Just no longer online ( not everything used to be archived as I am sure you know ) Kcdcchef (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You do not need a live link, just satisfy enough info for WP:V. But please read WP:COPYLINKS, as well. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Just added 5 more sources, Wash times, 1999, Wash afro american 1999, pitts trib reviuew jan 2007, pittsburgh living 2010, and pittsburgh trib 2010. That is 5 more secondary sources, all completely seperate from the ones I had been using. Also adding a See Also section to other wiki pieces on gingerbread, gingerbread men, and German gingerbread. Are we good to go yet? Kcdcchef (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcdcchef (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done, back at GingerBread Lane, with AFD for reevaluation. -- Cirt (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Groovy, and thanks. What will it take to finally get all that stuff at the top of the page, AFD, etc, removed? Once others see it;s better now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcdcchef (talk • contribs) 23:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You didnt put the latest and greatest version up there, the one you put up stops at 13 sources, the latest has 19 sources. Radio Fan already said delete, but he isnt looking at right page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A-E-I-Owned-You

Not sure how, but here is the correct one wth 19 souces. RadioFan didnt see the correct version, I feel he/she should before jumping to delete. Kcdcchef (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to edit that page, yourself. -- Cirt (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Just didnt want to get busted on the COI stuff. Kcdcchef (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case, please post to the talk page of the article, instead, with your suggestions. -- Cirt (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Block of 212.183.128.2

Cirt, please consider reviewing the block of the 212.IP. All I see is one comment on a talk page today, and a stale act of vandalism earlier in the month. Please take note on the subject talk page concerning this being a shared IP. I'll be offline for awhile, but would appreciate your attention on this matter. I'll check back later. 66.87.111.151 (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done! -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Cirt, Not sure whats up. It looks like the block was removed, then reinstated for a week on the 212IP. I'm not seeing the problem. Also noted that you blocked a range of over 16000 IP's for a week on the last IP I was using. Not sure why, when you sample the range, there are a lot of good editors getting hit here. Might want to discuss this with a checkuser to see what the collateral damage is going to be. I'll check back later. Cheers! 79.143.178.233 (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

212.183.128.2

212.183.128.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
66.87.111.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
66.87.82.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

How does an IP turn up, out of the clear blue sky, to ask when a blocked user is going to be unblocked, unless he's a sock of that blocked user? And how does another IP, as in the previous section, know about this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I get it now. Some character on the 66.87 subnet is engaged in some sort of gnat-level harassment campaign. And you bought into it. Whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Please file a request at WP:SPI. -- Cirt (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

They won't do IP's. You're passing the buck. You got tricked by that harassing California-based IP, and you can't own up to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I am not. There is even a standard template at WP:AIV, referring sock cases to WP:SPI. -- Cirt (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

When an editor is an obvious sock, no SPI is needed, as it will be denied anyway due to the duck test; and most admins crusing AIV will do the right thing in such cases, as they did earlier today. You got tricked; you messed up; and you can't admit it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You convinced me. You are correct. -- Cirt (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. And I apologize for my tone. Feel free to yell at me in return if I mess up. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology for your tone. I appreciate that. A lot. A great deal in fact. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Factocop/Archive, the previous known IP's, which are in a different range and provider, nonetheless emanate from London. That was some months back. I don't know how to look at the contributions of a range of IP's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Eliot House AFD

Could you help me understand the closure of WP:Articles for deletion/Eliot House? Obviously there was no consensus, but I had thought that policy was the most important thing, and if there are no references supporting notability, then it would be deleted, even if some people made the silly claim that minor mentions in passing were adequate. Ma^t_chups 02:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hrm, I suggest you contact those advocating for its retention, and request that they improve the article now. If that is not done in, say, a couple weeks, you could feel free to renominate. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks

Hello Cirt. Thanks for blocking this bozo Runsroute (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Unfortunately they moved the entire article to rename the page with their vandalising edit. Is there any chance that you will be able to move it back? Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 02:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops I see that it has already been taken care of. Hopefully normal editing will return shortly Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 02:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Now I see that the page is under attack again. Some form of protection might be a good idea. MarnetteD | Talk 02:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

And you have already taken care of that too. Mucho thanks for your quickness and attention in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 02:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You are most welcome. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Self-deletion of image you uploaded and voted keep

Hi, would you post a deletion rationale at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_May_23#File:Santorum_Most_Outrageous_Word_of_the_Year_2004.jpg? You were the uploader and voted for keeping it, but still you speed-deleted the image just one day after nomination. Whatever changed in your mind would be educating, and possibly quotable in future deletion discussions.

Your rationale in the log, "G7: One author who has requested deletion", felt somewhat incomplete.

Thanks, --Damiens.rf 03:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I was simply deferring to the emerging consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't you live through this? Next time, at lest, keep the record straight on the log message. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 05:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Charles Whitman

If you're in a mood to do some more admin-stuff, would you mind semi-protecting that page again? Protection was removed for some unknown reason, and the IP who keeps trying to post a large section, about some internal soap opera at the Austin PD, is back there again. Thank you! (I posted this at WP:RFPP but no action was taken.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done! -- Cirt (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Hopefully that will encourage discussion in lieu of edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cross the Styx

Hi Cirt, did you mean to delete the other two bundled articles as well? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done! -- Cirt (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

why did you delete my article on umplayer?

hi, i just spend the last hour editing an article about umplayer (a highly respected open source media player) which you just deleted :s you gave reason that the software in question is non-notable, but i want you to know sir that it's the 3rd most popluar media player in the world and i've spend countless hours working with other developers for no compensation to achieve the best damn media player possible. so i ask you sir to re-institude the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orejwan (talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be most willing to userfy it for you, so that you can work on improving the sourcing and quality of the article so as to make an argument for its notability, if you wish to do so. -- Cirt (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure! please tell me what needs to be doing, I though i did a prety good job with everything but this is my first (and only) Wiki article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orejwan (talk • contribs) 14:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Orejwan/UMPlayer media player. -- Cirt (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

sorry cirt, can you please explain what needs to be doing? also, i would like to change the name from 'UMPlayer_media_player' to simply 'UMPlayer' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orejwan (talk • contribs) 15:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

sorry i'm a little confused

hi Cirt,

sorry i'm new to wikipedia so this is really annoying; i'm writing you about the article of the UMPlayer i've written, which you've deleted. now it seems that you've also blocked my user for link spaming (which i don't see how this is possible at all with no ref tags but that's besides the point). now the article i've written was in my opinion well though of and well prased and had plenty of refrences, it might not be a gem but certianly better than some of the other aritcles i've read, and the software in question is very notable (it's one of the world's most popular applications) and is featured on countless sites such as cnet, brothersoft, softpedia, etc.

i have to tell you that i'm about to give up; i'm tired of this run about, all i was trying to do is write an article about a highly esteemed well regarded open source software that no one is getting paid for, and not only that my article got deleted (several times) but my user and ip were blocked by you. so please tell me what needs to be done to rectify this problem.

best- ori — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orejwan (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest you contact WP:Help desk. Please read WP:Article development, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE. -- Cirt (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

House Hasson Hardware

Why did you delete the article House Hasson Hardware. I worked hard putting that on Wikipedia you deleted it? Can you put it back up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.67.104.178 (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be most willing to userfy it for you, so that you can work on improving the sourcing and quality of the article so as to make an argument for its notability, if you wish to do so. But you would first have to create an account on Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, just so you know. An editors has asked that the protection on the Casey Anthony homicide article should be removed. I strongly advice against it. Just to let you know as you were the one who protected the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikien thread

Please note that there is a thread on the Wikien list discussing your work on the Santorum (neologism) article. This is the post that started the thread, the others are accessible from this listing. --JN466 19:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of it, Jayen, though your disturbing interest in my activities is once again noted. -- Cirt (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

More socks of Porgers active

Toddst1 told me to contact you if he was not available. I found another sockpuppet of Porgers (talk · contribs). It is IP # 69.70.75.106 . I got an email saying someone "from the IP address 69.70.75.106 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia." What should I do about it? I also noticed that User 69.70.75.106 has been editing the Jean Chrétien article again. I hate to get into another edit war, as one is brewing if no one else steps in. --Skol fir (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the prompt action, Cirt. --Skol fir (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Advocacy concerns

I have a concern with your editing, which on several occasions seems to have veered into political advocacy, in violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE policy. There are several instances of this.

Kenneth Dickson and Joel Anderson (US election candidates)

The first one relates to your editing of the articles Kenneth Dickson (AfD1, AfD2) and Joel Anderson. Both Dickson and Anderson were candidates in a local California election that took place in June 2010. There were three main contenders; the third, Jeff Stone, does not have a Wikipedia article. (Anderson won, Dickson was said by press to have done "surprisingly" well.)

Prior to that election, you wrote the abovementioned, highly flattering article on Kenneth Dickson (see feedback from other editors in the two AfDs). You also completely re-wrote the article on the other candidate, Joel Anderson, prior to the election, increasing its size five-fold in a single edit. That too resulted in an upbeat article that ended with endorsements:

"On April 6, 2010, Anderson received the endorsement of San Diego Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, who described the candidate as "a rock-solid conservative that gets things done in Sacramento".[28] Anderson also received endorsements from the California Republican Assembly and from Congressman Duncan Hunter.[29] In his endorsement, Congressman Hunter called Anderson "a great conservative leader who has fought to strengthen the economy by supporting tax credits to encourage new hiring and by eliminating excessive regulations on businesses."[30]"

Some time after the election, Kenneth Dickson was deleted by User:John Vandenberg, after considerable community discussion. A substantial number of editors judged it to be a promotional article on a non-notable local politician. I did not participate in either deletion discussion, but later noted that Kenneth Dickson was prominently discussed in forums discussing what used to be a main focus of your editing here, until you agreed to step back from the topic, at the urging of several admins and an arbitrator: Scientology.

Kenneth Dickson was discussed on these forums in the following terms:

"There are two Republicans running against Jeff Stone. One, Joel Anderson, has a few ethical problems stemming from creative juggling of campaign funds. The other, Kenneth Dickson, appears to have a clean reputation. As a Republican, he is supporting the usual issues associated with that party, including freedom of religious expression. ... Gold Base is within the Senate district Stone, Anderson and Dickson are competing for. Dickson's campaign site is here: ... I think, given Joel Anderson's tainted reputation, Dickson is the best Republican candidate to beat Jeff Stone." [5]

In a later discussion about Wikipedia on that same forum, discussing your work here, a contributor named Xenubarb referred to you by name, saying, "I helped Cirt acquire some photos of politicians for the Jeff Stone/campaign articles. It's a bitch. You have to have the photo provider sign some thing stating permission to use the image, and copyright claims acknowledged. Two politicians didn't even bother to respond, so no pix for them." [6]

I was left with no other reasonable conclusion than that you had consciously tried to use Wikipedia to influence the outcome of the election, biasing our coverage against the candidate not favoured on that forum, Stone.

Jose Peralta and Hiram Monserrate (US election candidates)

Two politicians that have similarly been discussed at Scientology message boards are Jose Peralta and Hiram Monserrate. Examples: [7],[8]. As can be seen, Monserrate was viewed as a "political supporter" of Scientology, and Peralta was viewed as the candidate to be preferred. I note that prior to the March 16, 2010, election, you completely overhauled Peralta's article: [9], [10], increasing its size 25-fold, and adding an image of a smiling Peralta uploaded by yourself. The article concludes with a blue call-out box saying,

"Now more than ever we need a strong voice in the state Senate and Jose Peralta will be a senator we can be proud of."

The article appeared on DYK on 12 March 2010, four days prior to the election, with the hook:

"Did you know that Jose Peralta was the first Latino elected to the New York State Assembly from Queens, New York?"

Your article contained no voices critical of Peralta, even though such voices could easily have been sourced, for example "Smith: Is Jose Peralta Really All That Much Better Than Hiram Monserrate?", New York (magazine); "Assemblyman Jose Peralta scored $500,000 in taxpayer funds for inactive nonprofit", New York Daily News.

At the same time, you also edited Hiram Monserrate. Your edits in that BLP focused on expanding coverage of Monserrate's legal and personal problems at the time. [11][12][13][14] and others.

Again, the impression I was left with was that you were quite consciously trying to use Wikipedia to influence the outcome of the election.

Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant

You wrote Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant (AfD1, AfD2). Several editors viewed this as a puff piece of a non-notable restaurant; it was kept as no consensus in the first AfD, after User:DGG edited it down significantly to reduce its promotional tone, and then deleted in the second AfD. The owner is a former Scientologist turned critic; Jimbo Wales commented in the AfD: "That there is a connection to Scientology here is quite relevant to any thoughtful understanding of what is going on." You denied at the time that moral support for anti-Scientologists affected the way you wrote the article, although you said you had read about it on a Scientology critic's blog.

Corbin Fisher

Leaving Scientology behind, you also wrote the article Corbin Fisher, on a gay porn company. It's an article you created, and like Jose Peralta, it featured (until today, when you removed it) a blue call-out box with an endorsement:

"I've always had a lot of professional and personal admiration for [Corbin Fisher] because they really defined a new space in gay adult entertainment".

The article strikes me as a perfect PR piece. At least, if I tried to write a PR piece, I could do no better. The article also appeared as a DYK on the main page, with the hook:

"Did you know ... that the gay pornography film studio Corbin Fisher offers contracted actors health benefits and a 401(k) plan?"

When other editors added material from sources that might portray the company in a less favourable light ([15], [16]), you deleted all of it, including parts that were adequately sourced, with the edit summary "better to keep in chronological order". Was this appropriate, and in the spirit of NPOV?

Santorum (neologism)

Recently, since about the time that the press reported that Rick Santorum, a politician who has been in controversy over his statements about homosexuality, might be running for president, you have been working on Santorum (neologism), an article on a campaign that seeks to ridicule him by associating his name with anal sex, greatly expanding the article. As you know, this has caused concern on the Wikien-l list that you are using Wikipedia as a platform for political campaigning. You created three new templates that include the term santorum, adding several hundred in-bound links to your article, which presently is the top Google result for Santorum's surname.

Summary

There are other aspects of your editing that have caused me concern over the years, such as:

• your uploading self-published sources to sister projects, and using them in Wikipedia in a way that I and other editors felt were violations of WP:BLPSPS policy (examples: [17], [18]),
• other BLP violations (example: [19]),
• your editing of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, which likewise seemed an overly upbeat article designed to promote the event,
• your defensive stance towards other editors expressing criticism of, or wishing to contribute to, the articles you work on,
• making an item related to your personal interests appear in the "On this day" section of the main page, by editing the Selected anniversaries page just prior to the relevant date ([20], reverted by User:NuclearWarfare a few days later (edit summary: "It may be a GA, but it is hardly of landmark importance"), but only after it had run on the main page).

To summarise, you seem to have made conscious attempts to influence the outcome of several US elections, in the service of off-site campaigns, and to have written a number of unduly promotional articles. Are you prepared to take any of these concerns on board, and to work on the live articles mentioned to balance them out? And to the extent that you feel my impressions may be accurate, are you prepared to no longer engage in these kinds of editing behaviour? --JN466 04:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply by Cirt - I strive to defer to on-Wikipedia discussion and community consensus

Comment

• What we have here are multiple issues that prior to this post to my user talk page, Jayen466 (talk · contribs) has chiefly only complained about on the website Wikipedia Review. Where there were community processes and dispute resolution, such as Requests for Comment, Third Opinion, or Articles for Deletion debates - even in situations where the outcome of the community consensus is the opposite of my personal opinions or point of view - I always strive to respectfully defer to that community consensus. But the majority of the complaining by Jayen466 (talk · contribs) is performed in the form of posts on external websites and forum-shopping, whether it be on Wikipedia Review or more lately at WikiEN-l.

Articles mentioned above

1. Kenneth Dickson - this article was deleted after AFD, and I respect and defer to the community consensus here. After the AFD in which it was deleted, I made the decision to abide by that deletion discussion, and the outcome of the community discussion. In that case, the community process worked quite well.
2. Joel Anderson is notable. At the time of my improvements to the article, he was a sitting member of the California Assembly. He went on to become a member of the California State Senate. Prior to my work on the article, the WP:BLP page was largely very poorly referenced. After my work on the article, the page was meticulously referenced. I improved a page on a BLP. There were no on-Wikipedia discussions of my work on this article, or objections to it, in a forum or process such as AFD. Apparently Jayen466 (talk · contribs) is attempting to criticize me here for not adding negative info about a BLP to this article.
3. Jose Peralta is notable. At the time of my improvements to the article, he was a sitting member of the New York State Assembly. Prior to my improvements to the article, the BLP page was a stub, and entirely unsourced. After my improvements to the article, the page was meticulously referenced. Apparently Jayen466 (talk · contribs) is attempting to criticize me here for not adding negative info about a BLP to this article.
4. Hiram Monserrate - I did add some sourced criticism to this article. There was never any dispute resolution about it, and talk page discussion resolved the issues discussed. If there had been on-Wikipedia discussion, I would have deferred to standard processes such a AFD, or talk page content based Request for Comment.
5. Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant - this article was deleted after AFD, and I respect and defer to the community consensus here. After the AFD in which it was deleted, I made the decision to abide by that deletion discussion, and the outcome of the community discussion. In that case, the community process worked quite well.
6. Corbin Fisher - I came by this article organically, through my interest in the U.S. Supreme Court Case, called Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. That Supreme Court case was cited in another ongoing case at the time, Beck v. Eiland-Hall, an article I successfully took to WP:GA status. Through research on one of the free speech lawyers from that case, I improved the article on attorney Marc Randazza. After performing research on that article, I came by the topic of Corbin Fisher.
7. Santorum (neologism) - I had seen this article in a poor state in the past. Before my improvements to the page, it contained unreferenced info and citation needed tags. After my improvements to the article, every single sentence was meticulously referenced. Evidently Jayen466 (talk · contribs) would have rather I never improved that page, and preferred the version that was more poorly sourced, and had remained that way for some time.

Summary

• In summary, when community processes and dispute resolution occur, that is the best way to handle conflicts, on-Wikipedia. And regardless of whatever the outcome of those on-Wikipedia discussions are, I always do my best to abide by the outcome of the Wikipedia community. -- Cirt (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I accept that you bow to community consensus, if not always gracefully at first. But I also think that you often fly under the radar, and edit with a definite advocacy goal for as long as you can get away with it. It's too bad that no one spotted your tinkering with the election candidates' BLPs at the time they mattered, but you should be able to see that that type of editing is problematic, even if no one is calling you out on it here at the time. --JN466 05:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I am not sure that you do accept that I bow to community consensus. You have not even mentioned that until I brought it up, myself. -- Cirt (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Jayen466, it's absurd to say that Cirt is violating WP:NOT by writing a quality article on a gay porn company, or that a single favorable quotation turned it into advocacy. You're turning writing articles into a crime, and your obsession with Cirt is disruptive.   Will Beback  talk  06:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• • • • Note: I submit my work for review.

1. I post to multiple WikiProject talkpages, notifying them of new articles I create, new processes I am involved in, etc.
2. I submit articles that are ready and well-sourced for GA Review.
3. I submit articles for Peer Review.
4. I submit articles that I think are good candidates after that to FAC review.
5. I respond swiftly during these community review processes to address concerns.
6. I participate in community processes, specifically to get these types of feedback. -- Cirt (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I take this as an indication that you feel none of the above behaviours should give anyone grounds for concern? --JN466 05:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not what I said, they may of course be grounds for concern. But I make it a practice to submit my edits for review, through community processes. I post to WikiProject talkpages with notices of such edits and of new article creation. And I submit quality improvements for review such as GA and FA. -- Cirt (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, what might those legitimate grounds for concern be? --JN466 06:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, if my goal were to "fly under the radar", I would not be so willing and make such an effort to seek out community review processes such as by posting to WikiProject talkpages with updates about my edits, deferring to community consensus, and submitting my work for quality review. -- Cirt (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that submissions for DYK undergo minimum scrutiny. Is it proper to submit a flattering bio of a politician for DYK a week before an election? --JN466 06:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I stopped watching those articles. They are no longer on my watchlist. I removed hundreds of pages related to Scientology from my watchlists, months ago. I make an effort and strive to notify WikiProject talkpages of my new article creation. I have done this new step, precisely to elicit additional review and give more notices about my article quality improvement work. -- Cirt (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You have not answered the question. Is it proper to submit a flattering bio of a politician for DYK a week before an election? Is it proper to sneak in a Werner Erhard piece (given your investment in that topic) into the main page "On this day ..." slot a few hours before the date changes, without consultation? That is flying under the radar. --JN466 06:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You are not responding to my repeated statements about how I have modified my behavior. And for the record, I make a practice to no longer watch or edit those selected anniversary pages, and I dropped those off of my watchlists months ago. -- Cirt (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: To be specific, I agree it is best to wait until after an election to submit related articles for DYK. -- Cirt (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

So you accept your past behaviour was wanting, but say that you no longer do this, and undertake not to do it in future? --JN466 06:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that nominating articles to DYK relating to ongoing elections is best done after those elections have concluded, yes. -- Cirt (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others

Cirt, I hate to have to say this, because I respect your ability to write good Wikipedia articles, but your response is disingenuous.

• First of all, who cares if Jayen has discussed some of this on Wikipedia Review? What's important is the issue here in Wikipedia. You are not being persecuted.
• You aren't addressing Jayen's concerns, which is that the pattern involved in the articles he mentions gives the appearance of favoring certain political candidates, typically ones who are anti-Scientology. The off-site comments by others he mentions give evidence of you being involved in a campaign to do so. You didn't address this.
• I think you wrote a balanced article on the Santorum thing, except for the title (and perhaps the templates, although I'm reserving judgement on that for now). I noticed from the start, and have made a couple of comments on it on the talk page, along with others like Fred Bauder, that the article really isn't about the neologism, it's about Savage's campaign to use it against Santorum, thus the valid suggestion to change the article title. If you had an NPOV interest in the article, then I think you would be more willing to compromise on that point. Cla68 (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • No comment on anything else, but the title has been subject to debate ad nauseum on various noticeboards and no one editor can really be considered responsible for its current form. I think Cirt participated in those debates but that is certainly his prerogative as an editor. Protonk (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to Cla68

1. It is relevant that Jayen466 (talk · contribs) has focused on me at Wikipedia Review. He has done so to the exclusion of dispute resolution here on this project. Indeed, most of the above-listed articles have not been through any on-Wikipedia processes such as WP:3O, WP:RFC, or WP:AFD. And where they did go through AFD, I deferred to the outcome of the on-Wikipedia community consensus.
2. I have backed away a bit from the topic of Scientology some months ago, only keeping maintenance on prior GA and FA projects.
3. I thank you for your comments about my improvements to the article Santorum (neologism). The article is about many aspects, including all of what you have mentioned, and the neologism itself. And there is consensus for this on the article's talk page, and in 3 prior AFDs. If there were another form of on-Wikipedia process relating to that article, such as AFD, RFC, etc, I would go along and participate in that process as well, with a good faith assumption that the on-Wikipedia process would come to an appropriate resolution from community consensus.

-- Cirt (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My reaction to the above: Cirt is being Wikihounded

Sure looks to me like Jayen466 has a well-documented axe to grind against Cirt, and that this is a case of WP:WIKIHOUND. Jusdafax 05:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are correct in that Jayen466 (talk · contribs) has been warned for WP:WIKIHOUND diff, as an aside he has also been called out for forum-shopping when he does not get his way diff. -- Cirt (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Cirt, as I think you know, I have your page watchlisted. I don't read every post here but this one caught my eye. I am not sure if I understand what Jayen's beef is with you but trashing you to 'Wikipedia Review', a website I have zero interest in, stinks. Looks to me like he will do anything to get what he wants. It seems to me to be clear-cut, across-the-board WP:HARASSMENT, and a stop should be put to it, in my view. Jusdafax 06:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I have been giving Cirt some off-wiki advice in the past. I get the distinct impression that Cirt's accusation of WikiHounding is absolutely 100% the case. Immediately, in the WikiEn-l discussion about Santorum, Jayen's first response was to connect the santorum aritcle with past editing about sexuality. It seems that he has prepared a careful playbook in order to argue against Cirt in every discussion and has made a series of connections of Cirt's editing about advocating for politicians which doesn't seem to be the case. I have had discussions about what types of articles Cirt should be editing because of his concern about the concern he caused in the Scientology topic area, and I advised him to handle more literary or less controversal topic areas, because he was good at writing those articles. As far as I can tell, he has significantly changed his editing habits and his willingness to branch out to articles like Santorum, and to work with community consensus to change the articles, seems like significant proof to me of his good intention. I would like to ask Jayen to politely back off on this one, or their might be room for community intervention of some sort, Sadads (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

At best it seems that Jayen is accusing Cirt of not writing articles with a tone Jayen prefers, but I believe this is a case of Cirt being wikihounded. I think that rather than Cirt attempting to fix elections using wikipedia it is more the case that prior to elections a large amount of reliable sources appear reporting on the subjects enabling Cirt to improve the articles in question. Cirt has demonstrated that his goal has been to improve the articles and election time gives him the tools to do so. Cirt shouldn't be expected to completely cover every aspect of an article, weigh out the pro's and Con's of every topic, cover and provide references for all the reliable sources, and then come up with an article which will satisfy everyone concerned...that is what other editors are around for, if they didn't step up it isn't his fault. Based on the scope of these accusations in both timeline and topic matter I think this is a clear case of wikihounding.Coffeepusher (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That argument has been tried before: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive656#Potential_WP:CANVASSING_by_User:Cirt. Then, as now, Cirt's actions had attracted attention and caused intense debate in a community forum that I follow. The result was that several admins, and in the end an arbitrator, asked Cirt to step back from the topic area, as s/he was overinvolved. That there have been past attempts by Cirt to affect the outcome of US elections through Wikipedia (with the help of folks from "Why we protest") is relevant in the present context -- simply because it demonstrates that Cirt has been open to the idea of bringing external campaign groups' agenda to Wikipedia. And I cannot think of a single other case where a Wikipedian wrote an extremely laudatory article on a political candidate, and then had it appear on the main page four days before the election. An editor and admin should not need to be told that this is improper.

As for your theory, Coffeepusher, that it was a sudden wealth of sources that spurred Cirt's editing, it is not borne out by the facts. Most of the sources that Cirt used to expand Jose Peralta were several years old (less than a third were current). The simple fact of the matter is that Peralta's opponent, Monserrate, was friendly towards Scientology; he had even done a Scientology program and liked it. Saying it's okay for an admin to write a non-neutral article and get it featured on the main page, as long as no other editors notice and intervene, is a poor interpretation of site policy. Your and Jusdafax's past interests in Scientology are duly noted. --JN466 12:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Your ad hominem is duly noted, and I raise you your own past interest in Scientology.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The wikihounding claims do appear to be justified by the evidence. It's a bit strange to me that every time my Wikipedia editing/viewing brings me into contact with Cirt's generally high quality of work over a period of at least two years now, Jayen is in there as an antagonist. It doesn't seem like the behaviour of someone with merely a series of content disagreements with another contributor. Every contributor (and I happily include myself in this - my talk page archives are replete with instances) is accountable for what they do on here, but this is not an excuse for acting on a long-held grudge which seems to be over an entirely unrelated matter (Cirt's edits on new religious movements, in a nutshell). Orderinchaos 19:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi

OK thanks for blocking Cameron Scott even so for just a week the users behaviour on the Caylee Anthony homicide was blatant vandalism in my opinion. Could you please check out user Niteshift36s edits and especially hateful comments on the Caylee Anthony talk page, I find them to be really offensive and the user seem to just removing huge part of the article without reason just like Cameron Scott. Thanks once again!--BabbaQ (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I have requested a weeks full protection of the article instead. So only administrators can edit it. I find that to be the best solution so the situation can calm down and only productive edits being made. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 05:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Cameron Scott

I'm having trouble seeing why Cameron Scott was blocked for a week for vandalism. What am I missing in his or the IP's contribution history? Protonk (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

He used both his old username Cameron Scott and his current IP to remove huge part on the article in question. Also he was offensive towards me earlier in the day etc etc etc.. There is sufficient evidence to support a weeks block.--BabbaQ (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The etc etc etc matters in this case. What did he say. And looking at the article in question I see content removals with edit summaries. Not trying to be a jerk, but I don't see how we get a week block for vandalism. Protonk (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The total amount of content removed is quite small—mainly, he reordered existing content. ^Bongo_matic 05:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Cirt, forgive me for cluttering up your talk page with this, but I have taken the bold step of reverting BabbaQ edits. (BabbaQ reverted back to a version prior to Cameron Scott's edits.) The reason for my edit is the newer version appears be a better formated version and that version contained a number of edits by others after Cameron Scott's edits. BTW - I also do not believe this article needs full protection. If anyone wishes to respond to my comments, I suggest we leave Cirt's page and comment on BabbaQ talk page. My best to all and again Cirt, my apologies for the clutter. ttonyb (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Cirt I know you are busy with the mess up above but I would like some comment on this. It is very odd to see a user with no apparent recent vandalism blocked for a week and I am curious if there was a mistake or if I am missing something glaring. Protonk (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done, unblocked. Users can take it up with WP:SPI if there are socking concerns. -- Cirt (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. I'll look again to see if there was any substantive overlap or the IP/account stuff wasn't telegraphed. Protonk (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

So in summary, you locked a page which did not need locking and when I questioned this you blocked me for 'vandalism' - this is the very model of admin abuse. My block record now indicated I was blocked for vandalism and is a stain on my record. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry about that. There were legitimate concerns, but it is indeed correct that I should have referred the user to WP:SPI and WP:ANI. I hope you take care to engage more in the future on article talk pages. -- Cirt (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mistakes happen man. He blocked you presumably because of an AIV report. Someone noticed the block, asked about it and it was reversed. We all would have been happier had no block occurred in the first place but as it stands a single block reversed in an hour is not a big deal. Protonk (talk) 06:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Protonk, I appreciate that. A lot. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

which has absolutely *nothing* to do with a block for vandalism - nobody above can see any evidence of vandalism, I have asked for specific evidence of vandalism and you have been completely silence on the matter. As far as I can see the run of events is as follows:

1) you protect a page in error 2) I ask for an unblock of the page (as 87.x.x.) 3) I then return to my account (and note so on the talkpage of that article) 4) you take it on face value that the page has been subject to vandalism and do no checks 5) you block me.

It's either a catalogue of errors on your part or you simply hit the buttons as you see fit or more worryingly, you block me because you didn't like the questioning of the page protection. Yours actions in this matter make no sense any other way. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The block was a mistake, I should have suggested the user report to WP:SPI or WP:ANI. But I also agree with this comment diff by Protonk. -- Cirt (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That's nice but I'm still left with a block log that indicates that I am a vandal, and you are still offering no explanation of why you blocked me or fully protected a page (Both at the request of a single editor - BabbaQ) for vandalism when neither had occured. One of those errors on it's own we could indeed say "it's a mistake" but the two together are different admin actions that indicate that you are using buttons with doing any actual checks, you are simply taking statements made to you at face value. I'll leave this matter at that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What page did I fully protect? -- Cirt (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I meant Semi-protected the article above, again to protect against vandalism that does not exist. The most mystifying aspect of all this is how you take every statement off BabbaQ on face value and act on it accordingly. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I made a mistake about the block. I said that already. Semi-protecting an article is a big difference from full-protecting an article, however. -- Cirt (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Right but *why* did you semi-protect the article? As far as I can see there is no vandalism in the recent history that would require such a move - that's the point I'm trying to make - in both cases, you simply to hit the buttons without actually doing any checks - that's not what an Admin is suppose to do. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, looks like there might have been enough disruption there to constitute a content dispute, and probably full-protection for a short time to encourage more talk page discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What? That's *now* and therefore irrelevant to your historical actions that actually kicked off the problems. Even taking that on board, you are now digging yourself into a hole, you've got one editor who doesn't understand the difference between vandalism and editing and four long-term editors who have agreed that the article looks better in it's current form. Moreover, there is no edit-warring occurring - Full protection would simply be another error on your part. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, alright, your analysis could be sound, and I am not about to perform a protection on the article at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, one final thing - looking at the block policy, you can do a quick block and unblock to note in my log that my vandalism block was in error. If you could do that I would be very grateful and considered this matter closed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

JUst for the record I dont personally think you did anything wrong Cirt. I hope Cameron Scott sees it as a lesson and that behaviour of a certain kind causes these kind of troubles. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Userfy request

I would like to move the contents of the deleted page International Random Film festival to User:Colincbn/International_Random_Film_festival in the hopes it will someday become notable enough to include. However I am not sure of the proper etiquette when userfying pages. Note: I voted for deletion because it obviously fails WP:N at this time, and I had no connection to the article until after the AfD began. Colincbn (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Colincbn/International Random Film Festival. -- Cirt (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series

As the closing administrator in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series, you decided that there was no consensus between merging the article or deleting it. Keeping the article was not supported even if there was no consensus. The outcome, however, appears to have caused some controversy as you can see here, because the article was not !voted to be kept, but it is being kept because the outcome was no consensus. Per WP:BOLD, I want to do something similar to what Shooterwalker did, only that I would merge all the content from Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series into Foundation series in a section called Fictional timeline while adding tags about its content such as in-universe and unreferenced. I would like to know if this action would be in accordance with your closure, because I'd rather merge the content like this and replace Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series with a redirect than leave the article around while a merge discussion takes place. In my experience, merge discussion rarely advance when editors aren't interested in the topic and I believe that discussing the merge will only stall the actual merge and will allow the article Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series to be kept even though that was not supported in the AfD. Jfgslo (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest a content based RFC to take place at the talk page, to assess community consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

At the talk page of Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series or Foundation series? Also, I'm a little confused, could you give me an example of what you mean with content based? Jfgslo (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ratko Mladić

Looking at the history of that article, I'm seeing large numbers of constructive IP edits, and little vandalism. Could you perhaps reconsider your protection, or point me to the disruption you saw? The RFPP seemed only to cite hypothetical problems. Thanks, Prodego ^talk 18:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done, dropped down to only one day of semi. -- Cirt (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Is even that necessary? Prodego ^talk 18:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, just wait 24 hours and it will be done and over. -- Cirt (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)