User talk:Cirt

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 - tools and templates

• 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)

Note to self - 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)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Keltz

You were the deleting admin on February 2, 2010 of the article Jonathan Keltz. It was a good deletion. The article was recreated January 2011 as a two-sentence unsourced stub and was quickly A7 speedied. No problem with that either, as its author did nothing but write two meagre sentences. But 15 months have gone by and the actor's career has not stood still. He has now completed major roles in three more major productions to now meet WP:ENT, and has the coverage that he lacked back then to now meet WP:GNG. As I wish to return a far improved version to mainspace, I invite you to visit my new and improved version at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Jonathan Keltz, and perhaps offer your blessing at User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Jonathan Keltz#Comments:. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Just wished to re-affirm that the original deletion 15 months ago was a good one, and to get your approval for a return of an improved article. Thank you and best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

AfD: Parental Rights Amendment

Shouldn't this have been relisted? 4 deletes to 3 keeps (one "weak" and one from the article creator, who is paid to promote this bill) seems like a weak basis for keeping the article, even as "no consensus." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

In any case, are you considering relisting the debate? Would DRV be an alternative? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A bit too late to relist. I would suggest you contact those that commented keep, ask them to further improve the article. Give them at least one week to do so. If they do not, I would have no objections to a re-nom for another AFD. -- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, did. Thanks for your help! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome! :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack

My recent edits to the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack article were meant in good faith. I did not realize that we had to cite sources showing how the previous version of the article was inaccurate. I've started a talk page discussion. Polyquest (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I see the talk page discussion, and I am participating there, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A quick FYI...

relative to a block you made Ticket: 2011060210013923. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears an appropriate response was given to the individual. -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request was declined. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree the appropriate response was given and the unblock denial sound, I just wanted to drop you a small note regarding the ticket in case it becomes relevant at any time. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

New articles for LGBT Project discussion..Dan Savage biblio

Rather than placing these on the Project Page I think they should go on the Talk Page..I also think that they're more likely to get some attention there. Pjefts (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I at least agree that both are appropriate places. :) -- Cirt (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Bummer of a login

Hi. Thanks for your welcome note. It turns out, though, I just never noticed I wasn't logged in. Oh well. My userspace is found here for future reference. Schyler (one language) 02:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you do that? I would like to have the two edits under my username. Let me know on my talk page when the deed is done. Thanks a bunch! Schyler (one language) 02:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That is, the removal of the tag on the article and the discussion top/bottom tags. Schyler (one language) 02:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- Cirt (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Cirt. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Rivertorch (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Cirt

I just wanted to drop a note to you. While we've not had a great deal of direct interaction, I noticed that we've both been involved in several of the same threads lately where you and I disagree on some fundamentals. (the Santorum stuff). I had to note that you have worked extremely hard to be reasonable, compassionate, understanding, and always showing the utmost respect for all editors and their viewpoints. While we may disagree on this particular article, it is a true pleasure to work with someone who shows so much maturity and understanding. Your efforts to find a reasonable compromise in the entire situation have not gone unnoticed. Thank you for being the type of editor and admin. that I think we should all aspire to. Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  14:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ched, thank you so much for your kind words, and for recognizing my efforts at a polite and respectful demeanor. I really appreciate that. A lot. So very much, actually. It means a lot to me. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		What Ched said. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Ico-Man/BS.Player

Not sure whether to drag the discussion out of the archive, or just to ask here. Would you stand for or against reinstatement of the article, given the recent improvements? --Lexein (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not really seeing enough there in terms of secondary source coverage. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I thought three reviews was enough. --Lexein (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, the page appears to still be tagged with citations needed. -- Cirt (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I put those there, but am willing to assume good faith that there's changelog or bsplayer.org forum news announcement about it. You're saying it shouldn't reinstate with any challenged claims. --Lexein (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Right. -- Cirt (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Meh. I'm not married to it. --Lexein (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum

Funny that the discussion of this neologism seems to be best described by another neologism: truthiness, which seems to describe most of the arguments made by those who would see the article removed. In two years, santorum will be eligible for inclusion in the Oxford English Dictionary, and I wouldn't be totally surprised if it winds up there. That would amuse me greatly... but I doubt it would suffice to end the debate. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Cirt, I think the article lacks any real glaring issues at the moment... or, at least, I see nothing that I wouldn't fear would lead to an edit war if made at this time. I think there are a lot of highly politically-partisan hackles raised right now, and a fair number of editors engaged who cannot adequately divorce their personal feelings and political leanings from the rules of this community. For the same reason, I'm not sure how much good will be done by reasoned discussion: someone will come along with an impassioned-but-unsupported plea that Something Must Be Done that ignores opposing viewpoints.... At this point, I think it's clear that the article won't be deleted, merged, or substantially altered if the community consensus is respected. It's nearing dead horse time... but it's equine flagellation time in US politics now, so I imagine the fury will keep seeking an outlet. One must have faith that enough editors will shout down those who see WP:IAR as the answer to WP:IDONTLIKEIT... or, at least, that someone will actually put in the effort to bring forth a good, cogent argument for the other side that sways us, eh? (Perhaps the biggest lack of understanding 'twixt the sides is the difference between firm and intransigent with regard to beliefs...) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

...for your kind note. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

truly disappointed

Hi, Cirt. May I say I am truly disappointed by both you and C.Fred? Anyway I did not expect you to side with conservatism. I am puzzled by the inappropriate action of deleting "burnt out diabetes" of a likely biased user and by your support for the said actions, in particular by your locking the deletion and for not allowing further discussion on this topic. FYI, the key word "burnt out diabetes" has over 2,000 positing and websites. It is a likely paradigm shifting concept, which, as the history of science and medicine has shown repeatedly, antagonizes traditionalists and those who have minimal tolerance for the scientific progress and for advances in science and medicine. History repeats itself. As for technicality of DELTERION OBJECTOIN (“use conventional methods to protest deletion”), not all people on the planet are as Wikipedia-savvy as certain biased. Instead of supporting people who have mitigated tolerance for new concepts and mark anything for deletion that is not consistent with “their” traditional and science-conservative expectations, you may wish to also support the underdog of the Wikipedia World in the interest of advancing freedom of science and allowing Wikipedia to grow rather than becoming yet another tool in the hands of the monitors of the monitors of the monitors…. Very few people mean vandalism, and to discredit a balanced effort of reviving an unfairly deleted page as "vandalism" and showing least tolerance for such efforts in not consistent with your impressive track record in your website. Hope we see your true you and your advocacy for freedom of science and against scientific fanatics.Burntout1234 (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, this account is a sock of Burntout123 (talk · contribs), who recreated Burnt-out diabetes mellitus and other variant titles about a dozen times tonight/this morning. I finally wound up SALTing the original title and blocking him for 31 hours. I had advised him before the block to contact you if he objected to your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burnt-out diabetes mellitus, and that if you and he couldn't resolve the situation, he could take the matter to DRV. —C.Fred (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked the sock, the sock should request unblock, through its main account. -- Cirt (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

And I would grant an unblock request—obviously with the understanding that any attempt to create the article again would result in an immediate block. —C.Fred (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No objections to that. -- Cirt (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me mirror here the statement I made at User talk:Burntout123, rescinding my assent to an unblock. It's becoming clear that the user has an axe to grind against other users; until he can demonstrate willingness to participate civilly, I don't see a reason to shorten the block. —C.Fred (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright. -- Cirt (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage, and My Family

Hello! Your submission of The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage, and My Family at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! OCNative (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed an ALT1, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. ALT1 is good to go. I've added a to The Commitment's entry Great ALT1 hook! OCNative (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) -- Cirt (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

Just a friendly reminder - when you add a protection tag to a template like this, make sure you wrap it in <noinclude> tags. :-) Otherwise it's transcluded with the template and makes non-protected articles think they are protected. (Our articles are easily confused sometimes.) ^Avic_ennasis @ 19:14, 2 Sivan 5771 / 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit

Oh dear, I didn't notice this edit. You have no right to unilaterally enforce your opinion. I don't want trouble so I won't take it to AN/I, but I do want to register my distaste for this kind of action. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I had already decided I was not going to do that a 2nd time, but another editor did agree that it was inappropriate, diff. Your edit removing all the comments of two other users diff was also inappropriate and contrary to talk page guidelines, but I don't want to push that either at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that after I did it that I shouldn't have blanked. Did that once before too, just because it seems to me like the right thing to do with a thread which will just distract others. Anyway, peace (; BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

And also onto you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Savage Love: Straight Answers from America's Most Popular Sex Columnist

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Re

Thanks to you, for the incredible article. Edslov (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:24.177.120.138/Don't create an account

User:24.177.120.138/Don't create an account, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:24.177.120.138/Don't create an account and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:24.177.120.138/Don't create an account during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I will simply defer to the outcome of consensus expressed by the community from that discussion. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Skipping Towards Gomorrah

The DYK project (nominate) 08:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

RE Scoach

Yes, that would be great. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lefa1992 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the advice, its amazing your work, congratulations. Edslov (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The kid

Not done. Give me a few minutes. Then you can undo.  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've put it into more typical format. Can you streamline the awards table with a slightly smaller font? Also, you should add a list of musical numbers. See The King and I for formatting ideas. This is a very good start. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: the awards table, do you need so many refs? Is there one (or two) refs that give all the info using reliable sources? If so, I would delete the extra refs, as having so many refs make it seem like you do not trust any of them very much. Also, can you play around with the column widths so that the category column is wider, and the Result column is just a little bit wider - this way, some of these rows will fall on one line instead of two, making the table look more compact. Just a suggestion. As to the IP who was making dubious changes, let me know if you need any help. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah! I just looked at this on a wide-screen monitor, and the table falls perfectly there. On a 4:3 ratio screen, though, it looks bulky. It may be that you can't make it look great for all the viewers all the time. So, whatever you think best. But, I still think reducing the number of refs in the table, and only using the best ones is a good idea. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiWitch

Hello Cirt. Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiWitch (second nomination). Would you please userfy to User:SmokeyJoe/Humor pages need to be relevant the last version (written by me) with the attribution history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:SmokeyJoe/Humor pages need to be relevant. -- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A concern

Hi Cirt, I have a concern about your editing.

On AN/I on May 27, in response to complaints about the interaction between yourself and Jayen, I asked him to consider not filing an RfC on you until some of the heat had died from the situation, because it seemed you were feeling embattled. [1] In return you agreed to take on board the criticism that you seem to edit too much to further what might be personal interests. [2]

Now I see on your talk page that you had two DYKs on June 5 for articles you created or expanded about Dan Savage. [3] [4] Savage is the writer who began the neologism campaign against Rick Santorum that you recently expanded the article on, taking it from 1,500 words to over 5,000. You also created Dan Savage bibliography, and three templates to which you added the neologism: Template:Dan Savage, Template:Political neologisms, and Template:Sexual slang. It was this editing, in part, that lay behind the AN/I concerns.

On May 29—after the AN/I discussion—you proposed a third DYK related to Savage, [5] on May 30 a fourth, [6] on June 1 a fifth, [7] and today a sixth. [8]

I'm confused about this, and would appreciate an explanation. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Just noting here that you proposed another one during the AN/I discussion on May 27, [9] which was at the top of the DYK queue about to be posted. So that was seven DYKs you suggested about Savage over the course of a week or so, two of which appeared on the main page on the same day. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The DYKs and associated articles are not related to recent politics, but if you would like I will remove those currently being considered as DYK candidates. -- Cirt (talk) 05:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if you could remove them, but could you explain why seem to be promoting Dan Savage? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, as a gesture of good faith I removed all of the DYK self-noms that were currently being considered as candidates, diff. Your assumption is incorrect about my motivations, but if you have a specific comment about a particular article, I would hope we could address it at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Cirt, it's not a question of motivation. The upshot is promotion, no matter what the intent. Placing one writer's name on the main page six times in a short space of time would be of tremendous value to that person.

We all write about issues that interest us, including people we know about and admire, and want others to know about. There's nothing wrong with that. But several (reasonable) people have gained the impression that it regularly crosses the line with you into promotion, which was the reason an RfC was suggested. You said or implied that you'd make an effort not to do anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way in future, and I really think it would be in your own interests to stick to that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, as a further gesture of good faith, I just removed all DYK related pages from my watchlist. I intend to not nominate anything to DYK again for an extended period of time. -- Cirt (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Pardon the intrusion, but as an uninvolved party I would prefer that the DYK nominations be restored. These are quality, eligible articles and removing the nominations might be seen as bowing to political pressures being applied to Wikipedia by external forces. (If news stories are to be believed, the Santorum campaign is working to "clean up" his image on the internet in preparation for a presidential run. These efforts and ambitions should have zero effect on the contents of this encyclopedia or on the workings of its various projects.) Loss of Cirt's contributions would be a blow to the quality of both DYK and Wikipedia. - Dravecky (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No. I will not restore my noms. If others wish to add them back, so be it, but I am no longer watching any pages on Wikipedia related to DYK. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also another Savage DYK in the queue. Do you mind if I remove that too, Cirt? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I will not object to that. Again, I am not going to watch those pages any longer related to DYK. -- Cirt (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have boldly reverted Cirt's withdrawal of those approved hooks. If anyone feels it's necessary, I could renominate the hooks myself but in my opinion that would be a waste of valuable time and effort by the editors who have already checked out these articles and approved these hooks. Any "promotion" concerns can be overcome by spacing out the presentation on the main page over many days rather than quashing the nominations altogether. - Dravecky (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dravecky, I am sorry but I must request that further discussion take place at WT:DYK which is no longer on my watchlist and not at my user talk page. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Cirt, I'd appreciate it if you would ask that the one in the queue be removed—wherever is appropriate to do that—rather than simply saying you don't mind, which leaves others to argue about it. The aim is to avoid further dispute about this whole situation, including on AN/I and RfC, not to trigger yet more discussion. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, as a further gesture of good faith I have done as you suggested, diff. -- Cirt (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, SlimVirgin. -- Cirt (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dravecky has reverted you, and now me. [10] My advice to you is to act decisively to sort this out. The way things are going there's a chance your editing will end up at the ArbCom, and I don't mean only the Savage situation, which is just the latest example. I can only speak for myself, but my view is that you will not fare well at ArbCom. It's therefore strongly in your own interests to sort this out yourself, and not leave it to others. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

1. SlimVirgin, I removed the hooks myself.
2. I requested at WT:DYK that they not be considered.
3. I requested at WT:DYK that the other hook in the queue not be considered and be removed.
4. I stated to you above that I will not be nominating anything to DYK in the future.
5. I told you that I have removed all DYK related pages from my watchlist.

If you have other suggestions for what I can do regarding edits to the DYK pages or comments at WT:DYK, I would appreciate hearing them. -- Cirt (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: I have removed my self-nom hooks from T:TDYK a 2nd time, diff. -- Cirt (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: I posted another request to WT:DYK, requesting that my self-noms be removed from consideration, diff. -- Cirt (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this discussion only now. My concern: isn't promotion something positive, (pro + motion), especially the promotion of knowledge? Please don't withdraw that from DYK which should be exactly that, to my understanding, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I thank you for your positive comments about the quality of my contributions to Wikipedia. However, I feel I must point out to you that I have made several good faith gestures (as noted, above), including avoiding involvement in the DYK process in the future, which will hopefully help facilitate moving on from this issue. Thanks again for your kind words about my writing on the project, -- Cirt (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Draft of Thomas_Erl

Hi Cirt,

Based on your comments, I edited the page of User:Edited_by_Sanjay/Thomas_Erl to provide various links and references to external websites which are not owned by the author. The content was re-phrased after I looked at pages of other authors in the same field (IT & Software Engineering) and took their best practices in creating this page. I have tried best to provide sufficient links in the External Links section that points to author's page & articles on the web. I would like to move the page to main namespace. Please let me know if you have any comments. Thanks. Edited by Sanjay (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cirt, I went through the WP:CITE and WP:CIT based on your comments and updated the article. I used the templates for citation such as cite book, cite web, based on the citation required. Also added accessed date to those links which didn't had specific dates. Still if you feel I need to make specific changes, I would be more than happy to take your inputs. Do you think now the article can be published to the main namespace as it has sufficient references & links to verify the author's work? Appreciate your continuous support. Edited by Sanjay (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cirt, Thanks for your quick response. However I am a bit confused with the 'bare links' phrase. Does it refer to the citations such as SOASchool.com or SOA Magazine? They are not pointed to a specific article on the website, instead they point directly to the website showing the work of the author. Regarding the secondary sources, I have tried to provide primary sources in the articles and also many references in the external links that points to authors interviews, articles, & seminars - all of which are external sources. I might be missing something help and any help citing examples would be great. Edited by Sanjay (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

pages deleted (request to restore in temp location)

Thanks for taking the time to explain. Would it be possible to restore the original Wikipedia entries (below) in temporary locations so that I may edit to make compliant with Wikipedia policy? I am the author of the source content with which there are alleged copyright violations. These Wikipedia articles have been live/active for a couple of years and thay have some good additions contributed by other Wikipedia authors. I would hate to lose their contributions. Many thanks for your consideration of this request. Brykerwoods (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryker_Woods — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brykerwoods (talk • contribs)

I would be most willing to userfy them for you, so you can work on it further in a subpage of your userspace, if you so request it. -- Cirt (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Please userfy them so that I may work to satisfy Wikipedia standards. Many thanks! Brykerwoods (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Need some help

This user that you blocked before is still continuously vandalizing the site by changing genres as well as he has recently made personal attacks against me on the Emmure article. I would like you to take consideration into blocking this user once more since the admin at ARV isn't seeing the damage he is doing like you have. Users like him make everything a lot harder not to mention personal attacks is a major offense on here as you may know. Thank you =) -- GunMetal Angel 22:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Cirt, it is my understanding that you blocked that IP for attacking the above user, no? See my talk page for discussion with Gunmetal Angel, and the archive at ARV, where I and another admin refused to resort to blocking for that one genre change (that it took the poor IP four tries is beside the point). BTW, what did I hear today? WHO's running for the Republican nomination? Drmies (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess he blocked him for that reason or for the continuing genre changes. Doesn't matter nonetheless, I mainly only wanted to keep him informed since I suspected that you (Drmies) didn't really understand the situation but after speaking with you on your talk page you kind of get the picture now. -- GunMetal Angel 22:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No disrespect intended, Angel, but I've been around this block for some 74000 edits, and I know that what you know is disruptive may not always be actionable. If you source that article thoroughly and make it better, it is easy to keep it clean and to stave off genre crusaders. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have ongoing health issues and surgeries regarding two family members at the same time. I will defer to the judgment of Drmies about this matter. -- Cirt (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Rick Ross Edit

Hey Cirt, Sorry about what happened with the information on the page earlier. I was in the process of adding in the citation before it was deleted. I appreciate the post on the talk page though!FWest2 (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Posted to the talk page about it. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Userfication request

I see you recently deleted Wikipedia:WikiWitch. Could you move it, along with its history, to user:Buddy431/WikiWitch? Thank you. Buddy431 (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(Answering on Cirt's behalf, given his comments above) - it's already been moved to User:SmokeyJoe/Humor pages need to be relevant, so it can't be moved to your userspace as well without asking SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs). Bencherlite^Talk 13:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Only the last version has been moved to SmokeyJoe's page. I was hoping for the entire history. Buddy431 (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please contact SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), perhaps you two can work collaboratively together on this. -- Cirt (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

deleted user page: nikitahorkoff

Hello, This is my first time doing this so I am not sure if I have done it correctly. You had recently deleted my Wikipedia Profile on June 1 at about 3:30pm. I had created the profile for a school assignment, and I had no intention of violating any policies. I am a university student at the University of Guelph. I am unsure what I had violated. I had troubles uploading my own picture on to Wikipedia and I am wondering if that was the problem. I honestly did not wish to show my user page to anyone except my professor. This assignment was a significant part of my grade and I did not wish to harm anyone or any violations. 99.232.206.156 (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

my user name was nikitahorkoff. 99.232.206.156 (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Nikita Horkoff 99.232.206.156 (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Cirt may not be able to answer at the moment, so I'll point you to the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nikita Horkoff, where your userpage was discussed and agreed to breach the rules here on what people can have on their userpages - click WP:UPNOT and WP:NOTWEBHOST for fuller discussion of why Wikipedia isn't a free webhost or personal website for you to write about yourself. If you want me to email the content of the page to you so that you can show something to your professor, please log into your account, enable email (in "my preferences") and leave me a message at user talk:Bencherlite. Bencherlite^Talk 13:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Account Cleaning

Any chance to unblock "burntout1234" (and its blocked IP), so that it function as the official doppelgänger of "burntout123" (THE LATTER ACCOUNT IS FULLY FUNCTIONAL & COMPLIANT)? It helps to be past the events and work collaboratively. -burntout123 --_To_Expand_Tolerance_ 04:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs)

I advised him earlier today, in a comment on my talk page, "Best thing is to just stop using Burntout1234 entirely and make all future edits from Burntout123." —C.Fred (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone know how I can get in touch with Zoe - used to share flat with her in Reading - love to get back in touch after all these years

--203.109.249.130 (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's unlikely Cirt can help you, and Wikipedia isn't here for that sort of thing. You may be better off with Facebook. Bencherlite^Talk 13:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: Bailey Park & Bryker Woods articles

Thanks for the WP:OTRS reference. I have added the following statement to the web pages (referenced below) used as source information for the two Wikipedia articles: • User:Brykerwoods/Bailey Park • User:Brykerwoods/Bryker Woods

Web pages with statement - “The text of this web page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License.” • http://www.txinfo.com/brykerwoods/BWNA/index.html • http://www.txinfo.com/brykerwoods/History/index.html • http://www.txinfo.com/brykerwoods/Parks/index.html

Please note that although I am the author, the material is not copyrighted and the content is to be considered that of the public domain. I want to make absolutely certain my Wikipedia article submissions comply with copyright standards/requirements.

Have I made the necessary changes required for the republishing of my Wikipedia articles?

Please direct me to a proper authority if such question is out of scope for your responsibilities.

Many thanks! Brykerwoods (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have contacted Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) and I believe that I have taken adequate steps to eliminate the copyright problems associated with my Wikipedia entries. If so, how can the articles be made active again? Many thanks for any help you can provide. The two articles are: • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brykerwoods/Bryker_Woods and • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brykerwoods/Bailey_Park Thanks again for helping me with this important issue. Brykerwoods (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Block of User:86.8.218.114

Could you explain to me why you used the word vandalism when blocking this user? As far as I can see none of their edits are vandalism but rather are attempts to improve the encyclopaedia. Per WP:VANDALISM that is not vandalism. A block may well have been warranted but I would have thought it would have been for edit warring rather than vandalism. Sorry about this being somewhat after the event but I've only just noticed it and I'm concerned we're being too harsh on this user and don't think describing their edits as vandalism is going to help. Dpmuk (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see subsequent behavior by the IP which resulted in more blocks, at block log. There are blocks there by two other admins, DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) and Fastily (talk · contribs). I will defer to their judgment about this matter. -- Cirt (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. I just have a concern we (by which I mean the community at large) started off too bitey on this one. It looks like to me that they were trying to improve the encyclopedia but were quickly (and, in my opinion, wrongly) accused of vandalism because they were not aware of an obscure essay (not even a guideline). The messages also did very little to explain how wikipedia works - not one mentioned consensus for example. Now I've got the view of the three blocking admins I'll drop them a note, explain things and offer to help them, and hopefully, if they are a serious editor, we won't have lost them. Dpmuk (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

AfD Inquiries

Hi! I'm a new user to Wikipedia, and my article is currently pending AFD. Since I notice you're a regular around this section, I have two inquiries about the procedures that need clarification:

(1) As the author of the article, am I allowed to cast a vote of Keep for my own article or is that not allowed? As I am a new user, I know my vote will carry little weight, but I still want to make my stance "official" so to speak.

(2) Also, how long do the AfD usually lasts? I know that the typical AfD is open for around a week, but are there any circumstances where this time period can be extended?

Any clarification would be so helpful to a newcomer like me. Thank you! Saracates (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates

1. Yes, that is alright.
2. See WP:RELIST.

-- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for your sufficient clarification. Saracates (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates

your protection to one of my user subpages

Could you please expand the protection for User:Crazymonkey1123/Edit Requests Charts to indefinite, as all of my other pages that were semi-protected because of user request are indefinitely semi-protected, except for User:Crazymonkey1123/Edit Requests Charts, which is why I am asking you to modify it. Thanks! Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 23:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC) P.S. The reason I like to have almost all of my user subpages semi-protected because most of the edits made by unregistered or registered non-autoconfirmed user edits to my userspace are not constructive.

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Kid

Hi. Thanks for the invitation, but I have about 100 wikiprojects that I can't get to! Sorry! Of course, you are not obligated to take this article any further, so consider my suggestions merely suggestions for whoever wants to take it further in the future. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy

Yes, please see the edit summary in which I removed gthe sppeedy tag. The article states that the subject is a crowned ehad of state. Thus it is not eligable fopr speedy under those criteria.

Secondly the author had placed and "admin-help" template on the page, which seemed to me a bona-fide (if completely broken) attempt to challenge the speedy.

Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 02:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

RE: Thank You

Your're welcome, and {{YGM}}. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 02:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for identifying all of those "Prince Joel" / "P-Diddy" socks. I remember getting very frustrated a few weeks ago trying to locate and track down the various articles, categories and files some of these socks had created. Enjoy the cookie! Singularity42 (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome! I think I shall go take a break and have some peanut butter ... -- Cirt (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The LGBT Barnstar
		For your work on Santorum (neologism) Voyager640 (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, very much! This is most appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Popcaan and other 'poorly sourced BLPs'

Can you explain your deletion of Popcaan? It does not appear to have been deleted within any established process. I see from you logs that you have also deleted several other articles with the explanation 'poorly sourced BLP', which is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed Poor's talk page topic ban on Unification church related articles

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. You received this notification because you have edited Unification Church related articles. Andries (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)