User talk:Cirt/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15


About Ms Sima yari

Forwarded Message ----

From: Dr. Abbas Milani Sent: Fri, October 22, 2010 9:14:53 AM Subject: "Sima Yari "

Dear Sir/Madam: It has come to my attention that the entry on Ms Sima Yari has been, for some reason, eliminated from the Wikipedia. I know of her work, her published poetry, and the defiance of her voice. May be it is just this defiance that has caused the malignant urge of some unknown force or person to try to eliminate her. I have been under the impression that yours is a site given to the democratic reflection of a plurality of voices; judgment on the ultimate quality of each voice is up to the readers and critics, and should not be left to those who have the patience or know-how to act as censors and forces of elimination. There is often not much of a distance between elimination from the page to elimination from the public domain, and even more, physical elimination. We must stop the shameful process where it begins. Restate her entry for she deserves presence, and not elimination. Best, Abbas Milani

Hamid and Christina Moghadam Director of Iranian Studies Research Fellow/Hoover Institution Stanford University 417 Galvez Mall, Encina Hall West, Room 210 Stanford, CA 94305-6045 Tel: 650.721.4052 Fax: 650.723.3010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

After WP:AFD deletion discussion, was userfied for userspace draft work, to User:Nematg/Sima Yari. Suggest you get in contact with Nematg (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

clarification please...

You closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Ibrahim Zeidan reports Abu Zubaydah image used as an interrogation tool. But you didn't explicitly say why you closed it as "delete". After re-reading WP:NOTWEBHOST I honestly don't see how this section of WP:NOT, cited by practically everyone who weighed in on the discussion, is relevant.

To what extent should I regard your closure as an endorsement of their WP:NOTWEBHOST sentiments? Geo Swan (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It was an assessment of the overall consensus expressed by the community from the deletion discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


What's with you and bacon? Just wondering. :P SilverserenC 22:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you not seen Wikipedia:Bacon WikiCup? -- Cirt (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I have not. O_O So, this one ends March, 2011? I want to join! :D SilverserenC 22:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Instructions and how to sign up, listed at User:SuperHamster/Bacon WikiCup 2011, but you may also want to leave a note for user talk page of SuperHamster (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/88.7 FM Campbell River, British Columbia

Cirt, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/88.7 FM Campbell River, British Columbia as delete and deleted the redirect 88.7 FM Campbell River, British Columbia. Would you delete CHVI-FM as well? (The article was moved to that title during the AfD discussion.) Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done! -- Cirt (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response. Cunard (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Confusion over article creation

Hello Cirt. I just thought that I would let you know that the message that you left for Bradley0110 about the article Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (film) probably should have been left on the talk page for User:The Editor 155. In looking at the edit history here [1] Bradley created a redirect in '08. Then last week The Editor undid that redirect and created the article. Please don't think that this message is stating that you did anything wrong. I thought that the situation is a little confusing so I hoped that this info might help. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 20:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Beautiful Heartache

The article Beautiful Heartache you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Beautiful Heartache for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) - bit of a mess

Hi there, I'm contacting you because you because you handled the original restoration of the article after this deletion review . Following User:Racepacket's recent move of The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) to Cornell literary societies and subsequent editing, User:Cmagha has cut and pasted the original version of that article to The Irving Literary Society and in the process removed all the edit history as well as creating an unattributed content fork. Also, Talk:The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)/Archive 1 was not moved when Talk: The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) was moved to Talk:Cornell literary societies and is now stranded, although I've added a link to it at the newly titled talk page.Could you sort this out, if nothing else to merge the page histories? If not, do you know an administrator who could handle this? I've got your page on watch, so please respond here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably should be dealt with, via report to WP:ANI. Make sure to notify the user(s) involved. -- Cirt (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't sure if was appropriate to bring to ANI. Have done so now (and notified all and sundry). You'll find the ANI discussion here. (I've mentioned that I was bringing it there on your suggestion.) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

WA deletions

Which RFD discussion are you refering to? Simply south (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What is "WA deletions" ? -- Cirt (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The sandbox deletions. Simply south (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/test. -- Cirt (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word_Association. Simply south (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
That is from 2007. -- Cirt (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Nonetheless it still applies. Simply south (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, that is incorrect. Please see WP:Consensus can change, thanks. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I meant to say that i feel some of it still applies. Simply south (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand that, but community processes determined otherwise. Sorry, -- Cirt (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As none of the word association pages were tagged or discussed in the MfD I've started a DRV to get them reinstated, at least pending actual discussion of their merits or otherwise: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 25#Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Ultra Game. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Request from KS

Kindly stay off my talk page with your contentious and unfounded accusations. If you want to discuss article improvement, I am more than willing to do so on the article talk page(s). - Best regards- KeptSouth (talk)

Please do not: 1) refer to individual users in edit summaries [2], 2) Make controversial edits with zero edit summary whatsoever [3], and 3) Use deceptive edit summaries while making controversial edits to a WP:BLP page objected to in ongoing discussion on the talk page [4]. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK issue

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Jessica Feshbach 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! The article does meet expansion, length and sourcing requirements, but the hook seems lacking to me. Maybe a punchier version could be created or a new hook provided from the ample material in the article. Alansohn (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD Merge

If I close an AfD as merge, can I just copy and paste to the new article, or does an admin need to do a history merge? CTJF83 chat 21:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Help:Merging#Selective paste merger (with the wonderful shortcut WP:SMERGE) has the answer: no admin tools needed, but remember to put the details in edit summaries. BencherliteTalk 21:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, CTJF83 chat 22:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


User:Sandbox for user warnings - why? THEMONO 02:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/test. -- Cirt (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi Cirt. I'd suggest that this [5] is rather harsh and not even handed. I suspect from his/her posts that English is not a first language and from reading multiple posts the editor sometimes uses the language in a way that is not customary for a native speaker. As well, this is a contentious article and contentious discussion and there are some clear good faith concerns, which we are hopefully dealing with on the talk page. Unfortuantaly your warning isolates one editor when there are other editor concerns. Edith says the comments were not personal and given the language situation, I would tend to accept that. At any rate this is just my opinion. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for your take on it. As always, on article talk pages, users should strive to avoid comments directly addressed about other single individual editors, and instead focus on discussion of content, reliable sources, and how to improve the quality of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

OzHarvest Deletion

Hi Cirt,

On september 1st, 2009 Our page under "OzHarvest" was deleted.

Is it possible for us to get this page back? Thankyou,

Regards MichelleOz —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichelleOz (talkcontribs)

Who is "our"? Who is "us"? -- Cirt (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
"Us" would be the now blocked OzHarvest (talk · contribs) and article OzHarvest which was obvious advertising and non-notable anyway. S.G.(GH) ping! 08:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
That account does not yet appear to be blocked? -- Cirt (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
It's Ozharvest (talk · contribs), I think. Jafeluv (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Opps, yes. Sorry S.G.(GH) ping! 17:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


Hey Cirt, I'm coming back to you in regards to the article on Eirtakon, as you were the closing admin on the last AfD.

We've done a bit of work to the article, adding more RS', and updating the event information as of the current year, and I was going to run it by you whether or not it's suitable enough to go back into mainspace. It's not the best, I'll admit, but to be perfectly honest it's better than some of the current articles about other anime cons in Europe (e.g. Animefest, AniMatsuri (Estonia), Rumicon just to name a few).

Also along those lines, would uploading an image for use in the infobox be pushing it, or...?

Thanks for your time. TheChrisD RantsEdits 15:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you make sure all the cites are formatted with WP:CIT? Also, not enough significant coverage from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, yet. -- Cirt (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Refs updated, but that's all the sourcing that there is out there. Regardless of that though there's still more reliable sources in that bunch that in some of those articles that I linked to above and even more of the rest of the articles listed in the Anime conventions in Europe navbox. TheChrisD RantsEdits 00:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, just not seeing enough there to satisfy WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
So where would you suggest I get some then? RTÉ, the IT, the Indo, and the Herald don't seem to give two shits about conventions like this, and the only other result that isn't some blog post or forum thread would never in a million years be a reliable source. If that bunch would never pass WP:N, then how come there are circa ten articles of even less quality that are still up? TheChrisD RantsEdits 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, this is going nowhere. Suppose I should get onto Stifle about this since he nominated it in the first place (which is even more of a kick in the teeth given he's an Irishman himself and this is an Irish con...) TheChrisD RantsEdits 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Certainly have no objections to you doing that. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Railway stations in the United States

Is it OK to redirect it to Rail transport in the United States? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I will defer to your editorial judgment on that one. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siren (magazine)

We clashed there on AFD results (less than a minute apart but never edit conflicted), but another user has placed in a "delete" !vote there. Think it's a good idea to keep that AFD open? –MuZemike 07:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I will defer to your judgment. ;) No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Gah, you're going to force me to dig for more sources, aren't you? SilverserenC 07:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and re-opened. I think it's out of fairness in a situation like this, given the conflicting message, the lack of edit conflict given between me and Cirt, and the recent "delete" !vote that happened after the fact. –MuZemike 07:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Treehouse of Horror

Please weigh in on Template talk:Treehouse of Horror#Inclusion of episode segments, so we can generate a consensus. Thanks, Fixblor (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes

Please weigh in on Talk:List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes#Inclusion of episode segment links, so we can generate a consensus. Thanks, Fixblor (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD closure: Dheerendra Singh

Is there a reason you did not delete all three nominated articles when closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dheerendra Singh, or was it just an oversight? ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: extremedb

It seems to me these review periods were brief, and it seems likely that only a limited number of persons contributed to the discussion.

I know that I would have added my thoughts if I'd known a discussion of this article was taking place. After the first "defense" of the article, the deletion request was withdrawn. And then a second deletion proposal was raised and quickly finalized without any defense being given.

Arguments in favor of the article, stated in the first defense, received no response. Instead, the article was deleted based on (as far as I can see) two rather vague _opinions_ (not arguments).

Do you not agree?

I request that the discussion be reopened so that questions can be properly addressed. As I understand it, this is possible on Wikipedia.

Svpcom (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but this has already undergone multiple discussions, first at WP:AFD, and more recently at WP:DRV, at page Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 13. The deletion was endorsed. -- Cirt (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the "debate" that occurred surrounding this deletion was interpreted incorrectly. I request that the discussion be re-listed for the following reasons:
  1. No consensus was reached. This is evident in the fact that the first individual requesting deletion _withdrew_ his request, and in the second discussion, only two people gave comments. Are you arguing that two individuals make a consensus?
  2. The discussion leading to the deletion was superficial. In the first discussion, one editor agreed to make requested changes, and no evidence was cited to show these changes did not occur. In the second discussion, the two individuals arguing in favor did not address specific article content; rather, one stated that the page "reads like an ad" and the second used a single adjective, "spam". No justifications, based on article content, were given to support these descriptions. If re-listing does not occur, it will be correct to say the page was deleted based on the editors' whim rather than on reasoned discussion -- and that should not be permitted.
  3. Possible vandalism/malicious changes to article in period leading up the deletion. I would like to see the "final" article that was deleted, as well as its history. I am concerned that changes were made to the article specifically to justify the charge that it is "spam".
Svpcom (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but especially after already having gone through WP:AFD and WP:DRV, not much else to do with this particular subject. -- Cirt (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:

Unblock request on hold; you blocked the range. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


I noticed you deleted Alliance of Valiant Arms unfortunately that deletion was discussed by people who really had no idea about the subject and who were incapable of finding the sources. Somehow I missed the notification that it had been put up for deletion. As was mentioned in the deletion discussion, the game is used to compete at a national level, it's one of the most popular shooters in Korea, it's published by a well known publisher (all of which satisfy notability requirements for western games), and searching an actual korean site for the name of the game generates nearly 10,000 hits [6], mind you there is a little overlap with the group Abba. So searching for the groups name and the korean word for"game" which narrows it down (but still drops some legitimate results) gives us over 1100 news results [7].I'll give you an opportunity restore it before I take it to DRV.--Crossmr (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus at the AFD was quite clear. However, I would be most willing to provide a version within a subpage of your userspace, so you could improve the page before requesting it go to main-article-space, if you so wish it. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Consensus was formed by people who didn't do a proper news search. You deleted it based on a lack of notability, I've just demonstrated extensive coverage. That was missed during the discussion due to the fact that none of the three people commenting on it seem capable of reading Korean. 3 people is not a great consensus to hang your hat on, especially when it's obvious they missed a metric ton of reliable sources due to their inability to properly search for them.--Crossmr (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, I would be more than happy to provide a copy of that version of the article, within your userspace subpage, so you can attempt to demonstrate that. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
sure.--Crossmr (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Done, now at User:Crossmr/Alliance of Valiant Arms. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuri Rutman

Just thought I'd let you know that I courtesy blanked this AFD because I'm not sure if the subject is the same "Yuri Rutman that Truebobjohnson is talking about. He provides three unreliable sources and you'll find the second one very interesting. That one is defiantly not a reliable source and I should know :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No objections to that action. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi Cirt, I'm wondering why you deleted rather than redirected here. It seems like a darn reasonable redirect. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to redirect as an editorial decision, post AFD. I have no objections to that. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Tri-State

(Breathing exercise) It seems that you were simply doing your job clearing monthly delete nominees. However (although not required) I would have imagined a "Tri-State" "regional" article would have given a heads up to the Wikiproject or Portal or page creator and chief contributor. I think what may have happened here is a diagnosis was decided on the heart without talking to any cardiologists (even though they are by very definition biased). The page was a long long time contribution to Wiki with tons of sources cited that by they're very nature seem to have been used as a justification for its deletion (reading the 25 something day thread). I have to admit this is a first for me, sources for an article being the reason for its deletion, (Akron, West Virginia are sourced by some authorities as included others as not included etc.). I would be happy to re-edit or clarify this article up to higher standards if need be (as many Pgh project members would be) but as best I can tell beyond not consulting anyone with knowledge of the subject, the only rationale was that there were slightly divergent source material. That is a dangerous precedent for the vast majority of articles on wiki, sources rarely define subject matter exactly alike. Again trying to piece this together looks like it was simply a housecleaning move by yourself, not a judgment in any way but I will be happy to strengthen this article. Also the Pittsburgh Metro Area article is in no way similar, it is rigidly defined by the CBO and Census, although I could see a single article encompassing both however I don't see a lot of precedent for that on wiki. Thank you for your consideration and please consider allowing project members to discuss and improve this page. Hholt01 (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was determined to be delete, at the AFD. However, I would be most willing to provide a copy of the article within a subpage of your userspace, if you would like to work on a proposed draft version there. Just let me know, if you wish it. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. (not sure how we will have a discussion on my userspace however with all interested parties) Hholt01 (talk) 06:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

deletion review: Lee Zalben

I would like to request a deletion review for Lee Zalben.

In addition to being the Founder of Peanut Butter & Co, Lee is a published author and contributor to other writer's cookbooks, and also writes a weekly column for the food blog Serious Eats. In addition to media coverage that has come through Peanut Butter & Co, Lee has been profiled by various media including The New York Times and Gourmet News, and is a frequent source for journalists seeking commentary on the natural and specialty food business. Lee's page perhaps needed to be updated with more third party indicators of notariety, which we would like the opportunity to correct.Zalben (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Judging by your username it appears you may have a COI when trying to write about this topic. Can you confirm your relationship to the subject? Also, your use of the plural "we" implies that this account is a shared account which is not allowed under our policies. Please confirm that this account is only going to be used by one person.  7  02:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
After clarifying those points above you may want to log your reqeust at this page and reference the fact that this article was deleted as the result of this AFD. Regards,  7  03:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda

Since it was not incubated, could you please userfy this one to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda. I'll work on it and send it to incubation for review when it is better suited for mainspace. Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jessica Feshbach

RlevseTalk 06:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Floyd Bayne

Thanks, Cirt. Could you do something about the above redirect, too? Thanks! Location (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Cirt the original vote on Floyd C. Bayne was more keeps than deletes so the article should not have been deleted, but at least it should be redirected to va 7th district race if not undeleted Libertyactivist (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but you went about the completely wrong process here, which was disruptive in nature. Please, read WP:DRV. -- Cirt (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The Tag said I could remove it if I thought it was not properly tagged with a speedy delete. I am new I thought I understood the process as the tag explained it. But cant the page be redirected to this page: United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Virginia,_2010#District_7 Libertyactivist (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I mean Floyd C. Bayne, but I guess Floyd Bayne and Floyd C. Bayne could both redirect to va 7th district. Libertyactivist (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a redirect can be done as an editorial, non-admin decision. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
You will do it or I will have to? And if I, then how do I do it? Libertyactivist (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to do so. More info, at Wikipedia:Redirect. -- Cirt (talk) 07:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I hate to bother you again but the Floyd C. Bayne page won't let me add a redirect. Are you an admin can you do it? Libertyactivist (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I had protected that due to the disruption, and the prior AFD. At this point in time, probably best for it to be discussed at Talk:Floyd C. Bayne, using {{edit protected}}. -- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok see you there Libertyactivist (talk) 07:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Username blocks

Why are names like User:Nobinism tagged and blocked? Nobin is a first name, e.g. [8]. Blocking this only because it has "nob" in it, seems to me to be serious overkill. Worse, User:Skier dudete has a username block? Why's that? Nothing offensive, nothing promotional, no bad edits... Fram (talk) 08:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done, unblocked that first one. The other can be seen as impersonation of admin, Skier Dude (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, hadn't thought about that angle for the second one, and thanks for revisiting the first one. Now let's hope that his edits don't indicate that you were right the first time ;-) Fram (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome. Thank you for taking the time to thank me for my response in this matter. It is most appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 08:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmagha

Given the outcome of the above SPI, you might wish to take another look at your close of the DRV of The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 1. T. Canens (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. Looks like it was moved after the fact. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cirt, I contacted you the other day about the messy move+fork [9]. I see that it has become an even bigger mess. My own view is that even without the votestacking of Cmagha's brigade, it probably would have scraped a pass at the deletion review, and it seems kind of pointless to rerun it. Also, since its move to Cornell literary societies, another editor has been repairing the OR, misrepresented sources, POV etc. although there's a lot more to do. The fork created by Cmagha, The Irving Literary Society is another issue. It probably shouldn't stay at that name. Can it be moved to Irving Literary Society (Cornell University), leaving the old The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) as a redirect? According to WP:MOS, it shouldn't really have an "The" in the title anyway. There's more at AN/I here. I suspect the fork will eventually be put up for AfD. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Another AFD is probably best, with a concurrent close eye on that above linked sock case page. -- Cirt (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
AfDs for both the original article (Cornell literary societies)and the fork (The Irving Literary Society)? Voceditenore (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, good luck with that, -- Cirt (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

yuri rutman deletion

is there a reason you deleted this person who manages a large private equity fund and is a pretty prolific hollywood film financier and producer

i notices someone sent you a link to some spam reference and these are two separate people.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euromogul (talkcontribs) 23:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you post to User talk:Ron Ritzman, he is a bit familiar with this. -- Cirt (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Magyar Televízió/draft

Hi, I hope you don't mind me asking you for help. There's been an MFD discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Magyar Televízió/draft open for 17 days now, and Ged UK tells me that you work in deletion discussions and suggested you might be able to help (he is involved in this and related articles, and so cannot take any action himself). So I was hoping you might be able to have a look at it and possibly offer a judgment? Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If it were up to me I might lean towards waiting to allow more comments to come in, but I think I shall defer to the judgment of another administrator on this one. -- Cirt (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Should the page be relisted? Cunard (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure, feel free to do that. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 10:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Too late. It's been closed by Bencherlite (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
That's the trouble with admins - you wait ages for one, and then three come along :-) But seriously, thanks folks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw this thread here, popped over to take a look, and saw it as a clear delete, so deleted it... I didn't think it was in "relist" territory as there had been plenty of comments already from a number of people, with a consensus (as I saw it). Anyway, back to work... BencherliteTalk 10:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, thank you. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Rob Navarro Invitational site deletion

Why was the RNI site deleted? You stated in your comments that it had no validity and no interest but the site was being viewed and is real. Otherwise I would not have taken the time to develop it and keep it updated. As you could plainly see the site was updated every year with the current information. So I was keeping the site active and currrent?


Ed Aaron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarone67 (talkcontribs) 15:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, read WP:AFD, then, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Navarro Invitational. -- Cirt (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Have read the WP:AFD. The following are the "reasons" for deletion: Seemingly non-notable minor golf tournament. Unable to verify anything in the article. wjematherbigissue 14:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC) -No one was claiming this was a "notable" major tournament, it is nevertheless a tournament that is real and is kept up to date.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. —wjematherbigissue 15:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Delete, nonnotable minor tournament, no evidence of broader news coverage. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC) -No where does it state that the tournament has to have broader news coverage in order to be posted on wikipedia????

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —fetch·comms 01:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Delete. The article does not stake any claim to notability and its lack of notability is supported by its minimal google hits.--PinkBull 02:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC) -I was not aware, nor do I think there is a minimun number of google hits required to maintain a page???

Delete. "In 2010, the prize fund was US$1,400.00". 'Nuf said. Also, you don't even get to keep the jacket. Herostratus (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC) -This is just nonsense, why this person is commenting at all should be the question. No reason or statement here but foolishness.

So I understand the page was deleted and it did go through the "process", but what I am trying to do is get it reinstated by the individual (you) who officially deleted it. Am I going about this the wrong way, or did I miss something to have this done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarone67 (talkcontribs)

I am sorry but consensus was quite clear at the AFD. You can try deletion review. -- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The AFD had no valid arguments, just vague unclear statements, of which I responded to with valid points. Either way that was our repository for all that data. You have now deleted it and we have no access to it. Can I at least get the data back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarone67 (talkcontribs) 15:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Aarone67/Rob Navarro Invitational. -- Cirt (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Tory Christman

If you aren't already planning to, I'd strongly encourage you to nominate it for GA or even FA—it is a very well written and interesting article. Wackywace converse | contribs 15:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, if you decide to take it to FAC and it is of the same quality it is now, you'll certainly have my support. Regards, Wackywace converse | contribs 15:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Targeted Killing in International Law

RlevseTalk 18:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Buddhism and Violence DRV


Please reexamine the discussion and appropriately alter your close. The "endorse" voters failed to articulate any reason for such a speedy deletion, especially in light of the absolute failure of the nominator to articulate any copyright violation. Leaving aside that, the "overturn" opinions are more numerous than those seeking to sustain the close. Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Jclemens (talk · contribs), I hope you are doing well. ;) Thank you for your inquiry. Per your request, I reexamined the discussion appropriately after my close. The users that commented "endorse" did indeed cogently articulate rational reasons for deletion. Leaving aside that, the "overturn" opinions were not of such a more numerous or stronger nature so as to determine a consensus for that position. Without that, and especially with regard to the concerns raised by the "endorse" editors regarding problematic issues of WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:COPYVIO, the deletion review closure was determined. As you can see, I gave a much longer closing rationale than I usually do at deletion closures. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
What speedy deletion criteria apply to NOR or SYNTH (that doesn't amount to G3-able vandalism or any other independent criterion)? This wasn't an AfD to be overturned, but a clearly out-of-process speedy deletion. The thought that there should have to be an overwhelming cause to take a speedy deletion and remand it for a deletion discussion is puzzling to me--the threshold should certainly be lower than that needed to overturn a deletion discussion. I'd propose that any one GF user saying "no, not a good speedy" should be sufficient to remand for a deletion discussion. That's obviously not what happened here, and I think the disconnect in view of threshold far more important than this actual article, which would indeed have little chance of surviving an AfD, as I opined in the DRV. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
If you wish it, I would be more than willing to provide version within a subpage of your userspace or the userspace of the nominator, so you two can work on attempting to put forth a proposed draft version of the article. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I can restore it myself, Cirt. I'm more concerned with the sustaining of an inappropriate speedy, despite clear evidence and a plurality agreement that it was out of policy. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, you should not be the one to restore it at this point, especially after you made your position clear during the WP:DRV discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I just don't feel like I'm getting through here. I don't propose to restore it. I don't think it was inclusion-worthy at the point at which it was deleted, and I don't see any benefit to working on it. The primary thing I'm concerned with is the inappropriate presumption that it takes a "consensus to overturn" for an out-of-process speedy deletion to be remanded to AfD. Really, a "remand to AfD" should be the default response to a DRV of a speedy, unless there's a clear consensus that the speedy deletion criteria applied. There wasn't in this case, not even copyvio applied in way that necessitated a speedy, as the copyrighted material could be excised, and many of the "endorse" DRV opinions referenced non-speedy criteria like OR and SYNTH. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The above argumentation is overly bureaucratic in nature. The page was deemed to be inappropriate. It can be worked on in userspace. There was not consensus for restoration. Further more general discussion about application of bureaucracy can take place at WT:AFD, or perhaps additionally, at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm amazed you actually just said that. It's bureaucratic to demand an article go through DRV before getting an AfD discussion, and it's bureaucratic to demand a consensus to restore an article in the face of an obviously inapplicable speedy deletion. If DRV is not AfD round 2, then neither is it to be CSD round two: arguments that the material should have been deleted are inappropriate, because the appropriateness of the speedy, not the content of the deleted article, is under consideration. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, this seems like more generalistic bureaucratic discussion better situated for WT:AFD. -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


I don't know where you get that's a delete. We have comments and a confused guy saying delete. It should be relisted. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. There was consensus determined for deletion, in addition to dup pages. Also, incorrect spelling. -- Cirt (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: ron ritzman/yuri rutman deletion

You suggested he is more in the loop. He said this was all your recommendation. Regardless of what this is

Here is my post to him and his response. Would appreciate if you also checked your facts on this and other individuals.

Re: yuri rutman deletion

I am curious as to where you correlated the Yuri Rutman Wikipedia article with a "spammer" and for dubious sources as a way to delete a profile on him. It seems there are several Yuri Rutman's on google. You also referenced "not prominent or questionable sources" Please verify your sources on and ask how him producing a film that is being directed by one of the most prominent film directors in the world and is being co-produced by company that recently made a Jessica Biel and Milla Jovovich film is "dubious" along with 6 other films his company is currently producing and financing. IMDBPRO does not list credits unless they do extensive due diligence. Further, you referenced that press releases were written by him or his company. Please check your facts again when MSNBC recently profiled him at as well as numerous prominent private equity and hedge fund publications These publications do extensive due diligence. If there is some sort of personal bias between you and one of the Mr. Rutman's which is indexed more than ten years ago in a newsgroup post your referenced, its highly suggested you check your facts and do your homework before arbitrarily trying to identify one individual as someone else and can fall into an area of slander and libel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

   Two points...
  1. I did not close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuri Rutman or delete the article, Cirt did.
  2. I did not say he was the "Yuri Rutman" referenced in my 10 year old newsgroup post, Truebobjohnson did. I blanked the AFD per WP:BLP because I do not think he is that person. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euromogul (talkcontribs)  
Cirt, based on this comment, it seems that the nomination was originally based on the unfounded assumption that the the subject of the article is a "notorious spammer". Since the AFD was closed with only one valid delete !vote, I think in this case the AFD close should be outright vacated. (no consensus) If it's still believed that the subject is not notable then a new AFD can be started. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs), I agree with this suggestion. You can feel free to implement it. :) -- Cirt (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request for

See User_talk: If we changed it to anon-only, then we could recommend creating an account, but I wanted to hear your comments. Bovlb (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Object to changing it to anon-only. Instead, we could grant the registered user IP-block-exempt for the one account, once they have a username on Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Treehouse of Horror IXb.jpg


Thanks for uploading File:Treehouse of Horror IXb.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).


  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Treehouse of Horror IXa.jpg


Thanks for uploading File:Treehouse of Horror IXa.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).


  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

deletion Deep Democracy Institute

Dear Cirt I just found out that Deep Democracy Institute has been deleted. I appreciate the thought of wanting to keep wikipedia from self promoting brochures. The Deep Democracy Institute has a presence on many continents, and is being shown in the public media. I am part of it. Can we work towards re-creating the page? We would love to. thank you for considering? Elefant46 (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The page appears to exist at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks for answering. If I click on [[10]] I get a deleted page notice. appreciation for all your work. I can see all the dialogues, sorry to take up more time. Elefant46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

Was deleted after discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Democracy Institute. I would be more than willing to provide a version in your userspace, so you could work on it as a proposed draft format, if you so wish it. :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

wow, awesome, thanks so much, I would love that ! Thanks for the help ! Elefant46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

 Done, now at User:Elefant46/Deep Democracy Institute. -- Cirt (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, we will start to work on it, and when we feel we have adressed the various issues that went on in the previous discussions, we hope to come back for advice, or is that out of your scope. I am sorry, I am a newbie, just starting to wake up to all of this. Till now I just used and enjoyed wikipedia, but never contributed, I am embarrassed to say. Elefant46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

Who is "we" ? -- Cirt (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Me and a friend who helps me with my English, I speak French. Is this correct, that I start to work on this and come back to you and might get council? Elefant46 (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good. :) -- Cirt (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you ever sleep, or is Cirt more than one person? Elefant46 (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

re: your agressive note

hi cirt

you left me this comment "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. -- Cirt (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)"

what edits are you referring to? why are you using threats?

you posted the following on your page

   "* Be polite
   * Assume good faith
   * Avoid personal attacks
   * Be welcoming" 

So why aren't you following your own advice?

I'm sure you are aware that I'm new to wikipedia and finding my way around. When I commented about a particular article a few days ago another user advised me to 'be bold'.

I have only edited articles in topic areas that lie within my personal or professional expertise. Vandalism implies that I was deliberately being destructive which is most certainly not true. Fridakahlofan (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You have been engaging in page blanking vandalism. Please stop. -- Cirt (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Closed AfD

Hi - could you please explain why you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimbo Matison merely hours after I asked an important question to one of the two people who voted delete on the page? Work was still being done on the article - it had only been recently noticed by the Articles for Rescue people. I don't believe consensus had been reached in one way or the other - it had no votes at all until the AfR people came on, at which point two delete votes came within one day, and that sparked a discussion. Should it not have at least been allowed to run the full week? Tduk (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The AFD ran for over two weeks. The consensus after that time was not for retaining it in main article space on Wikipedia. However, I would be more than willing to restore a version, to a subpage of your userspace, so you can work on a proposed drafter version - if you wish it. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I have to disagree that consensus was reached. People were talking back and forth, and you closed the AfD merely three hours after the last comment was posted, and only one day after the last vote. The AfD received only one vote in the first 2 weeks - and then received 2 votes really close to each other right before you closed it. I'm not sure how it is that you thought that was consensus - since obviously there was more buzz going on on the AfD now, and more votes might come in - never mind that the discussion was still going on. Could you explain how it is that you believe any consensus was reached, with only 3 votes, 2 of which were made a day before you closed the article, and one third party comment still assisting with the article? Tduk (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but again, the discussion was open for longer than double the appropriate time length for WP:AFD. Again, I offer to you, if you wish it, that I would be more than willing and quite happy to provide a version within a subpage of your userspace, for you to work on a proposed draft version. -- Cirt (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The discussion did not "run" for a long time - it was stagnant for a long time. There was less than 48 hours of discussion, and consensus had not been reached - 3 votes, 2 the day before you closed it, does not count as consensus if there is so much discussion going on. Can you explain how it is that you think consensus was reached? Tduk (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but respectfully disagree with your interpretation, which may be due to your relative closeness to the subject matter. -- Cirt (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Tduk, I strongly suggest that you take Cirt up on his offer to userfy the article because he has already given you his answer WRT restoring to mainspace. Currently the article has two sources that "might" satisfy WP:N depending on who you ask so it has a chance. If you can find a few more then the new draft can be submitted to deletion review. This may be the only way you are going to get the article restored. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I don't like the attitudes I'm finding on wikipedia. Here I am trying to contribute to this encyclopedia, which is supposed to be a collaborative effort - and now I'm being told that I need to do all of this work for a celebrity I have some vague familiarity with but have seen in media often enough that I thought he deserved his own article. This is not the kind of project I wanted to contribute to - articles like Darren Barrett and Jimmy McMillan, which I've also created, are examples of the kinds of things I think wikipedia is capable of. I don't create these articles because I have any vested interest in them, but because I want people to know what I know about them, and to give people on here a starting ground to add more. It has worked in the past. Regardless, that is not the point of my questions to Cirt here - it is very strange to me that within less than two days, two delete votes showed up and then the AfD was closed. Regardless of notability, this does not sound at all like 'consensus', considering that no one had anything to say at the AfD until AFTER it was improved by Milowent and posted on Articles for Rescue. I'm going to bring this to the attention of the deletion review people, just to see what they think, but after that I am likely done with wikipedia after all of this anyway. Thanks. Tduk (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Ironically, it might have been your pinging of ARS that bought the delete !votes in. :( --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
That is what I think too. This doesn't sound like a problem? And given that this is the case, can it really be closed as 'consensus' if you think that that's a real possibility? Tduk (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I predict that what happened there is that the regulars at ARS saw it was a longshot and didn't intervene, though its also possible only a few saw the notification. Its always easier to vote delete than keep--I don't say that in a mean way, just that its hard to find sources in cases like this one, even when you think more might exist.--Milowenttalkblp-r 18:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Tduk, get that userified to your userspace so you can have a chance to improve it. Jimbo Matison was at best a borderline case. I do think Cirt could have closed as no consensus instead of delete, but it was within their discretion based on how the AfD went. Just because this one was deleted, you should still know that you have made valuable contributions to the project, and I hope you stick around. When you are knowledgeable about obscure subjects and topics, your expertise is needed, even though in some cases sources may not be available if a particular article is challenged.--Milowenttalkblp-r 18:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you Milowent, but at this point, with a third user stalking me with AfDs and not even notifying me of them Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menage a Twang after that second one, who nominated not only Jimbo Matison, but also was responsible for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eataly, all within a month, and all in reaction to me having discussions with them on other AfD, and now being told that I have to invest more time than I actually have if I want to contribute knowledge to this project, I hope you'll understand that at this point I simply cannot do it. Since you do have an interest in this project, maybe you should try to make it easier for people who don't have a lot of time or resources to be able to more easily contribute here. As is pointed out here[11], it's the occasional contributors who actually contribute the most stuff to wikipedia. Tduk (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
      • At the time of my RFA, one of the participants bought up this subject in an Email. My answer was that, as an alternative to creating new article that tend to get pounced on by overzealous new page patrollers, one could find one of our numerous stubs in an area that they are interested in and expand it or make an article on one of the redirects in this category. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I think we disagree philosophically here. You are operating under the assumption that "this person wants to contribute to wikipedia. How can they do it best?" ... I am operating under the belief that "I have this knowledge I want to contribute. Does wikipedia want what I can contribute, in the little time that I have?" ... Do you see the difference? I'm not going to work on wikipedia for its own sake. I'm going to use it as a resource, and if something I want to know about is missing, I will add it if I can. Tduk (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Cirt, can you please move Jimbo Matison to the article incubator? Tduk (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • FYI [12] Tduk (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Raelism articles

I think that there is some good reason to believe the content related to Raelism may be at least a bit excessive. Raëlian Church membership estimates strikes me as being at least one of the articles which is probably questionable. I believe it would make sense to perhaps have as many interested parties discuss any questions they have as want to, and that WT:NRM would probably be the best central location for such discussion. I am on that basis starting a discussion there. Please feel free to take part. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. But this is duplicative, as there was already an ongoing discussion taking place, at WP:FTN. -- Cirt (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Should I find it questionable that what John Carter is doing is effectively multiplying his vote? I agree that it is "duplicative".Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 21:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Posting a neutral notice to a WikiProject talk page is not "multiplying his vote", but I agree that the meta-general-discussion can be kept to WP:FTN. -- Cirt (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for that. Tduk (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Was not oversight, but just deleting selected revisions - but you are welcome! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorted now ;) - Alison 17:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Islam Portal

Hi. Please remove the sentence in the paragraph which is talking about Sunnah, as the dispute in the Islam article has solved. Thanks.--Aliwiki (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss at Portal talk:Islam, instead of individual user talk pages. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


How come Uncle G got a star on his talk page for Cincinnati Riots of 1884 and I didn't? He suggested the topic, and he dug up some of the sources, but I started it and wrote most of the content. I am deeply hurt... Just kidding - forget it. Really. :~) Despite appearances, I have no interest at all in collecting awards. Nobody I know in the real world would be impressed, even if they knew I had this hobby, and no editors I respect would be at all impressed. Seriously though, I see on the DYK talk page concerns that there are not enough articles. When I am on a roll, I may churn out three or four obscure little articles like this in a week. If they technically qualify they will usually be accepted, and the ones I start will usually technically qualify: long enough, grammatical, sourced, no copyvio etc.. But is there a type of article that is not being submitted enough? Subject no object - I like to research and write up subjects I previously knew nothing about. And should I submit them at all when an important function of DYK is to encourage new editors? Any advice? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it was just the way Uncle G nominated it. Completely unimportant. But any advice on the question? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
That may be the wrong answer. I am so tempted to beef up Cincinnati riots of 1829. Plenty of sources, interesting outcome. Four DYKs on Cincinnati riots in two weeks! But I will restrain myself. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What happened here?

When you handled the MfD for the subpages of the WP:Sandbox, why were these pages deleted?

— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

They were indicated as part of the WP:MFD. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see it here: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/test... Maybe you mixed up namespaces? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request from Red Hot Org

There is an unblock request at User talk:Red Hot Org from a user you spamusername blocked. I have looked at all of the editor's contributions, and my feeling is that, while certainly the username is unacceptable, the editing is not blatantly promotional, so I am inclined to unblock to allow a change of username. however, I thought it best to consult you first. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment about this on my talk page. I have decided I agree with you, and have declined the unblock request. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


You got mailThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Secondary source for this info? -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Personal Communication to the AAR NRM work group at the meeting, Which I could put it in the article as its an interesting development The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
No, you cannot. That would be a violation of WP:NOR and also of WP:V. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thus I shared with you as i knew you find it interesting, but unfit to share BLP reasons on Wiki The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, yes. Doubtful if this is actually accurate or merely bragging rights on the part of the individual and perhaps stretching the actual representation of what occurred - quite possibly. -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Your suspicious as always. It was a rather serious conversation so I doubt it was being stretched. Hopefully we will be able to source it one day. Quite possibly might be sooner than later, I talked with one other scholar there who has secured a contract for a book of his own. So we will see The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Yet another book from individuals closely affiliated financially with the subjects they purport to write about with neutrality? Indeed, we shall see. -- Cirt (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Siren AfD

Whoops, it looks as if you forgot you !voted in this AfD. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I endorsed the close as a neutral administrator. However, this still needs to be done...
Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

--Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs), I did indeed forget, my apologies. -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

  • Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
  • There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
  • If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

We have a common irritant

Hi! I'm contacting you because I see from Dreadarthur's talk page that you've had issues with this user's conduct on Wikipedia in the past. I've had dealings with him in the past too, on a couple of articles, although I should stress that these dealings were not hostile. Nonetheless, I do have major issues with the way he edits. He adds lots of material without citing verifiable sources, and on the odd occasion that he does add sources they often don't meet the reliable sources criteria. From his talk page, I see that a number of other editors have warned him about this in the past.

In addition, he also clutters up the "References" section of articles that he works on with lots of non-sourced notes that are, at best, non-essential and at worst, totally irrelevant to the subject of the article. Just take a look at his recent work on the Michael Clarke page - poorly sourced and with a References section that's cluttered up with lots of largely irrelevant info. He also doesn't use the correct citation templates for inline refs, which is surprising considering how much editing he does. In short, for such a regular contributor to Wikipedia, he's quite a poor Wikipedian in my opinion.

I'm not sure how best to proceed with my issues regarding this user, and that's why I'm approaching you I guess. With regards his improper use of the "References" section, obviously inline citations can be used for information that doesn't sit well within the main body of the text, but it's obvious to anyone that this should be the exception rather than the rule. I'm very tempted to go at the Michael Clarke article and strip out almost all of Dreadarthur's recent additions or perhaps revert to the edit immediately prior to his recent additions. Maybe that's a bit extreme and heavy handed though...then again, maybe it’s not. Verifiability is very important on Wikipedia and this user seems hell bent on ignoring that fact. Any thoughts on how I should proceed? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you could report this to WP:ANI, or start a WP:RFC process for User Conduct, WP:RFC/U. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for your advice. As a first step, I have left a message on this user's talk page warning him not to add unsourced content. I have also deleted a fair bit of unsourced or irrelevant info from the Michael Clarke article. I hope that it won't come to me having to ask for Administrator intervention but we'll see. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Brian Clifton

Dear, you have deleted my article regarding the Belgian film composer Brian Clifton. This article was well written and is concerning a composer who has written the music for over 25 movies of which 2 American movies. There are almost none Belgian composers who have written for an American director, except Brian Clifton. This composer is surely not an unknown composer and has written music for known Belgian and Dutch movies. He's mentioned on the Internet Movie Database and on all major movie sites. So, I don't see any reason why this article was deleted. I had no idea that there was a discussion about the article, I've constated it just today... Could you please revert this deletion? It's also undeclarable why the author of the article (me) was not informed regarding the possible deletion. Could you please do the necessary? Maybe I can add some sources to be more reliable if that wasn't already the case. Thanks.Christo jones (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I would be most willing to provide a copy for you to work on as a proposed draft version within a subpage of your userspace - if you so wish it. :) -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, that's a good proposal.Christo jones (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Christo jones/Brian Clifton. -- Cirt (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Don't Forget the Bacon!

Orlady (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome

It was my pleasure to read your new article on what sounds like a rather good children's book. Invertzoo (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:( o ) ( o )

Hi, could you reconsider your username block of this user (which I have unblocked under the usual condition that they submit an username change)? I believe that it is really a bit far-fetched to believe that his username represents a pair of breasts (which I also think are really nice things and not offensive at all :-). You may also want to refer the case to a discussion at WP:RFCN. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Commented there. No objections to the unblock. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
It's in use among text-only communication mediums such as chat clients. It's hard to point to Google to show this, because as far as I know all search engines won't include parentheses in a search, but (o) (o) on Urban Dictionary (and variants such as (oYo) and (.)(.) do indicate its usage. I wouldn't normally use Urban Dictionary as a source, because anyone can put anything there, but like I said it's not really possible to use Google. If I remember correctly, I saw this user at RFC/U but didn't comment because the user wasn't actively editing at the time. It could be legitimate or it could not; only way to know is to wait until they edit some more. (And likely if they're changing their username they're not intending to be even subtly malicious.) Soap 21:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Cirt, thanks for the comment, but do you still object to the user retaining that username? (If yes, they are required to make the username change as per the condition of their unblock.)  Sandstein  21:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes. They are already planning to make the username change, and they have already gone through the thought process to pick out the new username. Best to just let that process continue. -- Cirt (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay.  Sandstein  21:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comments

Hi friend. You have misunderstood some points while writing comments on my talk page. Regarding your first comment about Islam page, the dispute is solved on 15 October, and the current dispute is related to anthropomorphism in Islam. Regarding edit war, you didn't pay attention what's going on there, and I don't understand why you left the vandal user and writing to me. I did what you mentioned in your coments [13], and we discussed in detail [14], and the vandal user wrote this and while neglected all the warnings [15] [16], he started vandalising that page. I hope my explanation be enough for you to delete your comments from my talk page, as I have always respected wikipedia's rules and I don't want to be accused for vandalism. Thanks and sorry for taking your time.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Your labeling of another user's good faith concerns as repeatedly calling the editor a "vandal user", is not quite helpful towards your cause. -- Cirt (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Portals and references

After reviewing my portal at FPOC, Rodw had an interesting question about the references (or lack of them) in portals here, which I tried to answer here. Any thoughts from your esteemed position? BencherliteTalk 13:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

References appear in the main-article-space of the article itself, and are not needed in portal-space as long as the text from the article was properly referenced - much like WP:TFA. -- Cirt (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
My thought too, but nice to have it confirmed by someone with greater portal experience than me. Ta. BencherliteTalk 14:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:

You reported this person to Administrator intervention against vandalism and I initially blocked this person but on closer examination of their edits, I believe they were trying to make good faith edits however incorrect they might be. Please engage this editor and discuss the merit of their edits on the article talk page. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 14:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Bacon Jerky

Hi Cirt, thought this new article might interest you. SmartSE (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, would have to do some research, not immediately seeing secondary source coverage jump out at me about this topic, unfortunately. -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of vanadlism

Please explain why you accuse me of vandalism for appying a COI tag to the Werner Erhard vs CBS article. DaveApter (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

[17]. -- Cirt (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of vanadlism

Why is it vandalism to write that Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) made some comments and jokes that are seen as racist, when he actually did say such things. Are you trying to censor me ? Please explain. Just look at the article itself and you will find many sourced information about his racistic comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, engage in discussion, at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Scott Ashjian

-- Cirt (talk) 06:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Hi Cirt, Really. If you are not prepared for information voluntarily provided by you on your talkpage and information voluntarily provided by members of a project to which you choose to join to be interpreted, I merely said that you "choose not to provide that data" or "did not appear to particiate", I fail to see how you can object when you propose to collect information, without their consent, on editors who nominate and reiew at WP:GAN. Pyrotec (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cirt, I have replied to your comments at User talk:harej#Karma system. I can understand that you may not like the use that I made of certain data, but the request for tools to provide data of this type would enable any such tool-user to do the same (or worse) on any nominator and/or reviewer at WP:GAN (and possibly WP:FAC, DYK, etc, if the tool could be user-tweaked). Any tool without safeguards that is intended for "good" purposes can also be used for "bad"; particularly if introduced covertly. P.S. I'm not implying that my use was "bad", but others might. Pyrotec (talk) 10:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Geometry guy has made a valid point: "The status of GA depends upon its integrity ..... Any proposals should be evaluated against that goal". The covert implementation of data collecting tools when it is abundantly clear that there are subgoals (not necessarily yours, but they are there) of forcing nominators (aka DYK propsals) and/or embarrassing those who don't have the "right" nomination/review ratios and "poking" editors when the queue is considered too long, hardly seems compatible with Integrity. Strong opposition has been made on this and anticipated "pass mine - I'll pass yours reviews", etc, resulting from such actions. Sprinking claims of WP:Point making about when there is abundant opposition (not only mine) to both forced reviews and "peer pressure" hardly seems to consist of Integrity. You probably know enough about the system to get me banned, if you chose, but as I review of the order of 150 WP:GAN nominations a year that is hardly going to improve the system. Pyrotec (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, so could you. Your initial initial proposal was to change the GAN system requiring editors to bring their GAN nomination/review ratio into some sort of "balance" (I am deliberately vague, here)" (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Proposed change to GAN instructions = all nominators must review) and a useful discussion developed. Numerious objections were raised. There was also a "war of words" against Rd232 on this dual DYK/GAN topic of "balance". You then initiated discussions regarding setting up a karma system and moved the discussions to set up a bot for a trial run despite knowing that other editors propose other uses for the data. Quite frankly, you don't like the use that I made of your data, but you are covertly with Harej setting up systems to collect it on other editors who use GAN. You also used Harej's talkpage as a forum for mildly attacking me. Interesting, it seems that Harej might be intending to set up such a data gathering system. There has been no attempt to notify past, present and future nominators/reviewers at WP:GAN that such data is to be collected, knowing full well that other editors propose to make other data of the data; and Harej has air brushed out any concerns of mine that such data gathering may be illegal without the necessary editor's consent in some countries such as Germany. I might be wrong, but the fact that neither you nor Harej is prepared to comment on this and the discussions were removed under the pretext of "petty vindictive" is interesting. I return to Geometry guy's point: "The status of GA depends upon its integrity. We are all required to assume WP:AGF, but these kinds of actions don't help the cause. Pyrotec (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I see that you are personnally attacking me again on Harej's talkpage: naturally I responded. It seems that User:Rd232 is semi-retired, perhaps your are getting lonely? By the way, what about "Please stop with the repeated use of attacking and negatively commenting about individual contributors", or does not not apply to you? Pyrotec (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine editing

Hi Cirt, following the recent deterioration in editing of the Israel-Palestine set of articles, I've set up a page to discuss the problem and possible solutions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. Your input would be appreciated. PhilKnight (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the notice, will take a look. -- Cirt (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Studiodan/draft material

Hi there Cirt. Thanks for closing the above discussion. I know it wasn't particularly difficult to discern the consensus... Anyhow, part of the nomination is a request to delete the past history of User:Studiodan; I know that's an unusual request, but that history duplicates the objectionable material and isn't needed for attribution of the current block template. Do you mind doing that? I really see no need to retain any trace of this material. Thanks in advance for your reply. Gavia immer (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done! -- Cirt (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again. Gavia immer (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

removing delete/deadend message

{{helpme}} Hi Cirt! I have tried to improve my page. When is it safe to remove the possible delete warning/notice at the top? Thanks! Melges450 (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What page? Where? Link please? -- Cirt (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"Premature" Submission

FYI, the situation here, which you participated in, has been resolved. I expected one of the admin coordinators would have seen my reminder on our noticeboard and would have deleted it before it was noticed by anyone else. Sorry for the confusion, Sven Manguard Talk 19:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries! -- Cirt (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I have a request for you or another passing admin. I placed it at the linked area at the top of this thread. Thanks. Sven Manguard Talk 20:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
If it is alright, I will defer on that, to one of the elections folks. -- Cirt (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I'd like to ask again, since I don't think anyone else is going to do this, and I really want the rap back. It was a gem, and I doubt anyone will think of it as controvertial for you to transport that content to my sandbox. Sven Manguard Talk 23:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Have you tried asking any other admin who is involved with the elections process, in a post to their user talk page? -- Cirt (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
That would have been entirely too logical for me up on my own. I'll go do that. Thanks. Sven Manguard Talk 23:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I just messaged him, but he dosen't seem to be on, no contributions in two hours. We'll see where this takes us. Thanks, Sven Manguard Talk 00:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sven, your statement is still onwiki at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Sven Manguard/Statement. It's only the transclusion that's been removed from the candidate statements page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
<deep voice>I have reclaimed the rhyme</deep voice>. Again that was far too logical for me to figure out. Thanks Newyorkbrad. Sven Manguard Talk 00:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

WP Bacon in the Signpost

WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Bacon for a Signpost article to be published November 15. This particular article will look at WikiProject Bacon as an example of how new projects get started. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. I'm going to cook some bacon now... -Mabeenot (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bob Adams (American football)

Cbl62 (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Fitzgerald drv

I'm not trying to argue (not that it would matter) but I would like to know your reasoning for endorsing deletion of Jennifer Fitzgerald. The afd procedure was extremely flawed and I am considering quitting Wikipedia if such standards (or lack thereof) are tolerated. Could you let me know your reasoning if you get a moment? Thanks --UhOhFeeling (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, Cirt did not endorse deletion of Jennifer Fitzgerald. Cirt closed the deletion review discussion for Jennifer Fitzgerald, evaluating the consensus of that discussion, which was that the deletion of the article was endorsed by the participants of the DRV. As I've told you many times during the course of that discussion, that is the purpose of DRV. It is not a re-hash of the AfD. If you wish to see if you can develop an article that meets policy and won't be deleted, I highly recommend you visit WP:INCUBATE.  Frank  |  talk  21:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I will look into WP:Incubate. I appreciate the pointers Frank. Usually it seems like the closing admin gives a brief explanation for their decision and as consensus was an extremely close call here. I just wanted to know the closing admin's reasoning. I understand it is not a rehash of the afd of course (even though you and other editors {including myself} did do a good bit of rehashing). It is a "hash" of whether the closing of the afd was proper (as I understand it). I just wanted to know the closing admin's thoughts in hopes that it would give me a greater faith that Wikipedia's processes are fair. --UhOhFeeling (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Really?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was determine to be deletion endorsed of the closure of the prior deletion discussion. I would be more than happy to userfy a version of the article within a subpage of your userspace, so that you may work on a proposed draft version there - if you so wish it. :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Cirt, that's all I wanted to know. I already have a userfied version. I'm sure closing DRV's is probably some pretty thankless work so thanks for writing back. --UhOhFeeling (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The Game of Peter Rabbit

I've withdrawn this nomination because I won't be able to do the research in the next 7 days. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think granting more time would help. To meet the broad in coverage requirement a considerable amount of time would be needed for the research, and, frankly, I cannot invest that amount of time in research that in my estimation will end without producing any significant results. Potter's design is 100+ years old, was never published, and, for that reason, had no impact on the world of board games in general. It was simply a typical chase game using Peter Rabbit as a motif -- a spinoff to indulge Peter Rabbit fans and a gimmick Potter devised to promote sales of her books. Eventually the motif was used to save Warnes from complete ruin. If reviews of the game or its impact on board game culture are not found in materials about Potter I doubt if they will be found anywhere, and, while other Peter Rabbit games have been published since the original, it is doubtful whether they owe much to Mary Warne's version. If they do, it is unlikely reliable secondary sources will be found establishing a connection. Thanks! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Alright. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Is 48 hours required?

For the in between time on Good Article reviews that are on hold? It seems kind of unnecessary if i've addressed all of the points already. (Silver seren) (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Depends on when I get a chance to revisit it. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I just wanted to ask. And let you know that i've finished with the changes. Whenever you get the chance then. (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. -- Cirt (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

SPI case

Just an FYI, your SPI link is dead. I checked Betacommands directory and there is nothing either. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I do not know what you mean or how to fix that. -- Cirt (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleting page "Amotz Shemi"

Dear Cirt,

I was wandering why the page "Amotz Shemi" was deleated. Amotz Shemi finished his PhD in Astrophysics but for the past 7 years has been involved in the bio-med world (Medinol & Silenseed). I understood in the past that the page was deleted as there was confusion if this was one person or two combined. Could you please let me know if it was deleted for a different reason?


Gili —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilifocht (talkcontribs) 08:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted after AFD process discussion on Wikipedia, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amotz Shemi. -- Cirt (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tory Christman

-- Cirt (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


Since you were the closing admin for the AfD for Shakti (2011 film)‎, I am letting you know that I have removed the AfD template on the article you seem to have missed. Cheers.--  Forty two  09:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Tory Christman

Content Creativity Barnstar.png The Content Creativity Barnstar
For your outstanding DYK work on Tory Christman. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I reverted all your changes back

I reverted all your changes back because this was no vandalism and this are legitimate edits. But I would accept that this edits are wrong if somebody else reverted them back, who could explain to me why they were so wrong. I do not think that your explanation was sufficent.Xpjohn (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No. It is POV pushing, disruptive non-consensus edits across multiple pages, and likely, block evasion. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Chandra Levy

Thank you for undertaking the GA review. I wait your analysis and stand ready to make any necessary changes. Racepacket (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I noticed the ongoing discussion at the GA Review subpage. I will get to it soon. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking for your input on this article

Hi Cirt, Jeff Bedford here. Over the past week, having searched for "Royal Holiday Club" and coming across an AfD discussion, I thought I could be of help as I am familiar with the subject matter. I am not employed by the organization; however as it happens they have been a client of my employer in the past and I see it best to disclose any potential WP:COI upfront.

Looking at the AfD discussion, it seems that the article in the past was blatantly promotional, apparently citing no reliable sources, and among other things did not appear to establish notability. Though I am not able to see what that variation consisted of, it likely contained little (perhaps no) encyclopedic content - so in the interest of building the encyclopedia, I've taken a stab at drafting up an article on this subject -- citing reliable sources, and aligning with Wikipedia's WP:CORP notability guideline. I've also paid particular attention to write in a manner consistent with WP:NPOV, reflecting all aspects of the subject including litigation.

Instead of merely posting the article to mainspace, I thought it best to get your initial feedback/thoughts on the draft that I've saved here: User:Jeff_Bedford/Proposed_Royal_Holiday_article. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hrm, perhaps you could ask for input regarding your userspace draft, from those that previously commented at the AFD? -- Cirt (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Ahoy Cirt, thanks for the prompt response. I posed the question to user:Bearian; however of the three others who commented at the AFD, two are not recently active and the third has been banned. I realize that your time is likely in high demand, so if you happen to have the chance, I'd be especially appreciative of your direction. I am on the fence as to whether it is appropriate to be bold and move this article draft to mainspace. I feel that it is ready, but saw it as important to get a simple second opinion given the prior circumstances related to this subject. Warm regards, Jeff Bedford (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest first checking with WikiProjects by posting to their talk pages, and also to active users at those WikiProjects. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Will do -- thank you! Jeff Bedford (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
It is no longer blatently promotional, but it's not well-sourced, either. You still have only one reliable source, and three or four from trade publications. It needs more "beef". Bearian (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I admit that my edits are wrong

I admit that my edits are wrong, please give me a chance to be a good editor.Xpjohn (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The sock should refrain from socking as with Clearcrash1 (talk · contribs), and stick to its main account Cmmmm (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this:

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Cirt. You have new messages at Sven Manguard's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Okay, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I admit that I´m Cmmmm but I can not stop editing because I´m addicted to wikipedia.Xpjohn (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of Luke

I noticed you locked Gospel of Luke. I agree with the locking. I posted a comment on the talk page, regarding what the dispute is. Maybe you could leave a note on the matter?RomanHistorian (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System

Cbl62 (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Significant discussion?

What exactly are you looking for when you say that you want more "significant discussion" in the Critical Reception section of Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass? (User:Silver seren) (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Anything really. Perhaps more than just snippets of quotes, maybe two or so quotes where it is full sentences. And/or a few more additional reviews/sources. And/or just more in-depth literary criticism. -- Cirt (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Better now (if you can just give a cursory glance and opinion, you obviously don't have to dissect it)? (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
A bit better. "He ended with saying that..." sounds sorta awkward wording. Might need more copyediting throughout. -- Cirt (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll go see if I can get the prior copyeditor to just take another sweep over that one section and the first paragraph of the Themes section, since those are the only two things i've changed. (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Williamson

Can you please reinstate the article on the journalist Marcus Williamson, which was just beginning to take shape? Thank you.

Other Wikipedia articles which link to that page can be found here: (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Was deleted after WP:AFD deletion process, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Williamson. -- Cirt (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Eva McConnell page

Cirt Is there any reading of the reasons given for deletion? JJR made the comment that Eva is not even a supercentenarian. Eva is the oldest person born in Australia since it became a nation. Australia is less than 110 years old. It becomes 110 on 1 January 2011. Libstar made the comment that it is ridiculous because she is the 4th oldest person in her country. But that is not the point. Edison made the point that being the 4th oldest is insufficient. But again, that is not the point. Yeti Hunter states that he/she agrees with JJR. (see above). The only person who does not make a mistaken point is David in DC. Anyone deleting the page must surely take this into account. Take away these mistakes and the vote is to keep. These people may agree with David in DC, but that is not what they said. Alan Davidson (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus determined the article to be deleted, after the deletion discussion. However, I would be most willing to provide a copy for you to work on, within a subpage of your userspace, if you so wish it. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
What I am pointing out is that all the "delete" comments except one were in error. Surely that cannot be a consensus. I don't believe it is a matter of opinion. The reasons given for deletion were in error. My concern is to blindly delete based on incorrect reasons and perceptions. Alan Davidson (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree with your opinion that it was "blindly" deleted. -- Cirt (talk) 07:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that there can be different opinions which diagree; and I gave an example of that, namely David in DC. The others all gave reasons that were in error, making assumptions why the page was significant. I don't believe that is disputed. I believe that "blindly" counting the fors and against without looking at the reasons is the problem. I am asking you - don't you think the reasons count? I am happy for David in DC to disagree and others, but the others did not - they wanted it deleted for spurious reasons. The proper vote for the reasons is one against. Alan Davidson (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Not going to rehash the AFD at this page. Again, I emphasize to you my willingness that I would be most happy to restore a version of the page within a subpage of your userspace, so you can work on a proposed draft version there - if you so wish it. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 09:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I am asking quite politely for your rationale, which you seem to be avoiding. I suggested you "blindly" followed the votes without looking at the reasons. Please address my questions like "don't you think the reasons count?" Please don't fob me off. I sincerely am stating that all but one reasons against was wrong in fact, from either a biased or unbiased view. It seems so wrong to delete a page on these misconceptions. Alan Davidson (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Now you are repeating yourself and this discussion is going in circles. If you refuse to take my offer of userfying the page to a subpage of your userspace so that you may work on it further there as a proposed draft version, and your only desire is to re-argue the AFD over and over, then perhaps the next step is WP:DRV. -- Cirt (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I am politely asking for your rationale. Why avoid that? I am only asking again because you refuse. Should this go to arbitration? I thought it was a reasonable thing to ask? Truly. Look at my record, I am not beligerent. I am simply trying to point out what I believe is an error, and you respond by not responding. Please copy it to my page if you wish, but that is not what I am asking for? Please answer me. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Well almost a week and still no response to any of my questions. That speaks for itself. I understand the haste for your actions... I will now unwatch your page. Alan Davidson (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


I've restored the article which I'd userified in the process of closing the DRV, which you were doing simultaneously. While the deletion was endorsed, there's nothing particularly problematic about the article from a BLP perspective. I assume you didn't see who moved it? I'm all ears if you've seen a problem I missed. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

IP Block Exempt

Thanks much. I appreciate it. - Nellis 19:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


Cirt, could you chime in at User talk:Gbiasi? He's asking for a review of his username block, and I can't see anything obviously screwy. I presume there was some other activity going on at the time, but I'm missing it. thanks! Kuru (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done, I unblocked the account. -- Cirt (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Beauty, thanks. Kuru (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


I created page I Love Bacon! and i wanted to you to look it over(its a stub right now). I dont know why the title is in italics. Spongie555 (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh, okay, I will do some research on this. -- Cirt (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


I notice that you are working very hard over at DYK. I appreciate your dedication! -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Your kind words are most appreciated! -- Cirt (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


As part of a revamp of the portal, I've adedd Portal:Law/Selected article/9, in a blatant bid to win your support if and when I take it to FPOC! BencherliteTalk 15:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thanks! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, forgot to warn the IP. Thanks for that. I'll try and keep an eye on things. BencherliteTalk 15:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for apology and undertaking to not treat others as you have treated me


I previously made several edits to Wikipedia, about a year ago. I approached them carefully, and I feel that you Cirt, dealt with me arbitrarily, and did not give due consideration to my acting in good faith.

The edits I made were with regard to Georgism ( and ) Local Currency ( ) the American Monetary Institute ( ) and the Way to Happiness ( ).

Of these, the only one that persists is the one on Local Currency. There was an agreement about the second Georgist edit, but it has since been lost in revisions.

Previously to making several of these edits, I posted to the talk page about making them, see : ; - which indicated a good faith attempt at edits, by posting edits to the discussion for a given web page, as suggested on that web page.

The posting made to my user site by you was a boilerplate/cookie cutter comment which showed no investigation as to the context and my own history of asking first, and making an effort to be reasonable about my my edits. I had in fact only put in the "fact" comment on another article. This is what you could have done with regard to my own edits, together with a suggestion that there be a dialogue about it, with you developing things in stages.

I was willing to agree to have some content taken off if was seen as not appropriate, I'm not sure about the conflict of interest claim, but I was certainly willing to discuss it at the time. Separately, the manner in which you operated left me cold to Wikipedia. My issue is not about any particular edit, but rather the way you conducted yourself.

The Mencius reference was done in good faith; I put in a web link because it would be easily verifiable, while I had a paper reference.

Likewise, the comment on the American_Monetary_Institute was done in good faith; the lack of content has since prompted bots to give it a "stub" status, with a suggestion that "you can help improve this page". Great. Yeah. Like I'd be motivated to after my experience. I still assert that my content was neutral and worthwhile for someone trying to make sense of Zarlenga's position. At the time I'd pushed things with the Mencius reference didn't have the stamina to go on.

I would like an apology from you on this and an undertaking to treat other new edits more fairly, making an investigation of the context of their edits and putting in "fact" comments rather than immediate edits, and not putting kneejerk boilerplate / cookie cutter comments on their talk page.

The whole experience has left me cold. I believe I make good faith and generally worthwhile edits to Wikipedia; I might have contributed more, but do not feel this will ever be the case. In any case, I would appreciate the above apology and undertaking from you.

JohnAugust (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the bulk of your edits were non-constructive. They included inserting spam links [18], and posting of unsourced material [19]. -- Cirt (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You have made a bland assurance and not engaged with my content at all.I challenge your claim. If you do not engage with what I am saying I will take this to dispute resolution. JohnAugust (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. I cited diffs of your spam links [20] [21], and your blatant insertion of wholly unsourced info [22]. -- Cirt (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Blatant ? While trying to figure out what was what, I noted on the chat page the material I intended to post. I think that in fact shows my genuine intent, my good faith, something you refuse to recognise. Further, you've not proven all the material is as you assert - I ended up putting in the Mencius quote in an agreed fashion - clearly the edit was genuine. Other edits could be likewise genuine if you don't assume that what you say is the case merely because you say it is. In addition, you've not engaged with the material I've put forth in my initial comment above. That's what I meant, and it should have been pretty clear. I plan to take this to dispute resolution around the 20th of this month, unless you make some engagement with what I'm saying. JohnAugust (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I gave you two templated warnings, no more, which is the appropriate manner in which to deal with new users adding spam links, unsourced info, and conflict of interest material. -- Cirt (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It is clear you will not engage or acknowledge anything I put to you. I'll be going to dispute resolution, but it will take some time to familiarise myself with policies and put my arguments together. I'll keep you informed of progress in this regard. JohnAugust (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Energon (power source)

I know it's been a while since the AFD, but I'd appreciate it if you could userfy Energon (power source) for me.

Thank you for your time, --Divebomb (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Divebomb/Energon (power source). -- Cirt (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Hopefully I can address the lack of references that caused the deletion in the first place now. ----Divebomb is not British 16:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome message

In fact, I'm Baylink@en.wp, but even 6 years later, Mediawiki *still* does not have a "add your username and password to a posting, and post as logged in" feature, and I was too lazy to retype it all. Nice bot, though; thanks.  :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Yrsukrutt alt of User:LyfjahonnunGroup1

It looks like the Lyfjahonnun group has created a new account. Since you used a spamblock and not a softerblock, I figured I'd let you know. We may need a subject matter expert in order to figure out whether these contributions are constructive or not.

Then there's the original article:

I'm not sure what needs to be done to untangle this. Gigs (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you file a report to WP:SPI. -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Is that really the way to go? I mean we did ask them to change their username or create a new account because it was against policy. Gigs (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hrm, perhaps WP:COIN. -- Cirt (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


Please review this policy, and don't make that irrelevant and offensive personal attack again. In case you didn't notice, I was the one who made the other AFD nomination. Review WP:COI, too, before you falsely accuse me of violating it. THF (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You self-disclosed your COI, here [23]. -- Cirt (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
And I disclosed it in the AFD itself. Which is what WP:COI asks one to do. So why are you making a false accusation that's (1) entirely irrelevant and (2) a personal attack? THF (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

IP address and user having suspiciously similar edits

Sorry to bother you with this. I couldn't really find a forum where this would go. I went to portal film looking for an administrator and found your name there so...

I have been editing the article mumblecore for the past few weeks. One anon editor User: has been taking out films listed as mumblecore, with references indicating some connection to mumblecore. I have been adding them back in. Today, an editor User:Ohwhataslaughter removed the same three films but gave an edit summary, something I requested the IP to do. Because of that, instead of reverting the edits, I took the conversation to the talk page.

However, the edit histories of the IP and Ohwhataslaughter are very similar, although the last time Ohwhataslaughter edited wikipedia, before today, was 2008.

I am wondering if this is something that should be pursued or not? XinJeisan (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest filing a request at WP:SPI. -- Cirt (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I just did so. Thanks for your help XinJeisan (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comment blanking on Talk:Sharron Angle

Some good reason for this, Cirt?[24] (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This is block evasion, see the IP's block log. -- Cirt (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request fromTropicallanterns

There is an unblock request at User talk:Tropicallanterns. The user is offering to change user name. A quick look at their edit history does not give me the impression that their is any problem, so I am inclined to accept the request, but thought it better to check with you first. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No objections to an unblock in that case. -- Cirt (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

alt text in infoboxes

Hi. I was adding alt text to an image in I Love Bacon! and went to do it for the image in the book infobox as well, but they don't seem to have that facility/option. I had the same problem with the play infobox at La Tosca. Given the requirement for alt text for FA and DYK images, I would have thought infoboxes should have it, or at least an option to add it. Any suggestions? Voceditenore (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not the best expert on that issue, sorry. :P -- Cirt (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your harassment

Please read the WP:COIN introduction:

Please note that the conflict of interest guidelines do not require editors with conflicts of interest to avoid editing altogether. An editor who has disclosed a conflict is complying with the guideline when they discuss proposed changes on a talk page, or make non-controversial edits in mainspace consistent with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Furthermore, accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited.

Then please apologize to me and strike your false allegation. You're going to get both of us sued. THF (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  1. Warned by Jehochman: "THF should not be commenting here. By his own admission, he's involved in a lawsuit with the subject."
  2. Warned by Nomoskedasticity: "You really need to stay away from the Wolk article. COI couldn't be clearer on this, and it's beyond obvious that as a target of the subject's lawsuits you do indeed have a COI. I would request that you strike your recent comments on the AfD."
  3. You have been warned about COI by multiple other editors, before I filed the COIN report. Are you going to threaten them with lawsuits, as well? -- Cirt (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I responded to both Jehochman and Nomo. Neither claimed I did anything wrong once I pointed out their mistake. I haven't threatened anyone with lawsuits. Why do you think it's permissible for you to ignore what COIN says and harass an innocent editor? THF (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and you have failed to abide by their warnings, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Please answer the question: why do you think you're allowed to harass editors by ignoring the appropriate use of the COIN messageboard? THF (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this comment, by Uncle G (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for your improvements. I still believe the article should reflect more of the chronology of the case as well as the facts of Slee's death. I have replied on the GA1 sub-talk listing sources and the information I found in them. I certainly want to conclude this review as quickly as possible, but I suggest that it would be worth your time to restructure the sections describing the lawsuit to give more of a sense of the passage of time, what happened when, etc. For example, you could take the complaint and list the different causes of action used to bring the lawsuit. Then describe the discovery battle, the fact that both sides offered expert witnesses, the trial, and then the appeal including the issues raised on appeal. Please let me know what you think of this suggestion. I just want this article to be NPOV and complete. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

inre Cad Bane

This article was originally an unsourced plot-only article that had turned into a reasonable redirect in April of 2009.[25] Editor User:Jhenderson777 felt it had potential and expanded and sourced the old redirect to recreate the article.[26] However, problems arose with possible copyvio and the article was tagged for such.[27] He has userfied his work so that he can address concerns, but out of mainspace. As an admin, could/would you please revert the article back to its safe April 25, 2009 redirect status?[28] Jhenderson777 would like to continue work on his improvements in userspace and not have it considered for return to mainspace until all agree that the concerns have been completely addressed. Do-able? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hrm, perhaps you could raise this issue at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard or at WP:ANI. -- Cirt (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Thought a simple Admin-only type rollback was right up your alley. But as I do not believe the concern raised by User:The Bushranger about the JJhenderson777's recent version reflected an intentional intent to copyvio on the part of Jhenderson777, and most specially as Jhenderson777 wishes to have the concern removed from article space while he addresses the issue, I do not think ANI is quite the correct venue. So I have taken your advice and posted the question/rerquest at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#copyright problem at Cad Bane. Thanks for the advice. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ball Park Music

Hi Cirt, can I please get the deleted article for Ball Park Music restored so I can expand and reference it. Thanks. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Duffbeerforme/Ball Park Music. -- Cirt (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Ubiles

Would you mind restoring Edwin Ubiles? He is now a professional basketball player, which satisfies notability. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 17:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It was a poorly sourced WP:BLP. You can create a well-sourced version cited to WP:RS sources, and/or I could move the deleted version to a subpage of your userspace, and you could improve its sourcing there, before moving it into article mainspace. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Or you could recreate the article and I could add sources right afterward. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 05:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System for deletion

Ambox warning pn.svg

A discussion has begun about whether the article Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. I read the article and found it most interesting - and sourced up to the eyeballs as is the norm with your work. Fainites barleyscribs 18:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I had to do that on Attachment therapy and other attachment articles for the same reasons. You have to be prepared to source every sentence, post long quotes on the talkpage and cite qualifications/publishers and what have you for the sources. SPA's have various ways of getting round this that you kind of get used to. The AT socks used to conduct polls to state sources said the opposite of what they actually said. The anti-Bowlby editor used to start new articles and then remove selected posts from discussions to new talk pages leaving the meat of the argument behind! Fainites barleyscribs 18:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The only solution I've found is meticulous sourcing, posting chunks of sources on the talkpage and maintaining an icy calm. SPAsock behaviour usually becomes apparent over time but it's hard going.Fainites barleyscribs 21:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Spacefarer (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Tri-State

[29] Hi Cirt, I'm not familiar with how to exactly go about this, I will I guess just add a hotlink line to my profile but the discussion I'm not sure how that will manifest itself. Sorry if this sounds jumbled not used to defending cited pages that are guilty to be proven innocent but it was my intention to take you up on your offer. I will however educate myself on wikipolicy on this though and I appreciate your efforts to put this to consensus. Thank you. Hholt01 (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done, userfied now at User:Hholt01/Pittsburgh Tri-State. -- Cirt (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Concern about administrative conduct on deletion request. Thank you.

Am notifying for discussion starter. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 17:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this notice. -- Cirt (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Retrieving deleted Wikipedia:Sandbox/Chess

On Oct. 25, 2010, you speedy deleted Wikipedia:Sandbox/Chess. Is there any way you can get it back or at least get the information in it back, including the History? There is a chess game I played in there, which I would like to copy to another place. H Padleckas (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but there's a lot of deleted edits there, not sure that is an adequate rationale or encyclopedic. -- Cirt (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

South Park vandal

I was minded to suggest those two reports of yours at AIV go to ANEW, however, I've blocked both for a week because it's obvious they're trying to avoid a block by logging out and editing as an IP. I've hard blocked the IP, so hopefully you won't have to put up with any socks for a week. Anyway, at first glance, I can only see an edit war over images and caption in various South Park episode articles, so I'm just wondering if this is just someone determined to make a nuisance of themselves in an edit war or if there's something else going on that I'm missing. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Alito RFPP request

I hear what you're saying, but I can't help but think that's a little premature given James' lack of direct involvement in the other articles. I'll keep my eyes on it (and SPI in mind), but for now I think the benefit of the doubt is appropriate. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


Hey Cirt, I don't know if I should ask you since you and have shared some bacon together in the past, but I was wondering if you could have a look at the two articles I have listed at GAN--Guillaume de Dole and The Land of Green Plums. I know you've reviewed a lot of books and I think you're an equal opportunity offender; I have faith in your objectivity. As an aside, I had a look at The Book of est, and I think it looks great, but it made me realize that there's a lot I need to learn here to help reviewing GANs--give me some time and I'll come to help the project there. Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will strive to get to that soon. -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh! Cirt! Since I see you're not busy, can you take care of this also? And walk my dogs? Thanks--you're great! Drmies (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you take a look?

I was alerted to TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs) by YellowMonkey on my talk page. I just went by to check the contribs and saw that you had already researched something and posted on the related ANI discussion and warned him on his talk page. There are now subsequent edit summaries like "undo random, blanking of sourced material for no stated reason by YellowMonkey, who has privately told me he intends to vandalize this article because he hates Kissinger the evil war criminal", "ditto; outlandish and absurd conspiracy theories from far-left propagandists and chomsky cultists should not be obsessively regurgitated in a barely literate fashion on Wikipedia, you poor adolescent" etc. I've got to step out now and don't have the time to investigate, but since you've already had a look-in could you relook at this? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. —SpacemanSpiff 21:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

John W. Flores

I believe that you are an admin. Can you please look at the talk page of the John W. Flores article. There is a name and phone number given, as well as an e-mail address of an unconfirmed user. It seems to me that this kind of info can't be verified and should be removed. I'd do it myself, but I am uncertain about deleting the content of other people's well as how to delete it from the history. Your attention would be appreciated. Thanks! The Eskimo (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


Cirt, You recently deleted Allthing per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allthing. Could you re-create the page as a redirect to Althing, the Icelandic Parliament? Several users suggested doing this, and this is a highly likely misspelling which should be redirected. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No objections to you doing so yourself. -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Grenfell College Student Union

Hi Cirt,

Recently, you deleted the Grenfell College Student Union page as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grenfell College Student Union. I feel, again, quite disheartened by the fact that Wikipedians were given only eight days from when it was previously restored from Speedy Deletion to fix up the article. Furthermore, the note of one user on the discussion towards the deletion notes there only being a few sources directly integrated into page which mentions the Union in passing... while another user had posted several valid sources in the deletion discussion as examples of what was to be integrated. As we have only had a single day over a week to do so, we've not been successful in integrating all of the sources that I and a few other interested users have found to integrate into the page. I'd ask if you could restore said page so that we can have a real shot at getting those things properly formatted and having a legitimate article herein. I'm interested in trying to improve all of the pages related to Memorial University of Newfoundland and this is a just another part in doing so -- as all articles tied to it are fairly weak.

All the best, Brad Evoy (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If you wish, I could make a copy available to you as a subpage within your userpage space, so you could work on a proposed draft version. -- Cirt (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
That'd be great, as I really think I and other interested folks can polish this one up to standard. Thanks! -- Brad Evoy (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

my user page

any way to get the data that was there, i don't want to recreate the page but i do want the data. Vlame (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)vlame

I am sorry, but it was deleted via community consensus after discussion at WP:MFD. -- Cirt (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Leavenworth Nutcracker Museum

The DYK project (nominate) 18:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't finish the review

Send Don't Forget the Bacon! back to the GAN page. I'm being "investigated" for "too close paraphrasing". :) Brother, what next? I guess I'm expected to rewrite about a hundred articles. I can't do that. Anyway, check your article through for "too close paraphrasing" of the sources, revise if necessary, and resubmit. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will do. -- Cirt (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Too often great editors like you are overlooked and not given the credit deserved for all their great contributions. So I am awarding you this barnstar to let you know I greatly appreciate all you do for Wikipedia, and please keep up the outstanding work!! CTJF83 chat 03:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, very much! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please

I saw your suggestion at User talk:Cunard that an {{rfc}} be initiated on my conduct.

I replied there. The short version of my response is:

  1. I am fully prepared to fix all genuine policy lapses in the material I have contributed, whether it is in article space, or userspace.
  2. As I understand it, before an {{rfcu}} is initiated, the individual(s) initiating that {{rfcu}} have an obligation to make a collegial attempt to explain their concern first. That hasn't happened.
  3. It seems to me that there are differing interpretations of the policies those expressing the concerns have tied to their concerns.
  4. I am fully prepared to fix all genuine policy lapses in the material I have contributed, but due to the complications and ambiguities around these concerns I think it is particularly important that those who have a concern make a genuine collegial attempt to discuss those concerns.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Commented at User talk:Cunard. -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Russian supercentenarians

It looks clear that the article has been deleted after a false argument that there are only 26 verified supercentenarians ever while there are more then 1000 of them and 85 are currently living. The community consensus was to Keep the article.-- (talk) 09:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest your register an account, then, you could work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion despite meeting Wikipedia requirements for notability

Hello Cirt,

Why was the Artificial Peace page deleted despite meeting FOUR Wikipedia requirements for notability for musicians and ensembles? Please note that the rules state a band must only meet ONE such rule to be deemed notable.

Below are the criteria listed on that Artificial Peace satisfies:

1) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.

Artificial Peace has been the subject of at least THREE books:

ONE: Andersen, Mark & Jenkins, Mark (2001), Dance of Days: Two Decades of Punk in the Nation's Capitol, New York, NY: Akashic Books, ISBN 1-888451-44-0.

TWO: Connolly, Cynthia; Clague, Leslie & Cheslow, Sharon (1988), Banned in DC: Photos and Anecdotes From the DC Punk Underground 1979-85, Washington, DC: Sun Dog Propaganda, ISBN 978-0-9620944-0-8 .

THREE: Blush, Steven & Petros, George (2001) American, George Hardcore: a Tribal History Feral House, ISBN-10: 0922915717

5) Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable).

  • In addition to the multiple Artificial Peace vinyl records released in the 1980s on Dischord and other labels (and later reissued on CD), Dischord Records just released the entire Artificial Peace 1981 sessions. Dischord, [one of the more famous independent labels (it says so on Wikipedia)] has demonstrated that, even to this day, the band has merit by releasing this music after 29 years in the vault.

6) Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

  • Members of Artificial Peace went on to form Marginal Man as well as become a member of Government Issue. Two other notable bands from the Washington D.C. music scene and have Wikipedia pages.

7) Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

  • Of Artificial Peace, Ian MacKaye has written, "their effect on the DC scene was significant and played a sure role in the evolution of the music." Please note that the Wikipedia page on the DC scene begins with the following sentence: "Washington, D.C. has had one of the first and most influential hardcore punk scenes in the United States since the early 1980s."

Only one of the four above criteria is needed to satisfy the requirements for notability for musicians and ensembles.

Please restore the Artificial Page page or explain why it has been deleted despite meeting the criteria for notability.

Thank you.

RM (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you register an account on Wikipedia. Then, you could work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userpage space. -- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Cirt,

Thank you for your suggestion. Is that standard operating procedure for such a situation? I've already spent a considerable amount of time building and formatting the page, as well as searching for and then citing multiple 3rd party references. And then I've spent even more time defend something that already meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I don't mean to seem cynical, but why should I believe I'll be treated any differently if I follow your suggestion? Please advise.

Thank you.

RM (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I assure you, once you register an account on Wikipedia, I will provide you with a copy of the deleted page to work on as a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userpage space. -- Cirt (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Cirt,

I have registered an account as Orange_28. Does it take time for the account to become active? The page comes up as red linked/does not exist.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Orange 28/Artificial Peace. -- Cirt (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel Krajden

Please will you give the reasons why you deleted this article? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

Consensus from the community after discussion at AFD page of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel Krajden, was to be for deletion. However, I would be most happy to provide you with a copy within a subpage of your userspace - so you can work on improving a proposed draft version. I will do so, if you wish it. :) -- Cirt (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Three deletes, two keeps. That is not community consensus. It is at best a no consensus. It is clear also that some of the deletes did not understand WP:Prof policy.Xxanthippe (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC).
Are you refusing the offer to have a userfied version placed within a subpage of your userspace so that you may work on and improve the page as a proposed draft article? -- Cirt (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I do not find the reasons you give to be satisfactory, I ask for the AfD to be relisted for further debate. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC).
No, it already had been relisted and had plenty of time for discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, I was also very surprised at your conclusion that the result of that discussion was "delete". I would have called it "no consensus" since opinions were pretty much evenly split, with possibly stronger arguments in favor of "keep". (Also note that the original nomination was by an anonymous SPA, submitted to AfD by a neutral third party.) Could you take another look at the discussion there, and see if you still think the consensus was "delete"? Thanks --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

MelanieN (talk · contribs), perhaps you would wish to put some efforts into improving the page further, as a proposed draft version within a subpage of your userspace? -- Cirt (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Cirt, I already did. I expanded it and added references, as I said in the AfD discussion. I wish you would respond to the question of why you interpreted the discussion as resulting in "delete" rather than "no consensus". --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear Cirt, I too am rather surprised by the deletion of this page - I didn't contribute to the Afd debate on the grounds of being busy and that I had thought that Afd was not a vote and that Mel Krajden's h-index and citation scores already indicated so clearly met the WP:prof that is was not needed. If you want to put it on someones user page - you can put it on mine. I can then ask for it to be restored as the existing refs at the end of the Afd process already seemed to me to be sufficient or add some more if you require it. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC))
 Done, now at User:Msrasnw/Mel Krajden. Feel free to improve upon the quality of the page, there. I note that there are basically unformatted bare links put forth as inadequate citations for a BLP page. Might be a place to start work on, utilizing WP:CIT templates to fill out info on those sources. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Ready for restoration (?): Dear Cirt, I have tidied it up and added another ref and further evidence of notability. I think it is OK for restoration but if you have any more suggestions or possibly another Afd. Thanks and best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC))
It looks much better. However, the 3rd cite violates WP:NOR. -- Cirt (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not clear that it was original research as I was just reporting what WoS indicates - i.e. what is in their database - but I have removed the 3rd cite and put the info on the talk page. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC))
Can you please properly format the cites using WP:CIT? -- Cirt (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 Done (Msrasnw (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC))
Not done = the "title" fields are missing in the cites. The "date" fields are missing in the cites. Still improperly formatted, please fix this. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear - I cannot see what you mean by the titles being missing - but I think I have fixed the dates. I was not aware of this new policy and cannot see it on WP:cit but thank you anyway I hope it is OK now. Is it? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC))
Ah, I changed it to {{Cite news}}. The "work" field is missing. -- Cirt (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Does {{Cite news}} have a "work" field - I can't see it on the little list? What information do you want adding and where? (I won't ask why?) This all seems a bit odd to me. Best wishes anyway (Msrasnw (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC))
You can see all the fields listed for it, at WP:CIT page. -- Cirt (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems to list these below and not "work" - What information do you want adding? (Msrasnw (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC))

{{cite news | title = | author = | first = | last = | authorlink = | authorlink2 = | author2 = | author3 = | author4 = | author5 = | author6 = | author7 = | url = | format = | agency = | newspaper = | publisher = | location = | isbn = | issn = | oclc = | pmid = | pmd = | bibcode = | doi = | id = | date = | page = | pages = | at = | accessdate = | language = | trans_title = | quote = | archiveurl = | archivedate = | ref = }}

WP:CIT page. For "cite news", 3rd example over, lists "work" field. -- Cirt (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that - I have now put "work" in the last two - but the first two I have used Cit web. I hope it is OK now. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC))

 Done, moved it back into article mainspace, and nominated for AFD as procedural nom for community reassessment of the changed page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for your kind assistance in this matter(Msrasnw (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC))


Hi want to to start a a new page about Harry Opie Winston, a character from Sons of Anarchy. I was told by wikipedia to contact you first. signed, SOA fan —Preceding unsigned comment added by SOA fan (talkcontribs) 05:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you first work on it at User:SOA fan/Sandbox. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Caesary Page

The Caesary page was being considered for deletion but was being updated and changed to meet requirements of Wikipedia. Unfortunately the page was drastically altered and spammed until it was no longer fit for being hosted on Wikipedia and was deleted. I would ask that you return the page to the last version by myself or shortly after so that we may continue to work on it and make it presentable.

--Jeirhart (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to provide a userfied version for you to work on as a proposed draft article, within a subpage of your userspace. -- Cirt (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Would you be able to provide me a copy of the page as it was after my last edit or shortly thereafter?--Jeirhart (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Why deletion of Voluntary Content Rating

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

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

¹: (german)

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

²: 1,5 years, because that was when I linked to it on

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

Suggest you can work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. If you like, I could make such a version available to you. :) -- Cirt (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I don’t want to create a hidden new draft when there’s no reason to do so. The old version was useful and should never have been deleted as “spam” or “non-notable”. Please just undo the deletion. Draketo (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you refusing the offer to have a userfied version placed within a subpage of your userspace so that you may work on and improve the page as a proposed draft article? -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Karachi plane crash

Re this, can you explain why in your closing statement you appear to have side-stepped the fact that the reason for deletion was for failing WP:NOT, WP:EVENT and WP:AIRCRASH (both the current essay and proposed guideline), not for simply failing the WP:GNG (to which even the arguments on that score were weak to the point of simple assertion, for an article that is still only sourced to news articles of one 24 hours news cycle). If you see a consensus in there actually dealing with the whole rationale, and not just the GNG, then maybe you can give one or two examples here of the sort of comments you think supported a determination of a "strong consensus" outcome on that score. Otherwise, I think you've made a very basic mistake in policy here, which requires review. No single Afd has the power to elevate the GNG to the status of the sole criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia, not even under IAR, even the GNG itself is clear on that score, under the presumption clause. I am also pretty concerned that by examining your contribs, you appear to have spent less than four minutes reviewing that rather large discussion before closure, which does not seem enough time to give it anything other than a cursory look. This seems to be confirmed by the fact you chose not to comment on several of the points I made specifcally for the benefit of the closer, such as the piggybacking on Lugnut's flawed GNG based rationale (which he repeatedly chose not to defend in any way at all). MickMacNee (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but the closing rationale explained itself pretty much and is sufficient. Consensus was to retain the page. -- Cirt (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Jay Hudson Deletion

I see that you were the first person to recently delete the Jay Hudson article. I would like to know the specific reasons for this. It seems that his status as a local celebrity would more than qualify him for a page.

I'd like to note that many other Detroit area radio shows have pages, Drew and Mike for instance, have a page and have for a while.

I look forward to working with you. Mick (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If you wish it, I could make a version available to you within a subpage of your userspace, so you could improve the quality of the page as a proposed draft version. -- Cirt (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
That would be great. Is there a list of things that need to be included to make sure the article is accepted this go-round? -- Mick (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 Done, now at User:Mickilus/Jay Hudson. As for improvements, I suggest you take time to read WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:CIT, and WP:Article development. -- Cirt (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


Saw the ICSA source you added to James R. Lewis' Scientology article. You being one of the Primary contributors to Xenu thats gotta be a slap in the face. Are You going to be planning a rewrite of the Xenu article after reading that? I personally tend to agree Rothstein's opinion more. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really going to change the article Xenu, as in that article the writings are attributed directly to the contributor in question. -- Cirt (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
hmm Right didnt think of it that way ;-) cheers The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Leo Ryan article

Feel free to reorganize the paragraph for wording. I thought that the fact that Layton had been found not guilty by another court and could not be tried in the US for the obvious charge was significant so I added it. But I didn't do much to make sure that the article flowed well.

Roadrunner (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I started a sect for discussion about it, at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Note to self - possible book articles to create

  1. est: 60 Hours that Transform your Life, by Adelaide Bry, New York: Harper & Row, 1976.
  2. est: The Movement and the Man, by Pat R. Marks, Playboy Press 1976.
  3. est: Making Life Work, by Robert A. Hargrove, New York: Dell Publishing, 1976.
  4. est: Four Days to Make Your Life Work, by William Greene, Pocketbooks, 1976.
  5. The est Experience, by James Kettle, Zebra Books, 1976.
  6. The est Experience, by Donald Porter and Diane Taxson, Award Books, 1976.
  7. Christianity and est, by Max B. Skousen. Marina del Ray, California: DeVorss & Company, 1978.

So far, research indicates the first two may have the most amount of secondary source coverage. -- Cirt (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hrm, WorldCat does indeed seem to show multiple different books with title The est Experience, see link, will have to research this further to find out if those have sufficient secondary source coverage for article(s). -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
est: 60 Hours that Transform your Life, by Adelaide Bry = looks like this one is the best option to start researching = seems to have most availability of secondary source coverage. -- Cirt (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


For removal of unsourced articles from the main page. The chattering classes at Talk:Main Page are pretty ridiculous; calling for a decrease in compliance with core policies eg WP:V by replacing FAs with random unsourced articles, instead of bothering to look for an article that is actually sourced. lol YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. ;) Hope you are doing well, -- Cirt (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
There are hundreds of reasonably important FA/GAs out there but they only moan and talk on main page crap all day. The old OTD sentry told me that unsourced start-class articles crept in because they weren't tagged. So I had to do the obvious and tag everything I substituted off for any kind of a sourced article, because a 95% unsourced article is "quality" because it has no tag. lol YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Good points. -- Cirt (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Restarted talk page you deleted - see Lyraka

Hi, Cirt. Just to let you know, restarted a talk page you deleted a few months ago. Article is up and running again. You may well have A7-d the article itself as well, but of course I can't see that in the page history. Article tagged for notability.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted and salted. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
There were blue-linked people in the deleted article. Could we possibly follow up on them too?--Shirt58 (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems with AfD closes

If your concern is that Wikipedia should be more bureaucratic, please raise that at WT:NOT. If your concern is that somebody is making bad AfD closes, please take that up with the editor in question, taking it through dispute resolution until a satisfactory consensus is reached on perceived conduct problems. If your concern is with the circumstances of one particular close, take it through deletion review.

I closed the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard because it seems to be misplaced. Since you think that it's important to observe established procedures, please do follow the very well established procedures in this case. --TS 10:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this comment about this, by admin DGG (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Truth in Numbers?

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page

Please see my comment replying to you. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 20:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Landmark Education logo2.jpg


Thanks for uploading File:Landmark Education logo2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Huntster (t @ c) 21:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the image work. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youvan's Apologetics

Hi. You closed this as delete but, as nominator, I request you to change your close to Redirect to Douglas Youvan#Christian Apologetics. I had agreed that as a compromise with the article author, and invited two others who had !voted delete to agree. You will see in the debate that they both did, and there was only one last-minute !voter who came in as delete. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to make a redirect, post the AFD itself, as an editorial decision made after the AFD. I have no objections to that. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Reviews

Cirt, I know that you are extremely busy, but any progress on reviewing Chandra Levy or adding the missing paragraph to Estate of Jack Slee v. Werner Erhard would be appreciated. Many thanks! Racepacket (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right, I will have that done within one day. -- Cirt (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I am still here on both Jack Slee and Chandra Levy. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
So sorry, have had some in-real-life issues lately, will get to it soon, primary on my list. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
You are doing so much for Wikipedia. I understand completely. Racepacket (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox/tool test

RE: Wikipedia:Sandbox/tool test to User:Adamtheclown/tool test

Can you please undelete and move this article into a subpage of my user page? It was created in that location because an editor told this new editor to create it there. Thank you. Adamtheclown (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Yuri Rutman

A "Ron Ritzman" claims you ok'd the reposting of the entry of spam artist Yuri Rutman. "He" claims that the Yuri Rutman spam artist and the Yuri Rutman who wrote his own entry in Wikipedia are not the same person (quite a postmodern invention!). I am deeply suspicious of this "Ron Ritzman" (isn't Ritzman just a bit too close to Rutman for comfort?) I have stated on "his" discussion board, as I will state here, that inclusion of Yuri Rutman in Wikipedia compromises Wikipedia's integrity. Yuri Rutman is absolutely insignificant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truebobjohnson (talkcontribs)

No objections if you wish to nominate that page for WP:AFD discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Roger Waters FAC

FYI, I have re-nominated Roger Waters for FAC, and we could use your input at the FAC page. — GabeMc (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will look it over again. -- Cirt (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have come across a Paid Editor Sigma0 1 (talk · contribs) who works for Bluebike Terminologies who has creating articles which fails WP:N ,WP:ORG etc for IdeaConnection and [30] and [31] Do I report the editor to WP:SPAM or to WP:COIN Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest going with WP:COIN. -- Cirt (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback (Delsort tool ?)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Cirt. You have new messages at Gene93k's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Cirt. You have new messages at Gene93k's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Okay thanks, will try that. -- Cirt (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Further to 'Request for Apology'

I mistakenly edited the archive yesterday. Anyway, copying that material to here, now :

It is clear you will not engage or acknowledge anything I put to you. I'll be going to dispute resolution, but it will take some time to familiarise myself with policies and put my arguments together. I'll keep you informed of progress in this regard.JohnAugust (talk) 11:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I already responded to this. diff link -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Request assistance in cleanup of possible essay

User:John Carter/Wikipedia:The Next Generation is a rough essay I have written about a few ideas which might help reduce the amount of time and effort spent in certain areas around here. The disadvantage, of course, is that, as a work, it is disastrously poorly written and organized. If, and I know this is a big if, you were to want to read it, and if you thought it of any value, please feel free to do any of the editing it so clearly needs to help make it a bit more presentable prior to a possible move to main wikipedia space. Thanks for your attention. John Carter (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Will try to take a look, thanks for the notice and for thinking of me. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Book of est

The article The Book of est you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:The Book of est for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Inter2Geo

Hi, it looks like you judged from the deletion discussion of Inter2Geo that the article should be deleted. When looking at the comments made then there are statements like "no secondary sources" in the pro-deletion comments which are clearly (!) countered by citing independent secondary sources in the no-deletion-comments. So I do not really understand your decision - can you explain or maybe revise your decision ? --Kortenkamp (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to give your reasons for the decision to delete? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC).
User:Cirt. I ask you once again for your reasons for deleting this article. I note the policy ruling here: [32]
7) Due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, proper communication is extremely important, and all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes: giving appropriate (as guided by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) warnings prior to, and notification messages following, their actions; using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions. Passed 9 to 0, 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

Xxanthippe (talk · contribs), I request that you stop the impatience. I am allowed to not check my Wikipedia user talk page for a span of one or two days without being threatened and cited arbcom cases in such a manner for not responding to a query of a type that I routinely get on my user talk page and answer readily without complaint. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Cirt If you had given your reasons for the closure of the AfD in the first place this would not have arisen. I notice that you did not give reasons in several other of the AfD debates that you have closed. It would be helpful if you would do so except when the debate is so clear-cut as to not need them as, for example, here. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC).
Xxanthippe (talk · contribs), that fails to respond to your inappropriate method of response and lack of patience through attempts at intimidation by immediately jumping to threatening users who do not quickly respond to you with citations of arbcom cases. This is not conducive to a constructive back-and-forth dialog. I hope you will modify your behavior patterns going forward in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
We are all of us subject to policy. This AfD was closed with 1 keep and 2 delete votes. The article which it was about contained material of a complex technical nature. User:Kortenkamp was entitled to ask for the reasons for its deletion. After three days, the reasons have not emerged. It is quite possible that your reasons are sound but, not knowing what they are, we don't know. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC).
It is most unfortunate that the two of us could have both been more receptive to constructive criticism and had a more productive and polite dialog — had your tone been different in the choice of wording in your above responses. -- Cirt (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry that you feel threatened by policy. The issue here is that you failed, after several requests, to give a reason for your ruling on the AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC).
I am sorry that you have been unable to adjust your tone in this communication so as to have a positive polite and productive dialog. The issue here is that you failed, after several requests, to conduct an amiable approach, with respect to this discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 06:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Jack Slee v. Erhard

I have made a suggestion on coverage of the trial at the bottom of the GA review. The ultimate decision is yours to make. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations. It is very hard to write about a legal process in an understandable way. Racepacket (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


Sorry about mucking up your links, it was user:js/urldecoder.js acting on too much of the page. –xenotalk 14:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Apology accepted. :) No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Keiko Fujimori

He's at it again, the same edits, over and over and over. Please consider a longer block. I assumed good faith the first time, but WP:competence and disruptive editing come into play. Or can we lock it down until a neutral, actual English version is written incorporating whatever may be useful?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

I'm wondering if you would consider reducing the length of the semi-protection at Deaths in 2010. The entry you were concerned was not reliably sourced was replaced with a reliable source, and three months seems a long time for such a relatively minor matter. I left a note at WP:BLPN#Britton Chance, as has another long time editor of the Deaths in 2010 page, but I'm not sure if you've had a chance to review it. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Would rather not, there are still serious WP:BLP issues on that problematic page. -- Cirt (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Alright, nothing lost by asking. Is there something you find particularly worrisome at the moment? I try to keep a pretty close eye on that page, so I'd be happy to help if there is a specific issue you believe needs addressing. From my experience it's not IPs vandalism that is the most problematic issue with the page as the drive by vandalism is reverted quite quickly, and unsourced edits are removed immediately; it's poor referencing that is more of an issue there, and this is not generally added by IPs, so the semi-prot may not be as effective as anticipated. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
First off, most or all of the entries are just bare links. In order to better determine what is or is not WP:RS to satisfy WP:BLP, those should be formatted as references, using WP:CIT templates, with all of the relevant fields filled out, so that they show up in a References subsection on the page itself. -- Cirt (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
There have been discussions regarding using references instead of bare urls for this list page, and concensus has been to stick with the bare urls. This is listed in the edit box when you click 'edit this page', and there is also notification on the talk page in the form of an infobox. In order to meet BLP requirements, the entries must be reliably sourced - I'm not sure where it states in WP:BLP that the references must display in a specific format to be considered reliable? All editors to the page add the sources in this format per the instructions and concensus, semi-protecting the page won't change that. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry, but bare links are extremely inappropriate and woefully inadequate. What if the links change? What if the links go dead? What if someone wants to cite something to, I dunno, something like a book, a newspaper, a magazine article? -- Cirt (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Portugal

Nudge? No rush, but... it's been six weeks since you said you'd pop back in a couple of weeks to close it. Regards, BencherliteTalk 01:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, will revisit it. -- Cirt (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Slim da Mobster userfy

Hey Cirt could you userfy for me the Slim da Mobster article that was deleted? I have found more info on him and plan to make it better and will not introduce it into article space until ready. STATic message me! 03:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This has since been  Done. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank You...

...for your welcome to Wikipedia. What a fascinating & amazing place in which to suddenly blunder behind the scenes. Looking through the many guidelines articles and being privileged to look through your talk page has been wonderfully daunting & informative, I'm very grateful. Yours, Will6iam (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Your Advice Sought

Hi, Cirt,

I see you have posted at a current RFC that involves me. By viewing your talk page here and following some of the links, I am reminded that you are quite an experienced editor and administrator and concerned about proper sourcing of articles. It also appears that you have considerable experience in working on topics that have been highly contentious in various online communities over the years. Thus I'd be glad to hear from you, in as much detail as your busy schedule allows you to provide, how better to work with multiple editors on topics for which I have been gathering sources, some of which relate to articles that were the subject of an Arbitration Committee case that began soon after I registered my Wikipedia account. I've worked in brick-and-mortar editorial offices in two different countries, and I've been online since 1992, but Wikipedia is my first experience (and most people's first experience) of working in an online editorial office with many, many editors and no sole editor-in-chief, so I'd appreciate your advice on how to become further acculturated to work pattern of the Wikipedia project. Thanks for your help and all the best to you. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest involving more users through talk page WP:RFC and posting neutrally matter of fact worded messages to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects. -- Cirt (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Portland Center Stage

I edited the original image to remove "the cigarette smoking man", and reverted back the image in the article. – ukexpat (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Truth According to Wikipedia

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


Hi Cirt - Could you please revisit your comments at the The Notorious B.I.G. FAR (review page at Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Notorious B.I.G./archive1)? Gimme has responded to the comments that have been left so far, and so any further comments or a keep/oppose declaration would be appreciated. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AE case about Communist terrorism

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive73#Result concerning Collect. This request was archived by the bot before formal closing. I went ahead and imposed an article 1RR at Communist terrorism, and added a comment to the archive file. If the 1RR is not enough to hold down the edit warring, perhaps an indefinite full protection might be considered. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hrm, looks like it was changed to a disambig page, with no disruption for two days or so. -- Cirt (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Battlefield Earth (film)

The ==Cast== section should be kept in. There is no reason to hunt for actors or characters in the story line, when this section is available and a standard film format.

Savolya (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, engage in discussion, at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


Hi Cirt, I got a Thanksgiving email from José Peralta today even though we don't celebrate that at all :) It's because of our attempts to get a pic I guess, so you got one too, no? In any case, happy Thanksgiving! Hekerui (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hrm, not here, nope. :( -- Cirt (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thankskilling Article Recreated, Very Poorly


I'm not sure why this did not get speedily deleted right off the bat, but someone has put up a new article for Thankskilling. It is not even a stub, and it should exist only in a sandbox. How do we kill it again? Thanks, Ebikeguy (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this was already  Done. -- Cirt (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Randy Cooke Article

Hi Cirt,

If you could make a draft version available, that would be great. Also, to assist me in writing the new version, is there any way for me to view the content of the deleted Randy Cooke article?

Thanks for your help, and I apologize for the delay in response.

Katieohalloran89 (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Katieohalloran89/Randy Cooke. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Bacon topic idea, List of books

-- Cirt (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 Arbitration Committee Elections

Arbitration Committee Elections

Relevant pages:

  1. Candidates pages, descriptions, questions posed to candidates
  2. Voting - Special page for voting in the 2010 election
  3. Log of those that voted so far
  4. Main page about schedule of elections

-- Cirt (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Havana Heat (film)

Could you please userfy the article to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Havana Heat (film) so I might expand and source it in preparation for incubation? Thanks much. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Havana Heat (film). -- Cirt (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


Hi Cirt,

I went to create a Wiki page for a company called "Apriso" and saw that the previous page had been deleted and - from the sounds of it - included marketing language and not enough references to establish notability back in February or so.

I don't know exactly what the previous article looked like - I'm sure there must be a way to look at the previous versions, but I did want to invite you to take a look at the draft I have on my talk page and add any input or discussion.

King4057 (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This version also seems quite promotional and POV in nature, not to mention poorly sourced to mostly primary sources, and sources that markedly fail WP:RS, including "Waepedia", etc. -- Cirt (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yah fair enough - need to find better references than Wapedia. They had such a great treasure trove of information, but I don't really know where they got it from.

Can you elaborate where it is promotional or PoV? I certainly don't have a point-of-view on the company, so I don't know what point of view I've unknowingly incorporated into the article.

King4057 (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Just found lots of sources in manufacturing publications, but still digging for something more biographical about their history for that section... King4057 (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep me updated on the improvements. -- Cirt (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Cirt I found lots of references on Apriso's history just through a Google search for "Apriso and Teledyne", including press releases, bios, articles, and a couple official government documents related to the US Navy project. Much of the information on Waepedia - I suspect - was blatantly inaccurate. I could find no verification of all these "world firsts" it was boasting as I sorted through detailed timelines of IBM's OS/2 for example. Who would just make stuff up and post it on the internet? That same Waepedia content is in a bunch of other places too, but Teledyne didn't found the company because of military cutbacks, it was because they were being pushed into the software market and they didn't want to do software. Waepedia was very inaccurate. Anyways, the article is better sourced now and cut down as to not include any information that could not be verified by a more reliable source.

King4057 (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but still seems promotional and includes over reliance on primary sources and conflict of interest sources. -- Cirt (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

discussion about deletion of article

Hi there,

This article was deleted on grounds of lack of notability of the artist. Reading up on how to go about proposing to restore the article, it says that I should "take it up with the deleting admin". Is that you?

Pabandorra (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was deleted after this discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paula O'Rourke. If you like, I would be most happy to provide a version of that page prior to deletion within a subpage of your userspace, so you could work on it as a proposed draft version. -- Cirt (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be lovely, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabandorra (talkcontribs) 00:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Pabandorra/Paula O'Rourke. -- Cirt (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cirt, thanks for setting that up. Now for a newbie question, and please do take it as a question rather than part of a discussion: The article was deleted on grounds of lack of notability. I am now quite au fait with the notability question regarding musicians et al, and I can see that the article made little or no attempt to put forward any notability, no real references included, also dryly written with no pics or goodness in general. However, if one can imagine a more engageing article setting the artist in her niche which is quite an interesting one (for some!), I would think that being part of the band for Eric Burden and the Animals(House of the Rising Sun?), writing and recording with George Clinton (the king of outlandish funk, and not mentioned in old article), founding member of Liar (recognized by wiki) and constant collaborator of Eric Mcfadden (also recognized by wiki) should be considered as grounds for notabilty. Again, I am not posing this point as part of a discussion, this is not the place, but could you give me an educated opinion on this point as it pertains to the deletion? It seems to me it was deleted as part of a clean-up, and drab and undocumented as the article was I am not surprised, but Eric Burden and the animals are grade-A notable, surely? is George Clinton. I'm just worried I won't be able to find enough references from the press. I would need to spam all music mags in the SF Bay Area, AND Barcelona, AND Paris to find articles over the last 15 years, for that is where she made her mark ... and that isn't going to be a reasonable undertaking. I have found a clear article in "El Pais" a big spanish paper, but one is not enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabandorra (talkcontribs) 16:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I must remember to sign my posts Pabandorra (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I rechecked at User:Pabandorra/Paula O'Rourke. I see zero attempts there to improve or work on that page. -- Cirt (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, no, I haven't touched the article. I supppose I am asking if a reference from El Pais and the people she played with are enough to get her in. What do you think. Does a wiki article require _much_more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabandorra (talkcontribs) 22:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


I have found sources relevant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine McQueen and ask you to revisit your !vote/nom. Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If you could format the sources using WP:CIT templates and fill in the relevant fields, that would make it much easier to analyze. -- Cirt (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
You're going to have to look at the source anyway, so I don't see the point. If consensus shows the article is on a notable subject I will happily do the work to improve it. Bigger digger (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
It would be most helpful to do as I suggested, above, and it would most likely facilitate ease of analysis of the references by other users, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Fully cited refs now available at Catherine McQueen! Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks much better. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Mark B. Newbauer deletion

Hi Cirt- I want to be in line with Wikipedia standards and practices, but believe the deletion was without merit-- I ask that you please re-consider as, aside from press releases, the company and its founder can be verified in other highly regarded press such as 'UGO','Hollywood Reporter', 'Variety' and even supported by George R.R. Martin (author of HBO's upcoming Game of Thrones) as Newbauer's company, Mike the Pike Productions recently optioned the rights to his werewolf novella. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmphile (talkcontribs) 22:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I would be most willing to provide a copy within a subpage of your userspace, so you could work on it as a proposed draft version - if you so desire. -- Cirt (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be great- please and thank you-- and being new to this, can you PLEASE assist me in providing anything necessary to effect meeting acceptable standards to keeping the page active? thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmphile (talkcontribs) 23:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Filmphile/Mark B. Newbauer. -- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SPSL Cup

Cirt, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SPSL Cup, but you didn't deleted the other article and the template that were also nominated. As the nominator, I can't do it myself. Fram (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Cirt, I appreciate the welcome and the links to the information. I've actually been here for a long time, I just don't contribute much due to lack of time and really, not knowing more about how to go about making larger contributions. I think what you sent me was just what I needed. Exixx (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Don't Forget the Bacon!/GA1

I am willing to take over the review, if you don't object. Racepacket (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

  • With your permission, I am willing to pass the article as I discussed on the review page. If there is something else going on that I should know, feel free to email me. I have read the pages relevant to the switch in reviewers. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Vox

Hi Cirt. Would you be willing to move this article to my userspace? I think I would be able to add enough additional sources to bring it up to notability standards. Thanks, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at User:Paul Erik/Victoria Vox. -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again! Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Literary and Debating Society (NUI, Galway)

Hi Cirt. As with wiki guidelines, I wish to contact you re: the creation of a wikipedia page for the Literary and Debating Society in NUI, Galway. I am contacting you as much of the information I would like to add would be very similar if not the same as that in the article deleted. I would be more than willing to remove such parts as the list of past auditors and vice auditors (as was mentioned on the deletion article) and replacing it with a list of previous notable auditors. The reason I wish to create another article on the Literary and Debating society is that I do not believe it's just a student club at a single school. It is a society that predates the university and many other societies of similar notability such as the [Literary and Historical Society (University College Dublin)]] and the UCC Philosophical Society. It has not only played a vital part in the shaping of NUI, Galway it is the origin of important bodies within the university such as the Students' Union. It is a society that was also under the auditorship of several notable persons and contributed much to the city around it. Any advise you can give me would be much appreciated. Many thanks. Mitsuko045 (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Strongly recommend you work on such a page first, in a subpage of your userspace, as a proposed draft version. -- Cirt (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Bacon Mania

Has the bacon mania page also been removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

See Bacon mania. -- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Your input would be helpful here.

There’s a discussion at AE here about whether to extend topic bans from the race and intelligence arbitration case to include discussions related to these articles at other fora. The current proposal calls for this extension to be made for other topic banned editors, but not for Mathsci. I’ve just noticed Mathsci sniping at you in an unrelated discussion because he disagrees with the opinions you’ve expressed in an RFC related to these articles: [33] [34] Do you have an opinion about whether if topic bans from this case are extended to discussions in other fora, an exception ought to be made in Mathsci’s case so that he can continue bringing up issues related to these articles in other discussions?

If you do, I think it would be helpful for you to comment there. I don’t think any of the admins participating in that discussion have noticed these two newest comments from Mathsci yet, but they’re an example of why I think if this restriction is going to be added to topic bans from the case, Mathsci shouldn’t be excluded from the restriction. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You should make these comments at AE. -- Cirt (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The AE thread is so long at this point that if I comment there again, I suspect that other people aren’t going to notice it. By this point the only active discussion there is among uninvolved admins, which (I assume) is what you are. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, the fact that you asked me at my user talk page, to comment there, sort of precludes that. -- Cirt (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you think that makes you involved? All of the other uninvolved admins commenting there are admins who were contacted by one of the other editors who would be subject to this decision, although in Mathsci’s case he’s referred to contacting them by e-mail rather than in their user talk. It might end up skewing the decision resulting from this thread if the only admins commenting are those who Mathsci has privately been in contact with. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but would rather not. Suggest you bring these issues to the other admins that already commented. -- Cirt (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Notes to self - Deletion review discussion - Category:Worst Picture Golden Raspberry Award winners

Requesting undeletion of these five categories (no objection to the others staying deleted):

  1. Category:Worst Picture Golden Raspberry Award winners
  2. Category:Worst Screenplay Golden Raspberry Award winners
  3. Category:Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel Golden Raspberry Award winners
  4. Category:Worst "Original" Song Golden Raspberry Award-winning songs
  5. Category:People who accepted Golden Raspberry Awards

-- Cirt (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Russian aviators

Thank you for spreading the listing of the afd on this article. I was completely unaware of the existence of the page you listed.

I must confess, this is my first afd in the two plus years I have been active on WP. I don't know what the heck I am doing, and your help is a fine example of the consensual spirit needed to build WP. However, I felt if I did not push for improvement or deletion of this list, someone else might have it deleted willynilly.

Georgejdorner (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Theo Botha -- not WP:GNG-compliant yet?

Thanks for moving to close the AfD discussion. I think I've established adequate secondary sourcing for this article. Does the template on general notability need to stay up? What more needs to be done? Yakushima (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Why deletion of Voluntary Content Rating

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

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

¹: (german)

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

²: 1,5 years, because that was when I linked to it on

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

Suggest you can work on a proposed draft version, within a subpage of your userspace. If you like, I could make such a version available to you. :) -- Cirt (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I don’t want to create a hidden new draft when there’s no reason to do so. The old version was useful and should never have been deleted as “spam” or “non-notable”. Please just undo the deletion. Draketo (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you refusing the offer to have a userfied version placed within a subpage of your userspace so that you may work on and improve the page as a proposed draft article? -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I am saying that the deletion was unfounded and that the article should be restored as it was. Before I go and work on the article which was good and useful 2 years ago (and then hope that you aknowledge it), I can just as well start a real deletion review. I said that the deletion was wrong. “Take it in userspace” is no answer to that. I only asked you directly to avoid the burocractic burden of a full deletion review. Also please stop removing my request here, before I can answer. Draketo (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I can make a version of the deleted page available to you in your userspace. You will be able to see all the history there, and improve the page itself to satisfy WP:NOTE. I am confused as to why you are adamantly refusing to even do this before further arguing your points. Not sure why you do not see this would actually help you, and help your arguments. -- Cirt (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Because that eats time I don’t want to spend where I don’t see it necessary. With the unfounded deletion you’re taking time I need to finish my diploma thesis. I’m not sure why you are so adamantly refusing to see that „spam“ doesn’t offer support to a non-notable deletion request – and that one vote in favor of deletion is far away from real support of it. Anyway: Racepacket found a law review reference to VCR and added it to the userfied page. So, to repeat myself: please restore the article. --Draketo (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 Done, now at User:ArneBab/Voluntary Content Rating. Please work on improving the page, over there. -- Cirt (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Block of Jessdfacts

Regarding this block, I'd like to unblock. This editor was in civil email communication with other editors at the time the block was made and continues to communicate with us even after the block. His last mainspace edit inserting external links was at 18:45 today [35], one minute before the first notice he got about external links. He did not re-create User:Jessdfacts/The Library Corporation after it was speedy deleted, even though he had not been blocked at the time. In short, we've got someone who cooperated when he was told he'd done wrong and has been civil with other Wikipedia contributors. My main beef here is that he took the opportunity to comply with various pieces of advice and warnings, but was blocked anyway. The countervailing factor is that he's been casting aspersions that other editors. On that issue, see my message on his user talk page. If you agree to an unblock, I'll monitor him.--Chaser (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been talking to the user on their talk page about the content, and they have been civil in the discussion and have attempted to modify their edits based on the bits of information they have received in prior warnings. I believe they now understand the issue with their additions to Integrated library system, and now seem to be focussed on resolving the issues by creating a new article, which they had initially begun drafting at User:Jessdfacts/The Library Corporation. However, that content was deleted as a copyvio. I'm unable to view the deleted content at the moment (not on a secure system, so not using my admin account right now); but they claim that their content did not contain a copyright violation. They have also brought this up with the deleting admin here, and received the same advice that I gave them - to take the issue to WP:Deletion review.
One point to correct from Chaser's comment ... their last edit to mainspace was at 19:41, 1 December 2010, which resulted in their level 4 warning from me, as well as a 3RR warning from Wuhwuzdat. --- Barek (talk) - 23:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. Clarified.--Chaser (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
No objections to an unblock. :) Will defer to judgment of Chaser (talk · contribs) on this one. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Cirt.--Chaser (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)